Ignoring an Opponent

[chilibean]

Didn't we do this already ad nauseum ... ?

The result ended up in 2 camps. One group (including myself) thought it was reasonable to allow ignoring with some modest penalites (ignored opponent = invisible). The other group through it should either be forbidden completely or carry very severe penalites so as to not detract from the rogues primary means of offense (game balance arguement).

Both sides have some merit, so just read the thread and decide for yourself how you want your game to work.

Here is the link:

I Flank Myself

 

[IceBear]

The only reason I wouldn't allow it is because of the SEVERE impact it has on rogues.

I agree that the mechanic for ignoring is probably as close to being attacked by someone who is invisible as anything else, but the implications to the rogue class is just too much for me to allow the mechanic. To use this mechanic doesn't punish the ignoring character enough so that they would ALWAYS ignore the non-rogue, and thus the rogue losing his most significant weapon in combat. To increase the penalty for ignoring a non-rogue to the point where it becomes risky to ignore someone introduces rule inconsistencies with invisible and hidden characters.

Thus, in my opinion, the best thing to do is come up with some plausible reason why ignoring someone is not possible.

Sure, in the above case maybe the goblin can't hit the fighter to do damage, so instead the goblin interfered with the fighter's movements just enough to prevent him from moving out of the way of the rogue's attack.

How about this:

1) Ignored person is treated as invisible.
2) If the ignored person successfully hits, OR aid's another in combat (but in this case wouldn't give the +2 bonus to hit or AC), then the target is still considered flanked for purposes of the other attackers (to model that ignoring someone for the purposes of flanking doesn't just mean not to look at them).

Thus, perhaps the goblin attempts to aid the rogue in combat (with the bonuses for being invisible) and thus just waves his hand in front of the figther's face. If he is successful, then the rogue can sneak attack which the fighter is distracted. If he is unsuccessful, then the fighter's concentration wasn't disturbed and thus the rogue can't sneak attack. This would make ignoring all but useless against powerful enemies (as they would always either hit or be able to aid their rogue companion) while making summoned Monster Summoning I monsters less likely of being used to grant instant flanking bonuses.

IceBear

 

[the Jester]

I have a feat in my campaign that allows you to break flanking (attack flanks) by ignoring an enemy, but as a matter of course I don't think it's a good idea to allow it. Unless you want to totally render rogues half as effective as they are.

 

[JLXC]

Well I see the fantasy feel is dead in many games. Just IGNORE an opponent? Ignoring a peasant with a pitchfork results in death. It don't matter how "Good" you are, ignoring opponents in real life and books is suicide. How many book are filled with "Then the goblin spear pierced his breast and he died"? Several, and the people dying are high level Elves and such, not peons. Numbers count in battle, moreso than in D&D. If a goblin with a sword is behind you and you Ignore him? You give him time to set up a serious attack. Even goblins and kobolds would know to jab the big burly Fighter behind the knee where the armor is mostly non-existant, or some such. A crippling wound. I am sorry that the game just falls into numbers for so many people.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Well I see the fantasy feel is dead in many games. Just IGNORE an opponent?

You obviously haven't seen my rule for ignoring opponents.

 

[peterka1]

AoO for goblin. Ignoring is as bad as drinking potions...

 

[IceBear]

Well I see the fantasy feel is dead in many games. Just IGNORE an opponent? Ignoring a peasant with a pitchfork results in death. It don't matter how "Good" you are, ignoring opponents in real life and books is suicide. How many book are filled with "Then the goblin spear pierced his breast and he died"? Several, and the people dying are high level Elves and such, not peons. Numbers count in battle, moreso than in D&D. If a goblin with a sword is behind you and you Ignore him? You give him time to set up a serious attack. Even goblins and kobolds would know to jab the big burly Fighter behind the knee where the armor is mostly non-existant, or some such. A crippling wound. I am sorry that the game just falls into numbers for so many people.

I agree with you. The problem is, if you are going to allow someone who is ignored to do SERIOUS damage in combat, what will you do for invisible attackers. I'm not talking about someone who is attacking while invisible during combat, I'm talking about someone who is invisible, sneaks up behind you while you're walking down the dungeon corridor and attacks you. Shouldn't that attack get all the same benefits as you would give the attacker who is ignored?

Thus, I just don't allow you to ignore.

IceBear

 

[Shard O'Glase]

If you ignored a peaseant while in full plate and he tried to hit you with a pitchfork, chances are nothing would happen to you. An incredibly skilled and combat savy peaseant might take his time, find the weakness in the armor and skewer you, but most would hit you with it and see the pitchfork glance off your incredibly heavy armor. I'm sorry so many people make everyone fighting masters despite the creatures or characters lack of combat skills, tactics, or savy.

As for the balance arguments I only buy into it if you play a run from fight to fight style game. If you play in a game that involves anything outside of combat then either a weakening of the rogues combat skills is still balanced, or the fighters need one heck of a boost for their non combat activities.

 

[IceBear]

So Shard is a member of the "rogue's are too powerful camp", and thus his opinion. I'm a member of "everything was pretty much playtest for a long time so let's try to leave it alone as much as possible camp" and thus my opinion.

And, yes, the peasant's pitchfork would probably bounce off the figther's armor, but I still think the momentary distractions from the attack (or, if you feel that the fighter could COMPLETELY block out any distractions from the peasant, then the hinderances to movement caused by the peasant's actions) would be enough for the rogue to choose his moment and attack.

"Yes, you have completely ignored the peasant, and thus when his pitchfork strikes you in the back it knocks you off balance (no, you couldn't brace yourself against it because you were ignoring it weren't you) even though it didn't penetrate your armor. The opportunist rogue takes his attack now while you're off balance and can't defend yourself as well...too bad."

IceBear

 

[Shard O'Glase]

nope I don't think rogues are too powerful, I think fighters are too weak. Since all they do is fight, they should absolutely dominate every single fight, a rogues sneak attack(s) should do signifigantly less damage than a fighters round of attacks or single attack even. They balanced things fighting wise fairly good, but then they acted like everything out of fights was unimportant in the balancing game. And the designers have pretty much admitted this, they've said pretty much that combat is all important so they wanted to come close to balance for every class in combat. Hey that's great but then every class should be close to balanced out of combat as well, and they clearly aren't.

If you play in any game where there is an even balance of hack and non-hack situations then the fighter gets hosed majorly, since every class out there can nearly equal him in a fight, and even surpass him if the conditions are right, but the fighter doesn't even come close to any other class in out of combat situations.

My point is balance wise if you aren't going to improve the fighters non-hack based abilities then every class in the game pretty much could use a power down in its hacking abilities if you run a game that involves non-hack stuff to any degree.