Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
(rough draft, to be revised after commentary)
Perceived Threats, Ignored and Distraction
The Threat rules in Pathfinder, and the related rules for Flanking and Aiding Another in combat, are ambiguous in some contexts and contentious in others. And if an overly strict interpretation of the RAW (“Rules as Written”) is applied, they can defy logic and common sense. For example, a mage may Threaten a lich with a Ghoul Touch spell to which the undead are either immune or an illegal target–and thereby grant an ally Flanking–but may not Threaten the lich with an empty hand even if he has convinced the lich via Bluff that he has just prepared some epic holy Touch spell which will not only disintegrate the lich but destroy his phylactery too.
Obviously this should be remedied with a more liberal interpretation.
The best place to start is the text of the Fascination rules:
Fascinated: A fascinated creature is entranced by a supernatural or spell effect. The creature stands or sits quietly, taking no actions other than to pay attention to the fascinating effect, for as long as the effect lasts. It takes a –4 penalty on skill checks made as reactions, such as Perception checks. Any potential threat, such as a hostile creature approaching, allows the fascinated creature a new saving throw against the fascinating effect. Any obvious threat, such as someone drawing a weapon, casting a spell, or aiming a ranged weapon at the fascinated creature, automatically breaks the effect. A fascinated creature’s ally may shake it free of the spell as a standard action.
A “potential threat” and an “obvious threat” here mean the same as they do in English: a potential source of harm and an obvious source of harm. However, in the Pathfinder world, anything is a potential source of harm–the barmaid could be a vampire, the beer keg could be a mimic, the coffee table could be an animated object ready to ram your shins.
That said, unless an individual is extraordinarily paranoid, he will likely view these as what they appear to be, and while anything is possible, some things are more likely than others. Similarly, while casting a spell may be viewed as an obvious threat by most, those with Spellcraft will find nothing malicious in a stranger casting Comprehend Languages, and will likely raise eyebrows and cluck disapprovingly at companions who unsheathe swords upon spotting this harmless personal spell. In other words, perception of threat is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Backing up this interpretation is the fact that medusae and other creatures with all-around vision are immune to Flanking since they can’t have others sneak up behind them and can pay attention to two individuals at once.
Now on to the Threat rules for combat. In combat, Threatening something is defined as being able to make a melee attack into an adjacent square, rather like how a king in chess threatens all his adjacent squares. This follows except for the fact that a roleplaying game is not chess, and other rules hinge on this rule. For example, the Flanking rules require two allies to be Threatening a victim from opposite sides, but this makes no sense from a roleplaying perspective unless the victim regards both opponents as threats.
For example, consider an alley by a temple lined with stone gargoyles. One of the gargoyles, however, is an actual monster. Everyone who walks in the squares in front of it is Threatened from a combat perspective, but will not feel threaten until and unless the gargoyle chooses to attack, revealing itself to be something other than another statue.
Now consider that the gargoyle is allied with an evil rogue who ambushes travelers from the other side of the alley, pinning the victims between himself and the gargoyle. By the straight rules, the rogue and the gargoyle both gain Flanking bonuses against their victim, but if the gargoyle is not attacking and not doing anything other than holding his action and posing as a stone statue, there is no logical reason why this would work: The victim would be concentrating fully on the rogue and ignoring the gargoyle since he’s not aware of it as a threat, nor has it revealed itself to be one.
This can be remedied by adding an Ignored Rule: If a victim does not regard a threat as a threat, it is not considered one for purposes of Flanking. Any Ignored creature gains all the benefits of being of invisible with regards to the individual Ignoring them until that individual stops Ignoring them and regards them as a threat. Moreover, any creature which is not Ignored can grant Flanking bonuses to an ally.
The status of being Ignored ends whenever the victim chooses or when the Ignored creature successfully deals damage. If the victim wishes to continue Ignoring the creature after it has dealt damage and thus proven itself to be a threat, he must make a concentration check of 10 + the damage dealt. If he fails, he cannot Ignore that creature for the rest of the combat.
The other rule to add to help the roleplaying situation is the Distraction Rule. There are many creatures and effects which may not be able to cause damage in melee but which will still be viewed as a threat by a victim even if they may not “Threaten” in the combat sense. These are considered Distractions.
The most obvious of these is illusions of the figment subtype. Figments cannot deal any physical damage, but can fool opponents into thinking they might, and thus are usually Distractions until a Will save is made and they are revealed to be figments.
Other Distractions include anyone casting an unidentified spell. Unless identified by a Spellcraft check as something harmless to the victim, all spellcasting by enemies is regarded as a Threat unless proven otherwise.
