Ignoring an Opponent

[Uller]

Again, the problem with allowing an ignored opponent to do significantly more damage because he's being ignored is it introduces rule inconsistencies when an invisible opponent attacks. You either let ingored and invisible opponents do significant damage (and thus beefing invisibilty too much) or you treat ignoring like invisibilty currently (and thus making ignoring too easy and weakening the rogue too much).

IceBear

You responded before I finished editting my post...

The difference is that an attack is more than a single swing of a sword. Presumably, as soon as an invisible attacker makes his first move, the defender begins to twist/dodge/duck/etc. to avoid being hit by the unseen foe. He doesn't do this with the ignored one.

 

[IceBear]

Yes, in regular combat I can see what you mean. But, an invisbile character sneaks up behind you as you are walking down the dungeon corridor, and then just as you are yawning and scratching yourself in boredom he strikes - taking you completely unaware. That should also be allowed a critical as it's almost identical to ignoring someone.

I think I'm not going to house rule anything but fallback on good old common sense and use DM licence when someone could ignore someone else.

For the most part, no you can't ignore someone, but if, in the case given above, a weasel was used to flank a dragon or ogre I'd allow the dragon or ogre to ignore the weasel (though I'd probably have them stomp it flat if it should hit them), but I wouldn't allow a 20th level fighter to ignore a peasant (just because I can see the peasant distracting the fighter too easily for the fighter to be able to ignore him).

IceBear

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

If a ferret is a tiny animal, then it has no reach, does not threaten an area outside of it's own square, and cannot flank. Even to attack, it would have to enter the same square as the lizard man (attack of opportunity). And even then it would not flank as it is no longer "directly across" from the munchkin rogue/mage.

Now if he has a dire rat as a familar ...


Anyway, if I were to house rule for ignoring someone I'd say that you are actively making yourself helpless with regards to them (except no dex bonus rather than no dex). I would also have the ignorer make concentration checks to avoid being distracted by the hits etc.. If the concentration check fails, then you wince, flinch, or otherwise react enough to allow the other person a flanking bonus (and sneak attacks).

Note that you also do not threaten the ignored person so they are free to trip, disarm, sunder, or grapple all they like. You can't oppose the grapple check because you are ignoring them. (And did I mention that once you are grappled, you lose your Dex to everyone outside the grapple?)

Ignore the goblin, fine - the rogue cannot sneak attack you. Then the goblin of course jumps on your back and starts beating on your head. NOW the rogue can sneak attack you.

As for the invisibility incongruity, an invisible person makes noise and it is assumed that the victim WANTS to avoid being hurt by stuff. That make them far better off than someone actively trying to ignore a known danger. In other words, you are more dangerous when being ignored, then when simply invisible. Now if you were invisible, and silent, and scentless, and causing no vibrations in the floor, and sneaking up on someone with no sense of self-preservation what-so-ever; then I would probably give you an equivalent bonus.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I have on paper at home. I was just rethinking the whole thing with this thread.

Question: How would you handle aid another in combat with regards to ignoring? I was under the impression that if you hit an AC of 10, you gave +2 to hit or AC to your ally. This is because you are doing what you can to interfere with the target's movement with regards to attacking or being attacked by your ally.

If the ignored opponent succeeds in aiding the rogue, what DC would you give the Concentration check to still ignore the flanker (or would you allow them to be ignored at all)?

IceBear

 

[chilibean]

I told myself not to get involved in the discussion again, but here I go for 1 small suggestion.

For those that want to force non-ignoring when you're hit, wouldn't a concentration check with a DC of 10+damage taken be a balanced way of doing this? If a wizard can be hit and still concentrate enough to cast a spell, can't a fighter be hit and still concentrate enough to not look at someone?

 

[IceBear]

I told myself not to get involved in the discussion again, but here I go for 1 small suggestion.

For those that want to force non-ignoring when you're hit, wouldn't a concentration check with a DC of 10+damage taken be a balanced way of doing this? If a wizard can be hit and still concentrate enough to cast a spell, can't a fighter be hit and still concentrate enough to not look at someone?

That's my current house rule actually - no player has ever tried to ignore someone so I don't know how well it works.

My question was - what if the ignored flanker decides to Aid Another in combat (much easier to succeed). What would be a fair DC to ignore that? Since it's giving the ignored flanker a +2 bonus to AC or to hit, it's obvious that the ignored flanker is doing something to distract the opponent. A flat Concentration (15)?

IceBear

 

[Uller]

I told myself not to get involved in the discussion again, but here I go for 1 small suggestion.

