Ignoring a flanker

[Pielorinho]

I like the idea of being able to ignore someone, but I want the penalties for doing so to be fierce, and the +4 attack and loss of dex just isn't quite nasty enough, IMO. CDG is too nasty. So two ideas, firmly in houserule territory:

-When combat begins and your opponent can't respond to you, you get a free standard action. When combat's going on and your opponent won't respond to you, maybe you should get an attack of opportunity. Your opponent's refusal to defend herself against you means you get more opportunities for good strikes than normal.
-Because your opponent isn't defending herself, you get more opportunities for getting in solid hits. All critical threats automatically confirm.

One or the other of these would probably be good; both of them might be too powerful. My main problem with flanking is the ability of a dog to provide flanking bonuses for a twentieth-level rogue fighting a great wyrm dragon: even though the dog has zero chance of doing damage (a confirmed critical of max damage won't break through damage reduction), the dragon can't, by the rules, ignore it.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

I like the idea of being able to ignore someone, but I want the penalties for doing so to be fierce, and the +4 attack and loss of dex just isn't quite nasty enough, IMO.

Fair enough.

My intention was to provide an option as house-rule-free as possible (with the only real decision required being "Do freaky unsupported answers in the FAQ count as Real Rules or not?").

With house rules thrown in, all sorts of options become available for consideration

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

My main problem with flanking is the ability of a dog to provide flanking bonuses for a twentieth-level rogue fighting a great wyrm dragon: even though the dog has zero chance of doing damage (a confirmed critical of max damage won't break through damage reduction), the dragon can't, by the rules, ignore it.

Think of it this way: how does the Dragon know that the dog isn't secretly a 20th level Druid? Any dog that's not frightened away by my fearsome majesty must be something special.

-- N

 

[Pielorinho]

Think of it this way: how does the Dragon know that the dog isn't secretly a 20th level Druid? Any dog that's not frightened away by my fearsome majesty must be something special.

A twentieth-level druid who wildshapes into a dog to do melee with a great wyrm probably isn't worth worrying about, anyway .

Keep in mind that the two main ways such a dog will appear are from the casting of a summon spell, and from a Bag of Tricks. And the main reason they'll appear is to give a flanking bonus to a rogue. Dragons worth their salt have enough spellcraft to notice the casting of Summon Monster I.

Sure, under very rare circumstances, it could be inadvisable for the dragon to ignore the dog. My goal is to make ignoring a flanker an option, while imposing enough penalties for doing so that it's usually a very bad idea.

Most often, folks will want to ignore a flanker when they're being flanked by a rogue and a melee warrior of skill approximately equal to the rogue's. (Most parties have characters of approximately equal skill, after all; and most folks who engage in melee are melee warriors). It should be a bad idea to ignore the melee fighter in this situation; giving the melee fighter an extra attack each round at +4 bonus and without dex added to AC makes ignoring the fighter a pretty bad idea.

Nonetheless, it's possible; and if the rogue is being flanked by a melee warrior of far lesser skill, it becomes a better idea.

Daniel

 

[diaglo]

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.

and at least in the 2000ed CDG provoked an AoO.

so you aren't helpless if you can take AoOs.

 

[Drakh]

heres the skip williams article mentioned in detail

Totally Unofficial Rule for Dealing with Foes Trying to Flank You

Jonathan Tweet (co-designer of the D&D 3rd edition game) and I have had many opportunities to ponder the tactical aspects of flanking and what you might be able to do about it if you find yourself flanked. After one extended discussion not long ago, Jonathan proposed the basics of the following rule, and I present it here, with some tweaks:

You can disregard attacks from an opponent flanking you. When you do, that opponent doesn't get the +2 flanking bonus when attacking you and that opponent does not provide a flanking bonus to any of its allies. Ignoring a flanker, however, provokes an attack of opportunity from that flanker, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against that flanker. You do, however, continue to threaten that flanker.

If the flanker is out of attacks of opportunity, you can ignore the flanker (and deny the flanking bonus) with impunity.