The other large category of Distractions is Bluffs. If an unarmed opponent can succeed in a Bluff check opposed by the victim’s Sense Motive check, he may convince them that he poses a Threat even when he doesn’t. He may convince them he’s the master of esoteric martial arts, has cast a deadly spell, possesses a dangerous magic item or anything the subject finds convincing and would be wary of. This persists for as many rounds as the Bluff roll exceeded the Sense Motive by. Subsequent Bluffs are at a penalty equal to the rounds of all previous Bluffs with that same opponent. As with disbelieving an illusion, other allies witnessing this Bluff and succeeding in a Sense Motive against it or otherwise knowing it to be false may inform the victim of this and let him make a new Sense Motive check at a bonus of +4
The last type of Distraction is the “Behind You!” Bluff and the “Matador” Bluff. If he can succeed a Bluff check at 10 over his opponent’s Sense Motive, he can convince them for one round that there is one of his allies behind them or beside them, granting him Flanking or Aid Another on himself. Each successive attempt at this same maneuver for the combat is 5 higher than the previous difficulty.
Zurai |
This can be remedied by adding an Ignored Rule: If a victim does not regard a threat as a threat, it is not considered one for purposes of Flanking. Any Ignored creature gains all the benefits of being of invisible with regards to the individual Ignoring them until that individual stops Ignoring them and regards them as a threat. Moreover, any creature which is not Ignored can grant Flanking bonuses to an ally.
The status of being Ignored ends whenever the victim chooses or when the Ignored creature successfully deals damage. If the victim wishes to continue Ignoring the creature after it has dealt damage and thus proven itself to be a threat, he must make a concentration check of 10 + the damage dealt. If he fails, he cannot Ignore that creature for the rest of the combat.
You'll have to define Concentration checks in terms that non-spellcasters can use (currently it's defined entirely in terms of spellcasters), but otherwise I could get behind this system. It's still pretty much a net gain when flanked by two rogues (unless the rogues are unlikely to hit you without the invisibility bonuses), but only temporarily. Concentration DC 10+bunchad6 is unlikely to be passed.
Jared Ouimette |
I like your ideas, but I don't think they will be widely implemented for one reason: Speed of Play.
Combats already take 15-30 minutes for a gaming group to complete. Adding rules will only exacerbate the time constraint problem. This is why the grappling rules were streamlined, they took too long to figure out.
Boxhead Contributor |
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
Okay, why?
All you can accomplish is prevent AoOs and sneak attacks, but you add a LOT of rules. Does that help your game? If so, go for it.
Part of the "Why" was a disagreement in another thread about the rules and the inability to find specific RAW to back up the Perception argument I was making. However, I've since found that:
Q. Suppose an ally of mine is attacking one foe, then I
somehow become invisible, draw my sword, and move to
the other side of that foe, thus flanking the foe. Does my ally
still get a flanking bonus even if I am invisible?A. You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and
who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can’t see
you, you don’t provide a flanking bonus to any ally.
Sharp readers will note that this means you cannot flank a
blind creature; however, truly blind creatures are effectively
flanked already (they can’t use their Dexterity bonus to AC and
you a +2 bonus to attack them). Creatures with the blindsight
ability effectively “see” within blindsight range and can be
flanked.
The whole bit of the above about "Perceived threats" is basically reitterating this in a different way so is no addition to the rules. And the business with the illusions is basically unnecessary since it's already allowed.
About the only things that are new House Rules are the "Ignored" rule and the rules for using Bluff to convince a foe that you're posing a threat when you're not or making him think you have an ally when you don't.
fanguad |
The other use of this new Ignore rule:
A rogue 10 jumps your warrior 10 in an alley. Let's say you see it coming, so he can't get sneak attack damage.
Old:
He pulls out a dog from a bag of tricks and tosses it behind you. You're now flanked and he can sneak attack you for massive damage. There's nothing you can do about this sneak attack damage.
New:
With the ignore rule, you could chose to Ignore the dog (granting him large bonuses against you), but since the dog is not really a credible threat, this doesn't matter. You can give 100% of your concentration to the rogue now, preventing sneak attack at the (very slight) risk of getting hit by the dog.
fanguad |
If we define "credible threat" as something that can hit you on anything other than a natural 20, then the dog is not a credible threat. That's why I picked a fighter - it's reasonable to assume his AC and CMD are both at least 23. If he Ignores the dog according to this rule, it still needs at least 16 (ish) to hit him - a chance I think the fighter is willing to take to avoid being sneak-attacked by the rogue.
This rule even accounts for what happens if the dog manages to hit him... it suddenly becomes much harder for the fighter to ignore it - he has to make concentration checks.
----------
Overall, I like this houserule, although the Concentration thing would need to be worked out.
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
Oh, agreed. When I explained this to my players, I specifically used the example of the dog. The dialogue they immediately came up with? "Screw Toto--I'm concentrating on the rogue."
It makes a lot more sense.
I'm still trying to figure out a way to make the concentration check work in all circumstances. Maybe a Will save every time the ignored creature hits, maybe something like 10 + damage dealt. Though this doesn't work if the ignored creature is casting a spell or doing something other than causing direct damage.