For those that want to force non-ignoring when you're hit, wouldn't a concentration check with a DC of 10+damage taken be a balanced way of doing this? If a wizard can be hit and still concentrate enough to cast a spell, can't a fighter be hit and still concentrate enough to not look at someone?

Not IMO. Remember that(in general), hit points are far more than a measure of physical damage, but the ability to "roll with the punches" and such. If your opponent manages to make contact and actually do damage, if you don't try to avoid allowing that blow to be fatal or debilitating in some way, then it is, as far as I'm concerned. So if you take damage, then either you must stop ignoring that opponent or you are reduced to 0-damage hp(and in all but very special cases, you will stop ignoring the damage). The only exceptions I can think of are undead and constructs(were HP really IS a measure of physical).

Concentration with spells is different...in no way is it ever inferred that when you cast a spell you stop avoiding damage.

 

[Pielorinho]

My rule is pretty close to the one used here:

-You can ignore an opponent who hasn't yet hit you.
-The opponent doesn't count against you for flanking purposes.
-The opponent is effectively invisible to you.
-If the opponent ever does hit you, you cannot ignore that opponent again (unless you don't recognize the opponent, due to disguise, reincarnation, etc.)

Given the current discussion, I'll replace "hit you" with "hit you, successfully aided another's attempt to strike you, struck successfully at your weapon or equipment, targeted you with a spell, or otherwise taken a successful combat action against you." That is, as long as you can plausibly dismiss an opponent as a non-threat, you can ignore them; once they do anything that interferes with you, you must take them seriously.

Given my players, and how I play monsters, I expect this rule to benefit the PCs more than it harms them. About the only time I can see a monster using this rule is the golden retriever vs. the ancient dragon scenario: if a wizard summons a riding dog to flank the dragon, so that the rogue gets sneak attacks, I think the dragon is perfectly within her rights to ignore the silly little dog.

Daniel

 

[SnowDog]

Ignored != Invisible

I'm walking around, thinking I'm completely safe. I feel a brush of air, and instinctively I twist a little, and then when I feel the pressure of something actually hitting my neck, my muscles clench, I shrug my shoulders, I duck a little, I twist a little, and instead of killing me, the invisible assasin just hits me for 20 points of damage (ouch).

This is completely different than standing toe-to-toe with one foe, and feeling the onrushing breeze from the peasant's pitchfork behind me, and deciding I'm not going to react to it at all, regardless of where it hits me, even if I can tell it's coming right at the back of my neck.

Second point: hit point damage directly equals damage that could kill you. Minor jostling, etc, will not result in HP damage, but your DM should still narrate a dynamic, exciting combat with lots of contact. The peasant may not be able to "hit" due to your magic armor and who knows what else -- but their pitchfork is still wailing into you, it's still moving you slightly, etc. Your trained Rogue knows how to turn that into sneak attack damage.

So, even without invoking the "balance" clause, I think it's easy to justify keeping the rules the way they are. Of course, in your campaign, you are free to do as you please -- and I hope it works out for you!

 

[IceBear]

Re: Ignored != Invisible

I'm walking around, thinking I'm completely safe. I feel a brush of air, and instinctively I twist a little, and then when I feel the pressure of something actually hitting my neck, my muscles clench, I shrug my shoulders, I duck a little, I twist a little, and instead of killing me, the invisible assasin just hits me for 20 points of damage (ouch).

This is completely different than standing toe-to-toe with one foe, and feeling the onrushing breeze from the peasant's pitchfork behind me, and deciding I'm not going to react to it at all, regardless of where it hits me, even if I can tell it's coming right at the back of my neck.

Second point: hit point damage directly equals damage that could kill you. Minor jostling, etc, will not result in HP damage, but your DM should still narrate a dynamic, exciting combat with lots of contact. The peasant may not be able to "hit" due to your magic armor and who knows what else -- but their pitchfork is still wailing into you, it's still moving you slightly, etc. Your trained Rogue knows how to turn that into sneak attack damage.

So, even without invoking the "balance" clause, I think it's easy to justify keeping the rules the way they are. Of course, in your campaign, you are free to do as you please -- and I hope it works out for you!

I agree with you for the most part, except for the feeling the rush of air - that's not necessarily the case, but it would be the case in enough instances to justify invisibility != ingored.

As I stated before, I do have a house rule on paper to allow ignoring, but I'm just going to scrap it and use the standard rules, but with a measure of DMing licence and common sense - a little weasel isn't going to bother an ancient red dragon enough to allow it to flank, but in most other circumstances you can't ignore the flankers.

IceBear