Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magus Coeruleus" data-source="post: 1137936" data-attributes="member: 1704">My .02:I think invis should be able to flank.  I also think that if you are flanked, you should have a right to know that you are flanked, which can give you hints at an invisible creature's location.  Sometimes it's clear anyway (because someone just got sneak attack damage on you and you're not flat-footed), but many times, there's no specific reason why a player, for instance, would be told that someone is getting +2 to attack him.  But I think he should know he's being flanked.I like the suggestion that an invisible creature should have the option NOT to reveal his presence, in exchange for not attacking and not contributing to a flanking situation (in essence, declining to threaten a specific area).Similarly, I think visible creatures should have the option NOT to flank.  How?  Same as above, by declining to threaten a certain area.  Why bother?  Consider this situation.  Two creatures that are on opposite sides of a common foe need not necessarily be allies.  What if someone is flanked by a rogue (who wants to make sneak attacks and kill the foe) and a dagger-wielding wizard (who wants to charm the person in the middle, or do something else hostile but not involving melee attacks or lethal force)?  I think the wizard should be able to deny the rogue sneak attacks by declining to threaten with his dagger, just as if he were a friend of the guy in the middle.I think putting the onus on the invisible potential flanker to reveal his presence (though not necessarily exact location) in order to provide a flanking bonus is better than denying him the ability to flank, and that allowing characters to willfully ignore visible creatures (a la rat and ogre) creates too many headaches.  I have no problem with the idea of willful ignorance, but I don't like that the character is allowed (in fact required) to make decisions of that sort when it is not his or her turn.I am not comfortable, for instance, with this scenario:  Mid-level character (Mildred) is approached and attacked by a low-level foe (Lola).  Because no one else threatens her at this time, Mildred pays full attention to Lola during this attack.  Next in intiative, a high-level threat (Heidi) approaches, flanking (with Lola), and attacks Mildred.  Before the attack, Mildred declares that she is no longer paying attention to Lola, even though she paid full attention to her a moment before, and even though it is not yet her turn, so as to deny the Heidi a flank.  Next, it's Mildred's turn.  She attacks Heidi, gets lucky, and kills her.  She now declares that she resumes paying full attention to Lola.Usually, flanking happens on the turn of flankers.  That is, people don't usually move in between opponents to allows themselves to be flanked.  That means that to be worth utilizing, a house rule for willful ignorance is often going to require multiple shifts of attention, some of which happen out of a character's turn, and others than happen in the midst of their turn.  Yes,  you could only allow a character to willfully ignore on his or her turn and make it stick until the next round, but I suspect that option will be nearly worthless.I think staying away from willful ignorance house rules and letting potential flankers decide whether to flank (including invisible creatures, who may have to choose between flanking and remaining better hidden) is a better way to go.</blockquote>

Verification