Spacelard |
Oh, agreed. When I explained this to my players, I specifically used the example of the dog. The dialogue they immediately came up with? "Screw Toto--I'm concentrating on the rogue."
It makes a lot more sense.
I'm still trying to figure out a way to make the concentration check work in all circumstances. Maybe a Will save every time the ignored creature hits, maybe something like 10 + damage dealt. Though this doesn't work if the ignored creature is casting a spell or doing something other than causing direct damage.
WILL save 10+CMB of attacker?
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:WILL save 10+CMB of attacker?Oh, agreed. When I explained this to my players, I specifically used the example of the dog. The dialogue they immediately came up with? "Screw Toto--I'm concentrating on the rogue."
It makes a lot more sense.
I'm still trying to figure out a way to make the concentration check work in all circumstances. Maybe a Will save every time the ignored creature hits, maybe something like 10 + damage dealt. Though this doesn't work if the ignored creature is casting a spell or doing something other than causing direct damage.
That's workable, but not quite what I'd want. I'm trying to avoid something that telegraphs the true threat level of the attacker, however. CMB measures strength + size bonuses, which are things that are obvious to the defender, but BAB too, which is not anything that the defender should know about.
I'm thinking just 10 + damage dealt is a lot neater. Toto may have gotten a critical hit and be doing all in his power or he may be a hellhound masquerading as a scottie dog and that was just a minor nip. The defender shouldn't know. The only thing the rule should say is that the thing that just hurt you a whole lot is harder to Ignore than the thing that just hurt you a little, regardless of their BAB, which is just their capacity for harm, not the actual harm they've done.
Spacelard |
Spacelard wrote:Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:WILL save 10+CMB of attacker?Oh, agreed. When I explained this to my players, I specifically used the example of the dog. The dialogue they immediately came up with? "Screw Toto--I'm concentrating on the rogue."
It makes a lot more sense.
I'm still trying to figure out a way to make the concentration check work in all circumstances. Maybe a Will save every time the ignored creature hits, maybe something like 10 + damage dealt. Though this doesn't work if the ignored creature is casting a spell or doing something other than causing direct damage.
That's workable, but not quite what I'd want. I'm trying to avoid something that telegraphs the true threat level of the attacker, however. CMB measures strength + size bonuses, which are things that are obvious to the defender, but BAB too, which is not anything that the defender should know about.
I'm thinking just 10 + damage dealt is a lot neater. Toto may have gotten a critical hit and be doing all in his power or he may be a hellhound masquerading as a scottie dog and that was just a minor nip. The defender shouldn't know. The only thing the rule should say is that the thing that just hurt you a whole lot is harder to Ignore than the thing that just hurt you a little, regardless of their BAB, which is just their capacity for harm, not the actual harm they've done.
Okay, what about WILL save X+ maximum possible damage?
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
Okay, what about WILL save X+ maximum possible damage?
How is a defender supposed to know what the maximum damage capacity of a foe is? That's just BAB again but worse.
I really don't want to use any mechanic that gives the character/player metagame telepathy.
If it looks like a little bunny rabbit, you can ignore it until it suddenly does enough damage to nearly rip off your head. Then not only you likely can't ignore it anymore, but you don't want to.
Spacelard |
Spacelard wrote:Okay, what about WILL save X+ maximum possible damage?How is a defender supposed to know what the maximum damage capacity of a foe is? That's just BAB again but worse.
I really don't want to use any mechanic that gives the character/player metagame telepathy.
If it looks like a little bunny rabbit, you can ignore it until it suddenly does enough damage to nearly rip off your head. Then not only you likely can't ignore it anymore, but you don't want to.
I know what you mean. The players don't need to know the DC though only the DM does. I do think what ever mechanic you use you give metagame telepathy, the only way around that is not to announce the DC. However imagine their faces when little bunny rabbit snuggles in and you ask for a DC 30 WILL save to ignore.
Just bouncing ideas...Aberrant Templar |
I'm thinking just 10 + damage dealt is a lot neater. Toto may have gotten a critical hit and be doing all in his power or he may be a hellhound masquerading as a scottie dog and that was just a minor nip. The defender shouldn't know. The only thing the rule should say is that the thing that just hurt you a whole lot is harder to Ignore than the thing that just hurt you a little, regardless of their BAB, which is just their capacity for harm, not the actual harm they've done.
Why not run it similar to the spellcasting concentration check?
Make the DC 10+damage dealt. Roll 1d20 plus your character level. If you meet or beat the DC then you can continue to ignore the person. Otherwise you can't and they flank you.
