Sneak attack + flanking = confusion

[Nail]

Wow, do I hate that.

 

[Amal Shukup]

From a mechanical point of view it should be flanked = flanked. Driven by the position of the attackers, NOT on some metagamed state of mind.

"I ignore the goblin completely in order to avoid taking a Flanking bonus from his buddy the Ogre."

Ignore a combatant totally? Closed eyes?!? Seriously!?!

Sounds like the character is completely helpless vs that opponent that round... I don't see why the Goblin can't 'Coup de Grace' him (carefully and meticulously opening a femoral artery, say. Colorfully described as 'slicing the bottom off a water balloon'). Or, how about effectively Zero Dex?

"Oh, I'm not ignoring him THAT much!" Fine. You're flanked. Unless I was feeling particularly annoyed, in which case it would be "TOO LATE. Here are some d6s and paper. Go roll up a new character. Next Rules Lawyer please."

Harsh? Maybe, but the whole thing is silly.

Another possibility: How effectively can somebody ignore a goblin sawing away at one's kidney? Sounds like a Concentration Check at the very least. DC = the Combined Attack Rolls of the Flankers seems about right...

Or screw it. Ogre is a 1st level Warrior. Goblin, sadly, is a 15th level Rogue/Assassin and he's been studying his target for the last three rounds. Guess Metagaming didn't pay off...

But all of these are dodges. And punitive ones at that: Flanking should be a condition imposed by the position of the attackers. The whole see/no see state of mind thing raises too many loopholes.

I even think invisible creatures should contribute to a Flank. I think one becomes at least subconsciously aware of the THREAT posed by an invisible creature once they move close enough to attack. The whole gestalt of sound, smell, air pressure, movement etc.*. Not enough to neccesarily target them effectively, but enough to be 'threatened' by them and therefore be flanked. That's just an interpretation though.

A'Mal
______________________________________
* I've experienced this. Not, obviously, with invisible creatures, but in total darkness situations - both in martial arts classes (a thorough beating was enjoyed by all) and in photographic darkrooms. A person just standing quietly is quite easy to sense. One moving with any kind of rapidity is almost impossible to not sense.

I'm not suggesting that being aware of them makes it easy to defend against them (IBID 'thorough beatings'), just that they would 'threaten' quite effectively...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ignore a combatant totally? Closed eyes?!? Seriously!?!

Sounds like the character is completely helpless vs that opponent that round... I don't see why the Goblin can't 'Coup de Grace' him (carefully and meticulously opening a femoral artery, say. Colorfully described as 'slicing the bottom off a water balloon'). Or, how about effectively Zero Dex?

"Oh, I'm not ignoring him THAT much!" Fine. You're flanked.

And yet according to RotG, it's not necessary to "completely ignore" him; only that you can't see him.

And you're not completely helpless against someone you can't see; they can't CDG; they simply gain the benefits of total concealment.

And there already exists a mechanic for granting an opponent total concealment: turn your back on them, as described under Gaze Attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[Amal Shukup]

And yet according to RotG, it's not necessary to "completely ignore" him; only that you can't see him.

I'm not contesting your interpretation of what they said (I look forward to the day I out interpret the Hyp.). You are 100% correct - that IS absolutely what they said.

I'm suggesting that they're nuts. If the defender is not ignoring an attacker, their attention is divided and the Flank should be in effect. If they are ignoring an attacker, they should die.

Being that this is the RULES Forum, this sort of assessment is perhaps innapropriate, but I gots to call 'em likes I see em...

And you're not completely helpless against someone you can't see; they can't CDG; they simply gain the benefits of total concealment.

I completely agree, but the attacker should still get all the advantages associated with Flanking whether he can be seen or not - the defender is actively defending himself against attack, therefore his attention is divided...

A'Mal

 

[Hypersmurf]

I completely agree, but the attacker should still get all the advantages associated with Flanking whether he can be seen or not...

Well, he does, even according to the RotG. Whether the attacker can be seen or not is irrelevant. It's only required that the attacker's ally can be seen.

-Hyp.

 

[Amal Shukup]

And you're not completely helpless against someone you can't see; they can't CDG

Of course not. Hampered, maybe, but absolutely able to defend oneself. I think the rules model this quite well, actually. I do think, however that such defense implies that the defender's attention is sufficiently divided to allow a Flanking bonus.

What I was suggesting earlier was that a CDG should be allowed if a defender chooses to completely ignore an attacker (to the degree that their efforts no longer contributed to a flanking bonus). I see 'completely ignoring' as equivalent to 'rendering oneself helpless'.

And I don't think it does the game service to allow a character to have it both ways: "I can still defend myself, but they don't get to Flank". Whatever...

I also think that the olympian detachment required for such suicidal behavior is largely hypothetical ("Nope! that wildly swinging axe doesn't distract me at all..."). And I was suggesting that an attempt to use such an idiotic metagaming tactic in MY game would invite my lethal disapproval

A'Mal

 

[reiella]

And ever more so am I convinced that flanking is an unnecessary complication to the rules made in order to balance the rogue/sneak attack.

I'm halfway tempted to do away with flanking or use the facing rules from ua to just get rid of the logical conundrums (invisible observant generating flank bonus, confusing the flank system with AoOs, to introducing a concept of facing in an otherwise faceless game).

 

[Amal Shukup]

Well, he does, even according to the RotG. Whether the attacker can be seen or not is irrelevant. It's only required that the attacker's ally can be seen.

Yes. As should be obvious, I was suggesting that both attackers should get the Flanking bonus, not just the one who can't be seen...

My position - which I'm not suggesting is canon - is that if two folks flank another - they both get flanking bonusses whether they can be seen or not. They may get additional bonusses if they also have concealment.

Two different Bonusses. Resulting from different conditions. They should Stack, not eliminate each other.

A'Mal

 

[Amal Shukup]

I'm halfway tempted to do away with flanking or use the facing rules from ua to just get rid of the logical conundrums QUOTE]

Facing just creates more conundrums (I think). I'm speaking in the general sense, as I'm not familiar with the UA rules at this point.

- Rounds are six seconds long. I have to face one way the whole time? Why?
- Whatya mean I don't threaten the square behind me?
- I have 4 attacks this round, I can't chop everybody around me?
- What if my weapon points this way, but I'm looking over here?
- Which way is the gelatinous cube facing, exactly?
- I have to wait until my turn before I can turn to face the guy with the axe?

I actually think the flanking rules made sense - right up until the RoTG thing...

A'Mal

 

[Hypersmurf]

My position - which I'm not suggesting is canon - is that if two folks flank another - they both get flanking bonusses whether they can be seen or not. They may get additional bonusses if they also have concealment.

As far as I'm concerned, that is canon - it's Core Rules as Written, and it's what I use.

As opposed to the RotG rule, which... well, isn't Core Rules as Written

-Hyp.