Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4428912" data-attributes="member: 51942">I'd leave it to playstyle.&nbsp; In a gritty, harsh campaign, it's certainly believable that a monster would simply ignore the threat of the unarmed combatant (perhaps it can't take OA's against a combatant it's ignoring thusly?).&nbsp; An OA with a bow might break the bowstring.&nbsp; In a more common heroic, optimistic campaign, (i.e. by default) even your mere fists might be worthy of attention, and you could thus flank even while unarmed.It's a little unfortunate that there's no modifier beyond &quot;combat advantage&quot;.&nbsp; It's unfortunate that an invisible character has no greater a chance to hit a target than a flanking creature.&nbsp; In 3e how I'd have resolved such situations (if players insist) is by saying that a creature may choose to not be flanked, but then the creature it is ignoring is considered invisible (by merit of being ignored) with all ensuing bonuses.If you do rule that unarmed creatures don't flank, be aware that there are many more situations in which believability conflicts with the simplified world the rules conjure.&nbsp; That means much more work for the DM which the players should then accept without too much fight, and many more potentially unwise adhoc rulings necessary to maintain such a more detailed world.&nbsp; That's OK if that's what you want, but it's not the 4e style you'll normally see, and with good reason.Edit: possible compromise ruling (only if desired): a creature may ignore another combatant who then cannot flank it, but doing so provokes an OA with combat advantage.&nbsp; If the OA hits, the creature grants combat advantage to everone until the end of its next turn.&nbsp; I don't think this rule is a good one (since it slows down gameplay), but if you really want to have the ability to ignore another combatants flank, it might work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eamon, post: 4428912, member: 51942"] I'd leave it to playstyle. In a gritty, harsh campaign, it's certainly believable that a monster would simply ignore the threat of the unarmed combatant (perhaps it can't take OA's against a combatant it's ignoring thusly?). An OA with a bow might break the bowstring. In a more common heroic, optimistic campaign, (i.e. by default) even your mere fists might be worthy of attention, and you could thus flank even while unarmed. It's a little unfortunate that there's no modifier beyond "combat advantage". It's unfortunate that an invisible character has no greater a chance to hit a target than a flanking creature. In 3e how I'd have resolved such situations (if players insist) is by saying that a creature may choose to not be flanked, but then the creature it is ignoring is considered invisible (by merit of being ignored) with all ensuing bonuses. If you do rule that unarmed creatures don't flank, be aware that there are many more situations in which believability conflicts with the simplified world the rules conjure. That means much more work for the DM which the players should then accept without too much fight, and many more potentially unwise adhoc rulings necessary to maintain such a more detailed world. That's OK if that's what you want, but it's not the 4e style you'll normally see, and with good reason. Edit: possible compromise ruling (only if desired): a creature may ignore another combatant who then cannot flank it, but doing so provokes an OA with combat advantage. If the OA hits, the creature grants combat advantage to everone until the end of its next turn. I don't think this rule is a good one (since it slows down gameplay), but if you really want to have the ability to ignore another combatants flank, it might work. [/QUOTE]

Verification