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
I'm thinking just 10 + damage dealt is a lot neater. Toto may have gotten a critical hit and be doing all in his power or he may be a hellhound masquerading as a scottie dog and that was just a minor nip. The defender shouldn't know. The only thing the rule should say is that the thing that just hurt you a whole lot is harder to Ignore than the thing that just hurt you a little, regardless of their BAB, which is just their capacity for harm, not the actual harm they've done.Why not run it similar to the spellcasting concentration check?
Make the DC 10+damage dealt. Roll 1d20 plus your character level. If you meet or beat the DC then you can continue to ignore the person. Otherwise you can't and they flank you.
I think that's about the perfect solution. Easy and egalitarian for all classes.
(And the look on players faces when you pull an absurd DC out for a bunny rabbit may also be disgust at bizarre DM cheese.
I still remember the Mage game I played where the DM sent out his own homebrewed specially extra-antimagic reinforced Hit Marks that no one could touch with anything because of the ultra-secret alloys they were made with. We quickly dubbed the alloy Munchkinium and these were the Munchkinium Hit Marks and we just started laughing about them because there was nothing else we could do. Embarrassed, the DM then nerfed them into something in the realm of game possibility.
As it was decided later, Munchkinium was obviously a Changeling alloy, since it was immune to everything except disbelief and ridicule.)
Aberrant Templar |
DC10+damage dealt may be too low in some cases. unless it is exlusively character level, plus possibly consititution modifier. (other additional modifiers make it too easy). if you want to add a combat casting like feat. increase the dc.
I would just make it a straight character level. No (or very, very few) modifiers. It is a lower DC than some of the combat casting stuff, but it also doesn't have all the modifiers.
mdt |
Honestly, why introduce a mechanic that makes the game more complicated? Combat is slow enough already.
I just allow a defender to choose to ignore all opponents except one if they choose. The opponent they pay attention to they get full AC agains, anyone they ignore get's 2x flanking bonus.
Under normal circumstances, a +4 to hit (normal flanking x 2) is enough to make the defender think twice, and doesn't add extra die rolls to the game.
Zurai |
I just allow a defender to choose to ignore all opponents except one if they choose. The opponent they pay attention to they get full AC agains, anyone they ignore get's 2x flanking bonus.
Then you trivialize encounters with multiple rogues. Getting an additional +2 to attack in no way makes up for being unable to sneak attack. It's an obvious, no-brainer choice.
mdt |
mdt wrote:I just allow a defender to choose to ignore all opponents except one if they choose. The opponent they pay attention to they get full AC agains, anyone they ignore get's 2x flanking bonus.Then you trivialize encounters with multiple rogues. Getting an additional +2 to attack in no way makes up for being unable to sneak attack. It's an obvious, no-brainer choice.
Uhm,
What part of that sentence said that multiple rogues would not still get sneak attack? Sneak attack says 'You flank someone'. I didn't say 'You aren't flanked' I just said they could ignore the other flankers to concentrate on one. Now, will that one rogue lose flanking? Yes. The other one or two or three will eviscerate the defender in the meantime with a +4 and sneak attack on top of it.Zurai |
Zurai wrote:mdt wrote:I just allow a defender to choose to ignore all opponents except one if they choose. The opponent they pay attention to they get full AC agains, anyone they ignore get's 2x flanking bonus.Then you trivialize encounters with multiple rogues. Getting an additional +2 to attack in no way makes up for being unable to sneak attack. It's an obvious, no-brainer choice.Uhm,
What part of that sentence said that multiple rogues would not still get sneak attack? Sneak attack says 'You flank someone'. I didn't say 'You aren't flanked' I just said they could ignore the other flankers to concentrate on one. Now, will that one rogue lose flanking? Yes. The other one or two or three will eviscerate the defender in the meantime with a +4 and sneak attack on top of it.
You're right that I misunderstood your rule, but you're wrong that it still isn't a net gain for the guy being flanked by rogues. You need exceptionally high AC compared to the rogues' chance to hit, or many rogues all surrounding one character, in order for it to be worse than not ignoring the extras. In a case of two rogues on one character, it's always better unless the character has enough AC that the ignored rogue requires the additional +2 to hit on anything other than a 17-20.
fanguad |
You're right that I misunderstood your rule, but you're wrong that it still isn't a net gain for the guy being flanked by rogues. You need exceptionally high AC compared to the rogues' chance to hit, or many rogues all surrounding one character, in order for it to be worse than not ignoring the extras. In a case of two rogues on one character, it's always better unless the character has enough AC that the ignored rogue requires the additional +2 to hit on anything other than a 17-20.
That's the whole point. Better to get sneak-attacked once than sneak-attacked twice.
I don't think there's disagreement about the end result here. Just disagreement about whether the end result is a good thing. In this case, it's good for the fighter and bad for the rogue. People's opinions seem to vary depending on which side of the fight they imagine themselves on.
Zurai |
That's the whole point. Better to get sneak-attacked once than sneak-attacked twice.
