I flank myself! ...

[Henry]

I have an EVEN better house rule:

-If you ignore a combatant, then that combatant can opt to take a full-round action to sneak attack you as if they were a rogue equal to their character level. Dex and dodge bonuses are not counted into the attack.

Think about it: A rogue gets sneak attack damage on you if you are unaware or helpless. This is because he knows how to place a spot in your vitals when it counts, and how to do so in combat.

Now, if someone totally ignores you in combat, then they are taking NO steps (NONE) to defend themseleves from you. Ignore means IGNORE - if you are saying you get any kind of defense against them, you aren't ignoring them, are you?

That person will have all the time she needs to plant her dagger/fist/teeth/chopsticks into you for maximum effect.

This way, it's no more than what a rogue gets for an unaware attack, and even multi-classed rogues and non-rogues get something out of the deal. Regular rogues can carry on It also teaches someone to NEVER turn their back on a combatant. I don't care if the person you are ignoring is a 3-foot midget - it's still a stupid combat choice.

Anything less, and you are teaching people that it's a good thing to turn your back on a first-level commoner in combat.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You do realize that an opponent causes a flanking situation even if he's not attacking you, right?

Certainly, because you don't know that the opponent won't attack you. Still, I'd argue that if a silent, invisible opponent stands 5 feet away from you, you're not flanked - until he/she attacks. You're not distracted or dividing your attention.

 

[drnuncheon]

Certainly, because you don't know that the opponent won't attack you. Still, I'd argue that if a silent, invisible opponent stands 5 feet away from you, you're not flanked - until he/she attacks. You're not distracted or dividing your attention.

OK, so if you don't know the guy is there, he doesn't distract you. Logical.

Now, if you don't know the guy is there, does he get the huge bonuses to attack you that you are giving an ignored person?

If so, well, at least it's consistent. I think you will be seeng a lot more invisible attackers, though. I know that if I could get that I'd be using invisibility a heck of a lot more.

If not, then why can't you just say "I'm treating the guy behind me as if he's an unseen invisible attacker"? That is to say, "I'm ignoring him until he actually attacks me, and then trying to roll with the blow." That way he doesn't cause flanking for the visible attacker, but still doesn't get all the benefits.

J

 

[the Jester]

I have a feat in my campaign to allow a character to ignore one threatening foe in order to break the flanking of another (attack flanks). My thinking is that it takes a great deal of training and willpower to ignore an enemy swinging at you (iron will is a prerequisite to this one.)

 

[Shard O'Glase]

What about this, then:

You can ignore someone, treating them as if they're invisible, until you suffer damage from them.

Once you've suffered damage from them, you cannot ignore them for the remainder of the combat.

That solves the Irish Setter vs. the Dragon dilemma nicely, while still making it very difficult to ignore a fighter who's whaling on you.

Daniel

I like this one. This makes sense to me. While it is normally dumb to ignore peopel, I could logically see someone do it if they have the right protection and are facing a weak enough foe. And this rule simulates that, while not giving benefits beyond those of someone actually being completely unaware of the attacker.

 

[noretoc]

Here ias something to think about. I think flanking is more then the flacked person splitting thier attention. I also think is is the people flanking, who are attacking in a way to make the flaked person move to a place the other flanker can hit better.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

anyone who argues that the rogue gets screwed with any house rule in this thread hasn't taken the "common combat sense" feat. heh.

i play a rogue. i don't know about anyone else, but my guy doesn't just gleefully leap into flanking position because it allows him to do more damage than he normally can. no way. if i was out-damaging my flanking partner, i'd quickly find myself bleeding profusely ... under any rules, house or official.


also, someone brought this up earlier. it was also something i thought of at work a couple days ago ...

a concentration check ...

i'd say ignoring someone takes concentration, wouldn't you? maybe make it a standard check (dc 10 + damage taken). the only modification being that the check only occurs at the beginning of your initiative each round. the 'damage taken' will equal the total damage that the ignored opponent dealt in his round.

hmm?

 

[mmu1]

anyone who argues that the rogue gets screwed with any house rule in this thread hasn't taken the "common combat sense" feat. heh.

i play a rogue. i don't know about anyone else, but my guy doesn't just gleefully leap into flanking position because it allows him to do more damage than he normally can. no way. if i was out-damaging my flanking partner, i'd quickly find myself bleeding profusely ... under any rules, house or official.