If you can't see (or locate) the flanker, you disregard the flanker by default, and you provoke the attack of opportunity.

You must make the decision to disregard a flanker as soon as the foe moves into a flanking position. You can change your decision as a free action on your turn. (You still must disregard a flanker you can't see.)

Designer's Notes: This rule gives certain creatures the option to ignore flankers when they don't pose any real danger to them. Lycanthropes facing foes that aren't armed with silver weapons, as well as characters with very high Armor Classes facing much weaker foes, can soften the effects of being surrounded. Many other creatures can use the rule to limit sneak attacks against them, but at the risk of extra attacks of opportunity from other foes. This rule also means that you often cannot provide a flanking bonus to your allies if you're out of attacks of opportunity (though foes may have a hard time determining exactly when that situation occurs).

and heres the link to the rest of the very useful info.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040217a

The idea of CDG is silly IMHO - it would essentially allow every invisible attacker to CDG on every attack (since invisible flankers are ignored)

 

[diaglo]

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.

if, (never gonna happen, but still) if, i were ever to DM this edition... i would agree with Hyp.

also i would deny the use of shield AC by the defender against the ignored opponent.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

In the vein of this rule and balancing, I suggest that ignoring someone is chosen at the start of your turn and can't be changed until your next turn, just like choosing if you are averting or closing your eyes against gaze attacks.

When you choose who to ignore, it is a free action that provokes attacks of opportunity from each creature you ignore. As well, you do not get dex or shield bonuses against any of them, and they get +2 for being effectively invisible. If they flank you, they get flanking bonuses as well. Also, you cannot take AOO against any creatures you ignore for the round.

Most of this seems to be supported by the spirit of the rules, but not the letter. If you take an action that leaves you undefended or your guard down, you normally provoke AOO. If you specifically don't defend yourself against someone, that seems like the same thing.

IMHO, this stays consistant with established rules, Skip's rulings, and still makes ignoring someone a valid strategy in certain circumstances. For instance, someone tries to flank you with a dog when you have an ac of 50, you can ignore the dog and likely won't even care that it gets an AOO on you each turn, likely with +4 to hit, and you with no dex. By the same token, it leaves it much more up in the air as to whether you want to ignore the fighter in order to deny sneak attacks to the rogue.

Also, I do not think CDG should be allowed, part of the theory being a CDG is that they are motionless, so you can stab them through the heart or neck. Even if they are not defending against you, they are still moving around, defending against OTHER people, so that kind of precision is impossible.

Majoru Oakheart

 

[jmucchiello]

My main problem with flanking is the ability of a dog to provide flanking bonuses for a twentieth-level rogue fighting a great wyrm dragon: even though the dog has zero chance of doing damage (a confirmed critical of max damage won't break through damage reduction), the dragon can't, by the rules, ignore it.

This is one of the reasons I asked, though in my case it's ranger-6/rogue-6 with in animal companion doing the flanking.

The other reason was my insane co-DM giving the party a robe the transforms your shadow into a duplicate the floats up under and to the other side of an opponent automatically granting you a flank. Even the powermunchkin party rogue thought that might be wee bit too powerful.

I like Hypersmurf's interpretation, using the avoiding gaze attacks rules as the benchmark for ignoring a flanker. I would just add that ignoring a flanker automatically provokes an AoO as suggested by Skip (and others including myself in the first post).

And about Coup De Grace: I would only say that makes sense if CDGs were allowed in the suprise round when you catch people equally unaware and equally "helpless". IOW, no CDGs allowed for ignoring combatants.

Thanks all.

 

[Conaill]

Ignoring someone doesn't hinder him from blocking your weapons in a way that his buddy has an easier time hitting you.

Of course not. It's called Aid Another.

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.

If the bonus is caused by the active attacks of your ally, then the ally wouldn't necessarily have to be on the opposite side of the target. Besides, you don't need to actively attack to provide your ally with a flanking bonus. You just need to threaten him. In fact, you could take an action which doesn't even allow an attack, and still give a flanking bonus to your ally.