Refer to my original statement: It trivializes encounters with multiple rogues. Rogues are given their CR because it's assumed they can flank to get their only means to deal notable damage. Removing the ability to do that means 1 rogue per character being flanked by a rogue is basically not even a factor in the fight. This, in turn, leads to a pretty dramatic decrease in EL for the fight.
mdt |
You're right that I misunderstood your rule, but you're wrong that it still isn't a net gain for the guy being flanked by rogues. You need exceptionally high AC compared to the rogues' chance to hit, or many rogues all surrounding one character, in order for it to be worse than not ignoring the extras. In a case of two rogues on one character, it's always better unless the character has enough AC that the ignored rogue requires the additional +2 to hit on anything other than a 17-20.
That's sort of the point of this whole conversation, if you're surrounded, you can try to hold up against everyone, or you can concentrate on the most dangerous and give the other person openings and hope for the best. The idea is what makes the most sense from a defenders point of view.
The thing is, once you do that, more than likely the rogues buddies are going to go 'Oooh! Fresh target!' and disengage their current opponent to go attack that guy, or just move over if they don't already have one. The guy is surrounded, he's not going to live unless he can stretch it out long enough for his own buddies to come to his rescue, and sometimes that means paying more attention to the dangerous guy and less to his cohort.
EDIT: LOL, Ninja'd and Ninja Replied! That's what happens when you get a phone call in the middle of posting.
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
Agreed.
I'm fully on the side of combat realism here, regardless of which class gets perks and which class gets negatives.
And in reality, a character shouldn't know "this is a fighter/this is a rogue," but just "here is a guy in heavy armor/this is a guy in lighter armor" and concentrate on whatever he thinks the bigger threat is.
If the smaller threat is a dog, I think ignoring the dog may be an excellent combat tactic since the dog's teeth can't pierce platemail but a short sword certainly can.
Zurai |
Agreed.
I'm fully on the side of combat realism here, regardless of which class gets perks and which class gets negatives.
And in reality, a character shouldn't know "this is a fighter/this is a rogue," but just "here is a guy in heavy armor/this is a guy in lighter armor" and concentrate on whatever he thinks the bigger threat is.
If the smaller threat is a dog, I think ignoring the dog may be an excellent combat tactic since the dog's teeth can't pierce platemail but a short sword certainly can.
The difference is that your proposed system isn't a guaranteed, no-holds-barred always-certain benefit in most circumstances, and there's a built-in method for the ignoree to stop being ignored. The same cannot be said (on either point) of mdt's system.
mdt |
Agreed.
I'm fully on the side of combat realism here, regardless of which class gets perks and which class gets negatives.
And in reality, a character shouldn't know "this is a fighter/this is a rogue," but just "here is a guy in heavy armor/this is a guy in lighter armor" and concentrate on whatever he thinks the bigger threat is.
If the smaller threat is a dog, I think ignoring the dog may be an excellent combat tactic since the dog's teeth can't pierce platemail but a short sword certainly can.
Exactly, and, he might make a mistake and pick the wrong guy to ignore! Imagine ignoring the rogue for the fighter. I'm making it hard for him to hit me twice and do 1d8+4 at 70%/45%, but the rogue is hitting him at 95% with sneak attack for 4d6+3? Ouch, wrong guy. Next round he'll switch to guarding against the rogue, but then the fighter is cracking in with 90%/65% and getting two hits.
Where I've really seen it happen is with the dog example above, ignoring a very weak enemy (like a cohort who's missing) and usually it's only after a round or two of combat when it becomes obvious the cohort is whiffing their attacks more often than not.
For example, I had a player with a Kobold in Half-Plate Adamantine armor, he was being attacked from one side by a BugBear with a handaxe, and from the other side by a goblin with a spear. The bugbear was hitting and doing damage, the goblin was doing 1 hp every other round (thanks to the adamantine DR). He ignored the goblin and focused on the bugbear. The goblin started doing 1hp per round (could hit him easier) but the bugbear now whiffed every other second attack. Killed the bugbear and then turned and killed the goblin. Took a lot of damage doing it, but survived.
mdt |
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:The difference is that your proposed system isn't a guaranteed, no-holds-barred always-certain benefit in most circumstances, and there's a built-in method for the ignoree to stop being ignored. The same cannot be said (on either point) of mdt's system.Agreed.
I'm fully on the side of combat realism here, regardless of which class gets perks and which class gets negatives.
And in reality, a character shouldn't know "this is a fighter/this is a rogue," but just "here is a guy in heavy armor/this is a guy in lighter armor" and concentrate on whatever he thinks the bigger threat is.
If the smaller threat is a dog, I think ignoring the dog may be an excellent combat tactic since the dog's teeth can't pierce platemail but a short sword certainly can.
*shrug*
Then don't use it. I find that reducing the amount of rolls and speeding up combat more than makes up for your perceived issue. And, my system is not always-certain benefit. In certain situations, yes, it is, in others, it isn't. It all depends on who is attacking and who isn't.