Anyone who doesn't *intelligently* use flanking to get sneak attacks every chance he gets knows nothing about playing a rogue... You don't leap at the chance to do more damage? Then what, pray tell, do you do? The occasional d6 of damage with a short sword or a shortbow? Congratulations, that ought to make you about as useful in combat as a bard with 9 charisma.

 

[Grover]

I think a lot of people are underestimating the difficulty of ignoring someone in combat, and the amount of damage someone who is ignored can do. On the other hand, I can see the point that a Great Wyrm red dragon is unlikely to consider a celestial badger enough of a threat to take his eyes off the 17th level rogue in front of him. So - while I don't think ignoring someone should be viable in most cases, I can see some situations in which it might make sense, so these are the rules I would use:
First - it is hard to ignore someone - doing so takes a successful concentration check, with the following difficulties:
10 - You believe there is no way the opponent could harm you: for example, and incorporeal creature being attacked by someone with a nonmagical weapon
20 - While they could, technically, harm you it is extremely unlikely - for example, a Very Old Dragon being attacked by a celestial badger
30 - They are an inferior opponent - for example, a fifth level fighter being attacked by a goblin
40 - They are as skilled as you are
50 - They are better than you - for example, a fifth level fighter being attacked by a tenth level fighter
60 - They could easily kill you in one blow - for example, a goblin being attacked by a tenth level fighter
In addition, if they do successfully damage you, you need to make a concentration check with a difficulty of 20 + twice the damage dealt to continue ignoring them.
If you are successful in ignoring them, then the following conditions hold:
The ignored opponent has no effect for considering flanking of other opponents.
Your Dex bonus to armor class is -5 against the ignored opponent
The ignored opponent can sneak attack you, if it is able, and you are subject to sneak attacks.
You automatically roll a 1 in any contested roll you make against the ignored opponent (for example - Disarm, Trip, Bull Rush)
You provoke an attack of oppourtunity from the ignored opponent.
You cannot direct any attacks against the ignored opponent.
Any attacks made by the ignored opponent are automatically critical threats, if you are subject to criticals.
I think that this house rule is a reasonable simulation of what should be the effect of ignoring an opponent.
Grover

 

[chilibean]

I agree with most of Grover's arguments, however, it makes the combat system inconsistent, and that is my biggest complaint with giving the ignored attacker any bonus greater than an invisible opponent gets.

Requiring a concentration check sounds reasonable until you see that concentration is not a fighter class skill. Your whole check system could be immensely simplified by simply making it an opposed base attack check. If you loose, you can't ignore AND the opponent you are trying to ignore is still counted as invisible to you. So there is a risk of giving up something without gaining anything. Sounds reasonable to me.

IMO, fantasy role playing does NOT have to conform to reality. However, is SHOULD be internally consistent whenever possible. No one here has given a single logical (to me anyway) reason why a opponent you simply choose not to look at would be more powerful than an opponent you didn't know was there and is invisible. Many of these bonuses people are talking about seem very justified in many cases. HOWEVER, if you're going to do that, then you make it senseless with respect to invisibility. But giving invisiblity all the benefits mentioned is unbalancing.

So you either:

1) live with the inconsistency (which is extremely irritating and seemingly unnecessary to me) and give unwatched opponents uber bonuses that no one else ever gets, or you

2) increase the bonus to invisible people (unbalancing), or you

3) give the unwatched opponent the benefits of being invisible, or you

4) force everyone to take the flank penalty no matter what goofy situation comes up, or you

5) force everyone to take the flank penalty except when the DM allows otherwise.

Choosing option 1 seems to me worse than the by the book answer of 4. 5 is also by the book, since DM's are able to do anything, but would be extremely irritating unless the DM is perfectly consistent in his rulings.

To me, the nicest, cleanest, and simplest way to fix the problem is option 3.

Personnaly, I really like the idea of adding a check to see if the person you don't want to watch didn't distract you anyway. An opposed BAB roll, with the ignored guy getting a bonus of plus how many ever points of damage he did to you last round.

That way you can try to ignore and fail. I like it a lot.

So go ahead and try to ignore the fighter while you pummel the rogue. Unless you're a lot better than him, you're just doing him a favor!