Ignoring Flankers?

[the Jester]

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.'"?

Ah, I was unclear.

What I mean is, if I am flanked by two 15th-level characters, a rogue and a fighter, I'm totally ignoring the fighter. If I focus on the fighter I gain nothing. All flanking does for him is give him extra bonuses to hit me, which, unless my AC is through the roof, he will do regardless.

On the other hand, ignoring him and focusing on the rogue lets me negate a potential 21d6 per round in sneak attack damage. Yeah, so the fighter is slightly less likely to hit me if I focus on him- the difference in damage suffered substantially favors my focusing on the rogue.

 

[the Jester]

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

Very true- but it is one of the rogue's most important ability, and it is their most important combat ability. Without it, a rogue in combat is third-rate at best. Just check out how they do vs. undead or constructs.

Now imagine his utility in a fight in a game where anyone can negate his sneak attack by turning his back on the fighter.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Ah, I was unclear.

What's more likely is that I was being slow-witted.

What I mean is, if I am flanked by two 15th-level characters, a rogue and a fighter, I'm totally ignoring the fighter. If I focus on the fighter I gain nothing. All flanking does for him is give him extra bonuses to hit me, which, unless my AC is through the roof, he will do regardless.

On the other hand, ignoring him and focusing on the rogue lets me negate a potential 21d6 per round in sneak attack damage. Yeah, so the fighter is slightly less likely to hit me if I focus on him- the difference in damage suffered substantially favors my focusing on the rogue.

Hmmm. Maybe a patch to the surprise rules is in order. Say that a person who is surprised draws an attack of opportunity from a non-surprised opponent, just from being unaware of you. This ends as soon as you take an AoO; once you act (violently!) they are aware of you. The effect would be pretty much the same as the current rule set; someone can take an AoO instead of the partial action the rules allow, but that would end their surprise.

However, if someone who is ignoring you is treated as surprised, this surprise doesn't end when you attack them. So you can take multiple AoOs. I wouldn't ignore the fighter if he could thereby take numerous AoOs!

In other words, I would say that an ignored flanker gets the benefit of being invisible, but also gets an unlimited number of AoOs against you. Until you stop ignoring him, that is.

Would that make rogues worth playing again?

[edit] I just noticed that this is what Ogrork the Mighty suggested originally! So I guess my answer is that it sounds fine. [/edit]

 

[the Jester]

Hmmm. Maybe a patch to the surprise rules is in order. Say that a person who is surprised draws an attack of opportunity from a non-surprised opponent, just from being unaware of you. This ends as soon as you take an AoO; once you act (violently!) they are aware of you. The effect would be pretty much the same as the current rule set; someone can take an AoO instead of the partial action the rules allow, but that would end their surprise.

However, if someone who is ignoring you is treated as surprised, this surprise doesn't end when you attack them. So you can take multiple AoOs. I wouldn't ignore the fighter if he could thereby take numerous AoOs!

In other words, I would say that an ignored flanker gets the benefit of being invisible, but also gets an unlimited number of AoOs against you. Until you stop ignoring him, that is.

Would that make rogues worth playing again?

Well, now the problem is that spell-casters get screwed by the change to surprise. Not to mention that very often folks aren't even armed in the surprise round.

What we're getting to, imho, is that if you have to do a bunch of patching to make a change work, it's prolly more trouble than it's worth. YMMV. I don't think the flanking rules currently cause problems. Is there a specific problem the OP is trying to address? Is it that sneak attack is effective? Cuz it's supposed to be.

If you make it easy to break someone's flanking bonus, you're tweaking the balance of the rogue severely. Again, YMMV.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Continued thought..

Assuming you want to tweak this rule {I won't, but its worth thinking about..}

Free action: You may ignore an attacker who is threatening you. This attacker is treated as invisible until your next turn and any action you take draws an AoO from that attacker even if the action does not normally do so. {This includes actions the Withdraw action and 5' step}. The ignored attacker gains a +4 bonus to any opposed STR checks against you, such as Grapple, Trip and Disarm attempts.
Special: You may only take this action at the beggining of your turn, before taking any other actions. This action negates any flanking caused by the attacker being ignored.

Comments: Invisible attackers gain +2 to hit and you are denied your Dex to AC. You cannot take an AoO against an invisible attacker. The invisible attacker is also in a flanking position, and gains +2 to hit and the target is denied thier Dec to AC for that conditions as well. End result is at least +4 to hit.


So, take said 15th level fighter and 15th level Rogue. Figher has a Flaming Two Handed Weapon, Power Attack and Combat Reflexes. Who to ignore?

 

[Nifft]

Question: if your PCs were fighting something with a gaze attack, would you let them "ignore" it and focus on other opponents?

Or a Dragon with a fear radius? "Oh, I'm not scared. I didn't see the dragon. I'm ignoring it."

-- N

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Gaze,,,

Per RAW, can 'avert your eyes' from the gaze attack...

An opponent can avert his eyes from the creature’s face, looking at the creature’s body, watching its shadow, or tracking the creature in a reflective surface. Each round, the opponent has a 50% chance of not having to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains concealment relative to the opponent.

and ignore it..

An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold. In these cases, the opponent does not need to make a saving throw. The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment relative to the opponent.

Of course, this is where most of the problems come in with regards to other circumstances like Flanking. There is a RAW precedence for 'turning your back' on an opponent, and the opponent is treated as invisible to you.

IMHO, hence this thread {and its previous incarnation.. and the one before that.. and the one before that }

As to the Dragon, the Fear Aura reads a bit differently

Other than that stipulation, once they are out of sight (or hearing) of the source of their fear, they can act as they want.

So technically, I suppose a character could stand still, close thier eyes, cover thier ears, and repeat the mantra "There is no dragon, There is no dragon" to avoid the negative impact of the Fear Aura..... umm... sure. Go right ahead.
Fits quite nicely into the description of 'cowering'

 

[Nifft]

Perfect. You can ignore a flanker by rendering yourself sightless.

Everyone's invisible, and you aren't "flanked".

(You certainly DO take sneak attack damage, though... )

-- N

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Breathtakingly elegant solution.

 

[apesamongus]

Perfect. You can ignore a flanker by rendering yourself sightless.

Everyone's invisible, and you aren't "flanked".

(You certainly DO take sneak attack damage, though... )

Then you would actually benefit from blinding yourself when fighting all invisible opponents, because normal invisible opponents can still flank you.