Uchawi |
I would implement the ignore rule as a static modifier where you remove the +2 "to hit" from the person in front of you, and add +4 to the person behind you. In addition, since you are ignoring everyone at the expense of one person, anyone else that attacks you gains a +2 bonus to hit as well.
Ideally, you would only use this maneuver if you are very confident with your AC, or the creatures you are fighting are trivial (much lower level). Or you are fighting a tough opponent who throws out a weak minion (for flanking advantage).
What I don't agree with is denying a rogue their sneak attack for flanking as that is built into the current combat system.
In addition a set of static modifiers won't slow down combat, versus skill rolls.
Luminiere Solas |
why must rogues be denied sneak attack? it's like stripping fighters of thier bonus feats. a fighter depends on his feats, a rogue depends on those extra dice. even if the rogue took craven, he still cannot compete with the fighter. the fighter's static plusses are that much better. and they have more HP and AC too. and better to hit.
an uberfied 2 weapon rogue with tons of splatbook feats/alternate class (dungeonscape and champions of ruin have 2 essential contributors) features shines brightest from 7th level to 9th level only to be outclassed again by the 11th level fighter.
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
why must rogues be denied sneak attack? it's like stripping fighters of thier bonus feats. a fighter depends on his feats, a rogue depends on those extra dice. even if the rogue took craven, he still cannot compete with the fighter. the fighter's static plusses are that much better. and they have more HP and AC too. and better to hit.
an uberfied 2 weapon rogue with tons of splatbook feats/alternate class (dungeonscape and champions of ruin have 2 essential contributors) features shines brightest from 7th level to 9th level only to be outclassed again by the 11th level fighter.
Honestly, if I put out some house rule that breaks someone's uber-twinked combat monstrosity based on some unforeseen synergy between a half dozen feats from as many splat books? Then I think I've done a good job as a DM.
My use for the RAW ends when it gets in the way of my suspension of disbelief. I cannot believe in a battle-trained trained fighter who is so distracted by Toto yapping and nipping at his heels that he continually looks at the dog so that Toto's master can stick another short sword in his kidneys.
Not every fight has to be fair in every given environment. If you're standing in the middle of the gladiatorial arena, the fight should reasonably go to the fighter. If you're fighting dirty in the middle of the market stalls where there's a lot of distractions and stuff to hide behind, the fight should go to the rogue.
Zurai |
Honestly, if I put out some house rule that breaks someone's uber-twinked combat monstrosity based on some unforeseen synergy between a half dozen feats from as many splat books? Then I think I've done a good job as a DM.
You either didn't read his post thoroughly, or didn't understand/chose to ignore his point.
His point was that even with all that splat monstrosity, rogues don't do the damage that core fighters do, so putting in a rule that is basically specifically targeted at removing the rogue's only real source of damage is an un-needed nerf.
mdt |
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:Honestly, if I put out some house rule that breaks someone's uber-twinked combat monstrosity based on some unforeseen synergy between a half dozen feats from as many splat books? Then I think I've done a good job as a DM.You either didn't read his post thoroughly, or didn't understand/chose to ignore his point.
His point was that even with all that splat monstrosity, rogues don't do the damage that core fighters do, so putting in a rule that is basically specifically targeted at removing the rogue's only real source of damage is an un-needed nerf.
Would it make you feel better if it was a feat? Honestly, I've only rarely had it show up in game, and usually only when something like a 3rd level goblin is flanking an 8th level fighter at the same time a 10th level minotaur was attacking said fighter. I'm sorry, you got a 12 foot tall minotaur with a battle axe on one side chopping holes in the air doing 2d6+12, or a 2 foot tall goblin on the other going 'Stabey Stabey Stabey' with his 1d4-1 spear? Who are you going to pay attention to?
Combat Focus
You are able to focus on one dangerous enemy, ignoring the lesser dangers of the battlefield, possibly to your own detriment however.
Prerequisites: BAB +1
Benefit: When flanked by two or more opponents, as a swift action, you may designate one opponent as your 'focus', negating his flank status (including bonus to attack rolls). However, as a side effect, any other opponent attacking you from any direction gains flank status but doubles their flanking bonus against you. You may stop focusing on a single opponent and return your attention to the fight in general as another swift action.
Zurai |
<snip rant>
I wasn't talking or in any other way referring to you. The hostility is uncalled for.
EDIT: And to answer your question, no. I also wouldn't allow a feat that said "You can choose any one character with Fighter bonus feats. He loses access to those feats for as long as you choose", "You can choose any one character with spellcasting. He cannot cast spells for as long as you choose", "You can choose any one character with the bardic performance ability. He loses access to that ability for as long as you choose", etc etc. Unbalanced rules aren't magically balanced just because you turn them into a feat.
mdt |
mdt wrote:<snip rant>I wasn't talking or in any other way referring to you. The hostility is uncalled for.
