Ignoring a flanker

[jmucchiello]

I can't find anything in the rules to support this but it seems like something that should be allowed. If a combatant considers someone absolutely ineffectual, shouldn't he be allowed to ignore that combatant for purposes of flanking? The tough dude in armor with the greatsword and I are fighting when the frail robed guy with a dagger steps into a flanking position. Shouldn't I be allowed to let the robed guy flail away at me all he likes while not giving the greatsword wielder a bonus 10% chance to hit me?

I'd say you provoke an AoO on the ignored party on your turn in combat each round you are ignoring him. The ignored fellow gets the normal +2 flank bonus on his attacks and you give up your Dex (and dodge) bonus(es) to that target (alllowing nasty suprise sneak attack damage to happen).

Thoughts?

 

[Nifft]

Yeah, sure, but if you are literally ignoring someone, he should both know it and be able to deliver a Coup de Grace. After all, you are effectively helpless against him.

Seriously, anyone who threatens you is threatening you. Here's how I rule the invisible flanking bonus issue: you can flank someone if you can see their other flanker, not if they can, since you can co-ordinate your attack to take advantage of their distracter. Being hit on the head is always a distraction.

-- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

Skip suggested a house rule for this (actually labelled "Skip's Unofficial House Rule"!) in one of the Rules of the Game: Sneak Attacks articles on the Wizard's site.

Alternatively, you can do it yourself by combining an FAQ answer ("an invisible creature cannot provide a flanking bonus to an ally") with the rules for Gaze Attacks ("You can deliberately turn your back on a creature, granting it total concealment").

The wizard would gain a total of +4 in bonuses (+2 for attacking as an invisible creature, and +2 because the fighter does still provide him with a flanking bonus) and would deny your Dex bonus. The fighter, however, gains no bonus at all.

I've never agreed with the "They should be able to CDG you!" suggestion, because even someone you don't even suspect the existence of cannot CDG you when you're up and about. Logically, if someone you're aware of and choosing to ignore can, then someone you haven't noticed (invisible and moving silently) can also... and That Would Be Bad.

-Hyp.

 

[morbiczer]

I'm with Hypersmurf on this issue.

 

[Darklone]

I agree with Hyps rules, but not the possibility to allow it at all. Ignoring someone doesn't hinder him from blocking your weapons in a way that his buddy has an easier time hitting you.

 

[Nifft]

I've never agreed with the "They should be able to CDG you!" suggestion, because even someone you don't even suspect the existence of cannot CDG you when you're up and about. Logically, if someone you're aware of and choosing to ignore can, then someone you haven't noticed (invisible and moving silently) can also... and That Would Be Bad.

That would be bad indeed, but it's not a related issue. When you feel the blade of an invisible (or otherwise undetected) foe, it's assumed that you react to save yourself. It's part of the whole combat abstraction.

However, if you are actually able to ignore every action of a specific persion who's threatening you with an attack, then you must by extension be able to ignore his attack -- and if you render yourself unable to react, you are Helpless.

That's my chain of reasoning, but it's more of a reason why such things should not be done than it is a game mechanic suggestion.

-- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

That would be bad indeed, but it's not a related issue. When you feel the blade of an invisible (or otherwise undetected) foe, it's assumed that you react to save yourself. It's part of the whole combat abstraction.

However, if you are actually able to ignore every action of a specific persion who's threatening you with an attack, then you must by extension be able to ignore his attack -- and if you render yourself unable to react, you are Helpless.

Right. It's why I brought in the Sage's weird FAQ answer - "Invisible attackers cannot grant a flanking bonus to an ally".

It's not necessary that you "completely ignore every action" of the wizard; you just make sure you can't see him. You can react when you feel his blade, but as long as you're not looking at him (per the rules for Gaze Attacks), the fighter gains no flanking bonus (per the FAQ).

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Right. It's why I brought in the Sage's weird FAQ answer - "Invisible attackers cannot grant a flanking bonus to an ally".

Given the Sage's record (vs. errata, for example), I think I'm well within my rights to ignore his advice -- as though he were an attacker!!! Oh, the irony!

Seriously, IMHO it's best to stick within the Core rules. Also, it's not clear that the Flanking bonus comes from a foe who's distracted by the passive presence of your ally, or by the active attacks of your ally. If it's the former, sure, invisibility should negate flanking. If it's the latter -- and I personally contest that it is -- then invisibility should not negate flanking.

-- N

 

[Hypersmurf]

If it's the latter -- and I personally contest that it is -- then invisibility should not negate flanking.

Right. And that's how I play it

But it gives jmucchiello something to think about if he's looking for rulings on the subject

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'd say you provoke an AoO on the ignored party on your turn in combat each round you are ignoring him. The ignored fellow gets the normal +2 flank bonus on his attacks and you give up your Dex (and dodge) bonus(es) to that target (alllowing nasty suprise sneak attack damage to happen).

Thoughts?

I see it happening the other way. The defender will ignore the fighter (who probably would have hit him anyway) and concentrate on the rogue to prevent nasty surprise sneak attack damage. Allowing this is a severe handicap for the rogue, negating his most effective combat ability.

Also, it's not clear that the Flanking bonus comes from a foe who's distracted by the passive presence of your ally, or by the active attacks of your ally. If it's the former, sure, invisibility should negate flanking. If it's the latter -- and I personally contest that it is -- then invisibility should not negate flanking.

Thank you. Next time this chestnut comes up in a game I DM, I will remember this bit of reasoning. I think it works quite nicely.