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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="StreamOfTheSky" data-source="post: 4923059" data-attributes="member: 35909">Except that's how it works in abstracted D&D combat.  If I roll a lucky 20 twice in a row with any weapon, I've managed to find a vulnerable point in your armor, or more likely, somewhere it isn't protecting.  If that level 1 nobody flanking with the high level rogue were a level 1 rogue, he could find those vulnerable points just as well as the high level rogue.  He'll have much lower chance to hit, since he's not as well versed in combat.  And he won't do nearly as much damage, because he's yet to learn to truly exploit such an opening like the high level rogue.  But when it comes to the basic principle of daggerring someone in a squishy, tender spot who's wearing full plate, he knows how just as the high level rogue does.There is no such thing as completely protective armor in D&D.  Or in the real world, I'd argue.  In D&D, that would be represented as total cover.  In the real world, even full plate was weaker at joints (armpits, for example), having less armor there by necessity.  I remember Human Weapon, a program from History channel, talking about Judo and its Samurai origins, and how warriors would throw enemies to the ground, where the weight of their armor would add to the shock of impact and momentarily stun them.  After which, they'd quickly pull out a dagger or short blade, expose the enemy's neck, and slit it.  On another history show on more recently, Warriors, one episode covered Agincourt.  In that battle, the few knights who actually reached the archers were swarmed upon rabidly in melee and pulled from horseback to the ground.  Once there, the relatively unskilled-at-melee archers just stabbed and prodded at any vulnerable points -- armpits, groin, eye slits, whatever.  It worked rather well at killing the walking tanks.True, in those cases the enemy was at least somewhat incapacitated first.  But the knights also weren't ignoring the threat posed, either.  And really, even if full plate in D&D offered perfect protection (couldn't crit someone in it), which it does not, if you weren't threatening a guy, he could do all sorts of pesky things to mess you up much worse than aid another.  Can't slit your throat?  Cut the straps holding the helmet to your head.  Or twist it around so you can't see.  Take your small hammer, keep the sledge close to the ground, then swing up and smash it into the guy's groin as hard as you can.  Even if the full plate completely protects, the reverberation and utter shock value will definitely leave the high level fighter open for a moment.And the OP never mentioned full plate, I think this whole thing is a side tangent to what was being discussed.  It's my perception that he would have wanted a dexterous level 20 Fighter in studded leather to also ignore the low level "threat."  Escpecially since if this is some kind of deal with the type of armor worn, it shouldn't matter if the Fighter is level 20 or level 2.  Anything relating to how protected you are with full plate is an armor houserule, not a flanking houserule.Are you really so oblivious that you think the major problem with this proposed scenario is the Rogue losing his precious +2 to hit from flanking?Yeah, so a coup de grace.  You line up a shot, and automatically hit and crit.  You just want to add an asterisk and say that in this case, no fort save is rolled, because you somehow think it's too powerful, but otherwise agree with my gut assessment of "the other guy can coup de grace"?If realism isn't the reason to need such a houserule...then what is?  It can't be game balance, you're destroying that.  Let's see...not simulationist or gamist, that leaves...narrativist, right?  Is it for storytelling reasons you think a hero should be able to simply ignore an opponent?  If so, has not having such rules actually ruined or restricted your plot in any game thus far?Of course not.  My coup de grace suggestion is both realistic, and actually seems like a balanced downside to not having to worry about sneak attack from flanking.  Few will ever find it worthwhile, but it might be in certain situations.The OP's example set up that ridiculous situation.  I'm merely saying that it's a false dilemma.  If a foe is that much weaker than you, you could off him in a fraction of a round anyway.  You could even take a -4 for nonlethal if you didn't want to kill him and STILL probably hit on the first try.  So, now that there's agreement that there's no real issue of using low level mooks to fuel flanking for very long...why is there still a problem?So a Huge dragon can ignore the threat of a level 25 Gnome Fighter just because the dragon's much bigger.  Even if the gnome loaded up on feats, prestige classes, and items to better slay the big folk.  Right....  (And if you meant including up to 3 sizes different, make the dragon Gargantuan, your houserule's still ridiculous)So you want to make a mid level class feature unique to certain archetypes a feat for anyone to take, except...it's actually even better since not even a rogue 4 levels higher than you cna overcome the feat's protection.  Did I understand that right?  I guess the fact that low level magic spells beats it makes everything all better.  I thought most people didn't like it when low level magic overshadowed skills and high level class features, though?</blockquote>

Verification