Seriously, what hostility?
Would it make you feel better if it was a feat?
Hmm, nope, no hostility there, was a question. Like, 'Would it make you feel better if it was blue?' or 'Would it make you feel better if I gave you my book?'.
Honestly, I've only rarely had it show up in game, and usually only when something like a 3rd level goblin is flanking an 8th level fighter at the same time a 10th level minotaur was attacking said fighter.
Hmmm, nope, no hostility there either. Was relating a situation where the rule as I use it showed up in game.
I'm sorry, you got a 12 foot tall minotaur with a battle axe on one side chopping holes in the air doing 2d6+12, or a 2 foot tall goblin on the other going 'Stabey Stabey Stabey' with his 1d4-1 spear?
Hmm, nope, no hostility there either. Accurately describing the situation related above. Had a kobold in breast plate with a minotaur doing 2d6+12 vs a 2 foot tall goblin on the other side going 'Stabey Stabey Stabey' with his 1d4-1 spear. He really was going 'stabey stabey stabey' over and over again. I thought it was funny, the players laughed their ***es off at the goblin.
Who are you going to pay attention to?
Hmmm, no hostility here either. Asking a serious question, if you were in the same situation for real, which would you pay more attention to.
Zurai |
Perhaps "hostility" was the wrong word. Maybe "pressure" or "frustration" would be a better word. Like I said, that post had absolutely nothing to do with you, yet you responded to it in a manner that appeared to have at least some angst to it, for lack of a better term coming to mind at the moment.
Selgard |
I don't really see it as a problem of realism.
Our characters live in a world where cats and dogs (and snakes, and squirrels. and.. whatever) Can and Do become other things.
Is that a 1HD dog attacking you tandem with that dagger wielding gent?
Are you sure?
are you positive?
are you going to turn your back on it, because you are so sure?
I mean, seriously. Wildshape? Familiars? Polymorph?
While its true your average peon isn't really afraid of the black cat who just walked by, your 5th+ level adventurer has seen enough of the world to be a little more cautious.
Yes, even if its a dog he just dragged out of a Portable hole.
Secondly.
Metagaming.
Sure, the dog may not be able to get through your 4500 AC (that wasn't a typo) but can you honestly tell me that a dog wouldn't worry a person in full plate? and by worry i don't mean "oh no i'm shaking in my plate boots". I mean worry- as in to bother, and create trouble for.
the dog might not be able to bite through your boot but he's There and hes causing trouble for you.. more than enough to create the issue of trying to fight someone -else- while the dog is there.. even if you choose to ignore the dog.
The Dog, afterall is not trying to ignore you. And when you ignore him and he smacks into you, the rogue slips his dagger into a chink in your armor.. their job is done.
-S
mdt |
Perhaps "hostility" was the wrong word. Maybe "pressure" or "frustration" would be a better word. Like I said, that post had absolutely nothing to do with you, yet you responded to it in a manner that appeared to have at least some angst to it, for lack of a better term coming to mind at the moment.
I just picked it as the most recent one you made. No angst or hostility or frustration, was just offering another way of doing it you might like better along with what I thought was a funny story from the game where it came into play.
I still think a 2 foot goblin screaming 'Stabey Stabey Stabey' as he tinks his small spear off the back of a kobolds adamantine breast plate and is utterly ignored is hilarious.
mdt |
I don't really see it as a problem of realism.
Our characters live in a world where cats and dogs (and snakes, and squirrels. and.. whatever) Can and Do become other things.
Is that a 1HD dog attacking you tandem with that dagger wielding gent?
Are you sure?
are you positive?are you going to turn your back on it, because you are so sure?
I mean, seriously. Wildshape? Familiars? Polymorph?
While its true your average peon isn't really afraid of the black cat who just walked by, your 5th+ level adventurer has seen enough of the world to be a little more cautious.
Yes, even if its a dog he just dragged out of a Portable hole.Secondly.
Metagaming.
Sure, the dog may not be able to get through your 4500 AC (that wasn't a typo) but can you honestly tell me that a dog wouldn't worry a person in full plate? and by worry i don't mean "oh no i'm shaking in my plate boots". I mean worry- as in to bother, and create trouble for.
the dog might not be able to bite through your boot but he's There and hes causing trouble for you.. more than enough to create the issue of trying to fight someone -else- while the dog is there.. even if you choose to ignore the dog.The Dog, afterall is not trying to ignore you. And when you ignore him and he smacks into you, the rogue slips his dagger into a chink in your armor.. their job is done.
-S
I believe earlier I'd stated it would be stupid to do this until you'd been attacked a couple of times and knew you were being attacked by something on one side that was dangerous and on the other that wasn't.
