I flank myself! ...

[CRGreathouse]

OK, here's the final form of my house rule #8 (of 8):

A combatant can choose to ignore a foe at any time, lasting until the same initiative couint the next round. Ignored opponents cannot grant flanking bonuses to allies, are effectively invisible, deal maximum damage, and threaten a critical hit on all hits.

For example, a badger is summonded via summon nature's ally I (to flank a stone giant). The stone giant chooses to ignore the badger so he's not hit by the rogue's sneak attack. The badger attacks with a +2 bonus, for a total of +9 (rage). The stone giant's AC is 23, since it no longer has a Dex bonus vs. the badger. The badger rolls a 16, hitting the stone giant; because it is being ignored, it's an automatic threat. Rolling the confirmation, it fails on a 7. The damage is 1d2+1, maximized to 3 points of damage. Had it rolled a 14 or above on the confirmation roll, it would have dealt 6 points of damage.

3 points are pretty good for a badger, but much better for the stone giant than the rogue's two +5d6 sneak attacks (especially with the +2 attack bonus).

 

[graydoom]

Looks good, CRGreathouse! I think I'll be using that house rule .

 

[drnuncheon]

OK, here's the final form of my house rule #8 (of 8):

A combatant can choose to ignore a foe at any time, lasting until the same initiative couint the next round. Ignored opponents cannot grant flanking bonuses to allies, are effectively invisible, deal maximum damage, and threaten a critical hit on all hits.

Um. As a player I'd be asking:

Explain to me why a person that I know is there is somehow more effective at attacking me than an invisible person that I don't even know is there?

Or, to put it another way, if a person chooses to ignore me and I get all those benefits, why wouldn't I get them when he doesn't even know I'm there?

Best solution if you want to change the rules: if you choose to ignore a person, treat them as if they're invisible. You don't need to add all kinds of other benefits - the attack bonus, loss of Dex bonus, and potential for sneak attack damage is quite enough.

J

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: hm

I've seen this sort of discussion before... We came to the conclusion that:

1. If you ignore an ARMED person, they have a fair chance of simply killing you. I mean how are you supposed to "minimize blows" (as per the hit point description) if you're ignoring the opponent?

The same way you minimize blows from an invisible opponent. By all rights, it should be even easier, since even though you're ignoring them you know they are there.

J

 

[CRGreathouse]

That's exactly what I was going to say. When you ignore a character, you're not protecting yourself at all; with an invisible character, you're dodging away from the attacker when you feel the weapon hit you, and you're occasionally making a wild swing in their direction to keep them away. When you ignore them, you're not even doing that.

Due to the inherent risks of ignoring an opponent in combat, it won't come up very often - who wants to give that opportunity to a foe who may be more powerful than you guessed? Still, it should prevent needless summon monster abuse.

 

[dcollins]

How about effectively invisible, Dex modifier -5, no dodge, all hits are threats, and max damage? I don't think I'd allow a CdG, though.

You wussie. CDG is exactly what I'd do.

 

[chilibean]

I think some of you are blowing out of proportion the term 'ignore'. I did NOT mean stand there like a statue while they slit your throat. I meant simply don't turn around to look at them.

Could someone explain the logic behind allowing someone to CdG in this circumstance?

If you sneak up behind someone and they are just standing there COMPLETELY unaware you exist, you cannot CdG them. But if they are in a sword fight with someone and they simply choose not to watch you because they think you suck, you can CdG them? That makes no sense to me ...

I think the source of the arguement here is that "using logic" it seems you should get more of a bonus than just no dex bonus and +2 to hit when your attacker is invisible (for whatever reason: magic, blindfolded, or simply because you don't want to take your eyes off the guy in front of you). But for game balance it was decided that this is all you get, otherwise being invisible would be too powerful.

The couple points I needed answers are as follows:

1) is it possible to ignore an attacker behind to so that the person in front of you doesn't get a flank bonus (I'm not concerned with the penalty yet, just can you do it, yes or no)?

