Ignoring Flankers?

[sfedi]

The problem is that people keep thinking that if you ignore an attacker you are no longer flanked.
Flanking is not "distracting someone".
It is taking advantage of the fact that you are already distracted.

Flanking is a worse condition than Flat-Footed, Sneak Attack-wise.

 

[the Jester]

Bad, bad, bad idea.

The only way I've ever heard anyone treat this that made me think it wasn't horrifically abusive to rogues was to treat them as helpless against the person they're ignoring.

I have a feat imc...

ATTACK FLANKS (General, Fighter)
You have trained to focus your attacks on one foe when you are flanked.
Prerequisites: Base Attack +6, Combat Reflexes, Guard Your Flanks, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes
Benefit: When you’re flanked you may focus your attention on one of your flanking enemies. That foe receives no benefits of flanking you while the other enemy gains an additional +2 attack bonus and your dexterity and shield bonus don’t apply against that enemy. As soon as flanking is broken your attack flanks posture ends. You may assume the posture on your action or just after you’re flanked (after the enemy’s attack sequence) at your discretion.
Normal: You may not break flanking unless somebody moves.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I would let a would-be flanker that is ignored immediately receive an AoO on the flanked & upon their turn they may treat the flanked as helpless - CDG time.

 

[ARandomGod]

IIRC the last time this thought came up.. a couple pages back I think.. the result was that the ignored character is treated as if invisible.

Simple and relatively elegant.

Not too sure how many people are going to go around ignoring an opponent who has a sharp pointy thing to stab them with tho

That is a nice solution.

I'm going to post my own "on the fly" solution.

I'd say that the opponent who's ignored gets an additional +2 to hit, and that you lose any armor bonuses against that opponent other than armor/natural armor and deflection bonuses. Basically anything that requires him to be aware. (Including all dex bonuses, of course, and even wisdom bonuses granted by monk like abilities.)

Additionally I'd say that the opponent gets an attack of opportunity each round that you're ignoring him.

That way if he's really ignore worthy, you can ignore him still. However if he's gonna put on the hurt when you're not using your various ways to actively avoid getting hit, and when you don't care about the extra AoO your motion in his threatened range gives him... (I'd consider a melee attack that ignores an opponent equivelant to a ranged attack). Well, feel free to ignore that attacker then.

Looking at the invisibility option, I do rather like that. With the exception that I'd still want to grant the 'invisible' opponent an AoO as if you were attacking with a ranged weapon in his reach. After all, you ARE attacking with a weapon in such a way that ignores him, and is therefore not guarding against the AoO that can be produced by attacking. The only reason you don't normally produce these in melee is that you actively try not to.

 

[ARandomGod]

I would let a would-be flanker that is ignored immediately receive an AoO on the flanked & upon their turn they may treat the flanked as helpless - CDG time.

Heheh/

I wouldn't allow a CDG. That's just saying "no". But it's a fun/funny way to say no, so I approve.

GM: "No, you can't just ignore him"

Player: "But I wants it. I wants it SOO BAAD! Besides, are you really saying that it's impossible to ignore somone? Watch, I'll ignore Jeff. See? I'm ignoreing him right now!"

GM: "OK, you can ignore him, but he's very likely to CDG you."

Player: "Why do you always twist my words. You COULD have just said 'no'."

<smirk>

 

[Cheiromancer]

Bad, bad, bad idea.

The only way I've ever heard anyone treat this that made me think it wasn't horrifically abusive to rogues was to treat them as helpless against the person they're ignoring.

If an invisible rogue attacks by surprise, is his opponent considered helpless? That, imho, is the best comparison; because the opponent taken by surprise had no idea that the rogue was there. If someone is ignoring an attacking rogue, they shouldn't be worse off than a person who had no clue the rogue was there, and (still) cannot perceive them.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I wouldn't allow a CDG. That's just saying "no". But it's a fun/funny way to say no, so I approve.

Yeah that is a bit dishonest of me, I would just simply say no. My justification would be that pc self preservation overrides player desire & it inadvertantly weakens the rogues sneak attack.

Btw, cdg requires a full round & so if the flankee moved more than 5' from the flanker, they would be safe from it. Unless the flanker has combat reflexes they would have previously used their AoO, so even under my draconian ruling there could be a time & place when it is appropriate.

 

[the Jester]

I think a lot of you guys are missing an overriding consideration.

If you allow someone to ignore a flanker, you might as well say, "Nobody ever play a rogue again."

Heck, even epic-level rogues become nigh-useless.

There's a balance issue here that trumps the sad spectre of realism.

 

[domino]

It's not like sneak attack damage is the only thing rogues have going for them.

Also, nearly all the possible ways to adjudicate this wind up only making ONE of the opponents unflanked, but drop the dex bonus (or worse) to the other one. So, you just make sure the other rogue is the one being ignored.

And there's plenty of reasons that a rogue might be ignored. A nasty powerattacking fighter, for instance.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Jester, if you are ignoring a rogue, you are denied your dex bonus. And the rogue gets +2 to hit because he's effectively invisible. And he can move around without drawing an AoO from you. So the rogue still gets to sneak attack and gets the same bonus he would get if he were flanking, plus other benefits.

The downside will be for the fighter on the other side of the rogue. Maybe you meant "You might as well say 'Nobody ever play a fighter again.'"?