Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="IceBear" data-source="post: 82883" data-attributes="member: 1118">But most parties don't have two rogues, and I want every player at my table to be happy with his PC choice.Sure, you ignore the goblin, so he wacks you in the back and at the moment you wince in pain - bam! - the rogue stabs you in the throat.What the 20th level fighter should do is kill the goblin with his first attack (then he's no longer flanked) and then cleave the rogue and use the rest of his multiple attacks on the rogue.&nbsp; End of story.I was, once, all for allowing the option of ignoring a weaker opponent, but in the end I decided not to allow it because:1) It's not as easy as it sounds to ignore someone.2) It weakens rogues too much.IceBearPS If you allow the ignored opponent to CdG the fighter, it makes a good deterrent to not ignoring someone.&nbsp; However, when an invisible oppoent slips up unknown on his victim, he would then make the argument that he should also get a CdG as the victim is effectively &quot;ignoring&quot; him too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="IceBear, post: 82883, member: 1118"] But most parties don't have two rogues, and I want every player at my table to be happy with his PC choice. Sure, you ignore the goblin, so he wacks you in the back and at the moment you wince in pain - bam! - the rogue stabs you in the throat. What the 20th level fighter should do is kill the goblin with his first attack (then he's no longer flanked) and then cleave the rogue and use the rest of his multiple attacks on the rogue. End of story. I was, once, all for allowing the option of ignoring a weaker opponent, but in the end I decided not to allow it because: 1) It's not as easy as it sounds to ignore someone. 2) It weakens rogues too much. IceBear PS If you allow the ignored opponent to CdG the fighter, it makes a good deterrent to not ignoring someone. However, when an invisible oppoent slips up unknown on his victim, he would then make the argument that he should also get a CdG as the victim is effectively "ignoring" him too. [/QUOTE]

Verification