Willfully blind to avoid flanking?

[Magus Coeruleus]

If you completely turn your back on the fighter so the rogue can't sneak attack you, I think the fighter should be doing a lot more than just getting +2 to attack vs. your flat-footed AC. He should be able to set himself, take aim, and smack you really, really hard. CDG as a mechanic works perfectly for what I think should happen in such a situation

But consider this: If a fighter is made invisible and manages to sneak up undetected on idle, unsuspecting Mr. Doofus outside of combat, he gets no automatic CDG because Mr. Doofus is not helpless. The fighter just gets +2 vs. flat-footed AC. Since you get only that, and not a CDG, against an unsuspecting foe that is not only not paying attention to you but not expecting an attack at all, how can someone who is defending himself in combat (albeit paying full attention to someone else) be subject to any worse?

 

[Kark001]

I am personally in favor of being able to concentrate on one opponent to deny him that sneak attack, giving the other person a higher flanking bonus...+4 would come to my mind.
I know its maybe class balance and was certainly discussed before, but I find the rule that a flanking character gets that insanly high sneak damage bonus ridiculus. Its great for first strike actions like in the old AD&D second edition, but otherwise shouldnt work in combat when the enemy knows you are there.
Back to the topic.
If you ignore a character willfully, you should be as good as dead.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but your hit points represent the way your character learned to avoid dangerous situations and are more akin to the wound points in Star Wars D20.
So if you willfully ignore someone swinging that badass axe at you, you are just beheaded...end of story.
Whats with invisible persons you now say...well, there comes the learning curve in play. More experience characters have a feeling for such situations. They might not know what exaltly is wrong, but they know something is out there and are guarding their back so to say. If you manage to sneak up on someone totally unaware/defenseless, he should be dead.
I know that this isnt that much supported by the official rules, but sometimes common sense should just be applied.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I am personally in favor of being able to concentrate on one opponent to deny him that sneak attack, giving the other person a higher flanking bonus...+4 would come to my mind.

That's pretty much exactly how the FAQ plus Gaze Attack scenario plays out.

Since the one you're concentrating is still 'visible', his partner still gets a +2 flanking bonus, and also gets a +2 bonus for being 'invisible', for a total of +4... and in addition, you're denied Dex bonus against the 'invisible' attacker.

-Hyp.

 

[Philip]

IIf you ignore a character willfully, you should be as good as dead.

This situations seems to be the perfect match for the Attack of Opportunity mechanic.

It like casting a spell or shooting your longbow, you are also (partially) ignoring a possible threat in favor of concentrating on something else, much like preventing that rogue from sneak attacking you.

If you ignore the fighter at your back in favor of defending against an opposing rogue, the fighter gets his regular attacks at +2, and you invite an attack of opportunity from him (also at +2).

 

[Hypersmurf]

But closing your eyes to avoid a Gaze attack from a Medusa doesn't provoke an AoO.

Being blind doesn't provoke an AoO.

Being attacked by an invisible creature doesn't provoke an AoO.

Hell, being held or unconscious doesn't provoke an AoO.

-Hyp.

 

[Philip]

Hell, being held or unconscious doesn't provoke an AoO.

-Hyp.

True, true. I was attempting to suggest an alternative to the Coup de Grace house rule, which I thought was a little too extreme in comparison to the regular rule of gaining a to hit bonus and defender losing his dex.

To me it seems to be a question of game mechanics and rule consistency versus suspension of disbelief. I am not convinced that being held in the midst of combat offers less chance for an attack of opportunity than casting a spell, but from a game balance point of view you should not be penalized additionally after being already put at a disadvantage by becoming held, even though you are not 'actively defending'.

I think Attacks of Opportunity should ideally be invited in situations that depend upon a character taking a particular action, which usually would be an action that would give him some advantage (casting a spell, drinking a potion etc.) in his current situation. As for two examples of this which are contrary to the current rules: it would mean that 'closing your eyes' in front of a Medusa would draw an attack of opportunity. On the other hand, being bull rushed through some one's threat range would not.

In my view, to hit bonuses, possibility for Coup de Grace, losing your Dex bonus should be dependent upon a particular situation or condition.

I think Attacks of Opportunity are primarily a balacing mechanic, and therefore a good candidate to solve the 'I ignore one opponent to deny the other flanking' problem.

 

[mmu1]

I think any rules for completely ignoring an enemy to avoid being flanked are ludicrous, because they assume that it's somehow strictly up to you to decide whether you're distracted by someone trying to kill you, as if combat was a purely mental activity.

You don't get to ignore the +2 from flanking any more than you get to clench your teeth and ignore the +2 to hit of a charging opponent - it's their bonus, not your penalty, and it's not really under your control.

 

[Tellerve]

I actually don't agree with you mmu1, although I don't think it is a good idea to wander down this path. But the idea of giving a bonus for flanking is that the person's attention is divided between two attackers. It would be unwise to not watch both of them but in real world situactions the person you then concentrated on shouldn't get any bonus. But the guy behind you would obviously be at a great advantage.

Definetely a can of worms that should be kept closed for sanity reason,

Tellerve

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think any rules for completely ignoring an enemy to avoid being flanked are ludicrous, because they assume that it's somehow strictly up to you to decide whether you're distracted by someone trying to kill you, as if combat was a purely mental activity.

You don't get to ignore the +2 from flanking any more than you get to clench your teeth and ignore the +2 to hit of a charging opponent - it's their bonus, not your penalty, and it's not really under your control.

I like this line of thought.

 

[dcollins]

I know this question has come up long ago, but I never caught a thread considering this FAQ response in relation to it:

Some discussion previously took place here: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52451