2) should the attacker behind you be considered invisible to you (at a minimum)?

3) can you choose to flank yourself so as to keep an eye on what's happening behind you? (one of my original questions that no one has touched on yet)

4) suppose the person that is behind you isn't close enough to threaten you with a melee weapon, but is standing 30' away with a bow while you fight someone in front of you. If you want to keep your dex bonus vs. both opponents, don't you have to (logically now, technically by the book I think the answer is no) "turn back and forth" to be aware of attacks from both sides? Now, thats for most people, if you had "uncanny dodge" I would say you can dodge arrows shot from behind you even though you can't see them coming.

I personally think that when you're attacked by someone that's invisible (and also when you're flat-footed) you should have an effective dexterity of 0 (unless you have "uncanny dodge") for an AC mod of -5, but that's just me. I know actually playing this way would make invisibity way too powerful though.

Of course, "blindsight 5' radius" would make it hard to flank someone without a reach weapon, and "eyes in the back of your head" feat makes it impossible.

So what do you guys think on 1 through 4?

 

[Storm Raven]

1) is it possible to ignore an attacker behind to so that the person in front of you doesn't get a flank bonus (I'm not concerned with the penalty yet, just can you do it, yes or no)?

No. Think about this as a practical matter. Yoiu are between two people who are fighting you. You try to completely ignore one of them and concentrate on the other. Don't you think you might be a little distracted by the other guy?

2) should the attacker behind you be considered invisible to you (at a minimum)?

No, but he distracts you no matter how hard you try not to be distracted.

3) can you choose to flank yourself so as to keep an eye on what's happening behind you? (one of my original questions that no one has touched on yet)

Huh? There is no facing in 3e, therefore, there is no "behind" you.

4) suppose the person that is behind you isn't close enough to threaten you with a melee weapon, but is standing 30' away with a bow while you fight someone in front of you. If you want to keep your dex bonus vs. both opponents, don't you have to (logically now, technically by the book I think the answer is no) "turn back and forth" to be aware of attacks from both sides? Now, thats for most people, if you had "uncanny dodge" I would say you can dodge arrows shot from behind you even though you can't see them coming.

Not by the rules. Flanking requires melee attacks. You cannot flank with a ranged weapon.

Of course, "blindsight 5' radius" would make it hard to flank someone without a reach weapon, and "eyes in the back of your head" feat makes it impossible.

That isn't how Eyes in the Back of Your Head works. Check S&F. It only prevents people from getting the +2 bonus to attack rolls when they flank you. It does not prevent sneak attacks.

And Blindsight 5' radius has absolutely no effect on flanking. If you want to avoid being flanked get five levels of rogue or barbarian (or some ther class that grants Uncanny Dodge).

 

[Hypersmurf]

OK, here's the final form of my house rule #8 (of 8):

A combatant can choose to ignore a foe at any time, lasting until the same initiative couint the next round. Ignored opponents cannot grant flanking bonuses to allies, are effectively invisible, deal maximum damage, and threaten a critical hit on all hits.

Shouldn't ignoring an opponent provoke an AoO from that opponent as well?

The melee rules assume that combatants are actively avoiding attacks. A player doesn't have to declare anything special for her character to be on the defensive. ... if some orc with a battleaxe attack the character, she is weaving, dodging, and even threatening the orc with a weapon to keep the orc a little worried for his own hide.

Sometimes, however, a combatant in melee lets her guard down, and she is not on the defensive as usual. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These attacks are called attacks of opportunity.

Sounds like deliberately ignoring someone is almost a textbook definition of provoking an AoO

How about Expertise and Fighting Defensively modifiers? Would you let those apply?

-Hyp.

 

[CRGreathouse]

How about Expertise and Fighting Defensively modifiers? Would you let those apply?

No. My house rule says you lose your Dex bonus, which means you don't get dodge bonuses, either.