In my example, the kobold got hit 3 times by the goblin before he started ignoring him. That was three rounds into the fight. And I agree, I would absolutely use a wild-shaped druid to get in a nice attack on someone who always used it. That's how I keep it balanced, my players know that looks can be deceiving and they don't do this until it's obvious IC that the dog is just a dog and can't penetrate their armor.
mdt |
Zurai wrote:Perhaps "hostility" was the wrong word. Maybe "pressure" or "frustration" would be a better word. Like I said, that post had absolutely nothing to do with you, yet you responded to it in a manner that appeared to have at least some angst to it, for lack of a better term coming to mind at the moment.I just picked it as the most recent one you made. No angst or hostility or frustration, was just offering another way of doing it you might like better along with what I thought was a funny story from the game where it came into play.
I still think a 2 foot goblin screaming 'Stabey Stabey Stabey' as he tinks his small spear off the back of a kobolds adamantine breast plate and is utterly ignored is hilarious.
Actually, I think the goblin was the only one to live through the fight on the NPC side. Once the 3rd minotaur went down, he failed a courage check and took off at a run screaming 'run away run away run away' at the top of his lungs.
Laurefindel |
Personnally, I see two angles here:
As far as suspension of disbelief goes, I don't think ANYONE involved in a fight should be disregarded as being less threatening. In a fight, ANYONE could be a serious threat, even Toto the yapping dog or Stabey the goblin.
Yet, I also find the easiness with which 2 combatants can "sandwich" an opponent in D&D ridiculous; my suspension of disbelief is working hard there. In the meantime, also in D&D, attacking 2-on-1 without actually flanking gives no advantage whatsoever, which I find also hard to believe.
Also, I find it hard to believe that the rogue knows where to get my kidney in a fight but the fighter doesn't...
But to a certain extent, that is not important. D&D is a simulation of fantasy fighting, not the real thing. Within its own paradigm, I'm willing to accept the game as it is with its strengths and the few things that I can't stomach but are necessary to play the game (such as the concept of hit points). So I know that in real life, the advantage of number goes beyond more potential attack and that flanking or "sandwiching" should be a lot harder than it seems on the battle map. But in D&D, flanking is how combat advantage is represented and I have to admit that mechanically: it works.
For me (and this is a very personal perception), this whole idea of ignoring threats is yet another strategic option given to the players. This means that smart players will be able to survive more challenging threats. I realize that it also requires the player (the rogue especially) to play smarter in order to get the full strength of its sneak attack ability. In the end, I think it adds to the game more than it nerf the rogue.
I believe a concentration roll should be called for, because if I try to translate it i real life, that's what I'd be doing. But in a system where Toto the dog and Stabey the goblin are TRULY not threatening, I could go with no necessary roll without stretching my suspension of disbelief much further.
my 2 cents on the matter...
'findel
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:Honestly, if I put out some house rule that breaks someone's uber-twinked combat monstrosity based on some unforeseen synergy between a half dozen feats from as many splat books? Then I think I've done a good job as a DM.You either didn't read his post thoroughly, or didn't understand/chose to ignore his point.
His point was that even with all that splat monstrosity, rogues don't do the damage that core fighters do, so putting in a rule that is basically specifically targeted at removing the rogue's only real source of damage is an un-needed nerf.
Honestly, if I wanted to do a nerf, I'd just remove flanking entirely from the game.
That's not what I'm wanting to do.
I can understand the screams from the Society for the Preservation of the Sacred Wubbie. Honestly, I do. I like playing illusionists, and I get annoyed when every third prestige class and random monster seems to get True Seeing because the designers wanted to give them some perk and couldn't think of anything more original. That said, if there really is an all seeing oracle, she probably is a real pain for the illusionists.
My contention is that flanking doesn't make much sense, because it doesn't allow a defender to concentrate on one opponent, and that should probably be the operative word: concentrate. Once someone has damaged you--not annoyed you, not yapped at you, not waved a red cape at you as if you were no smarter than a bull, but actually damaged you--you should have to make a concentration check to ignore them.
If Toto the dog and Stabby the goblin are unable to harm you, you've made a wise decision to ignore them to begin with.
Zurai |
That's fine. Like I said in my original post in this thread, I can more or less agree with this implementation of the concept (it's less harsh but not much more powerful than my implementation, which is that the creatures being ignored treat you as helpless). I was just pointing out that you'd not addressed the point of that particular post, and I felt the point really did want addressing.
Aberrant Templar |
Refer to my original statement: It trivializes encounters with multiple rogues. Rogues are given their CR because it's assumed they can flank to get their only means to deal notable damage. Removing the ability to do that means 1 rogue per character being flanked by a rogue is basically not even a factor in the fight. This, in turn, leads to a pretty dramatic decrease in EL for the fight.
Well, it would prevent 1 rogue (the rogue the character is concentrating on) from sneak attacking the character for one round. The other rogue (the one being ignored) will still be able to sneak attack the character and, once he does, it is very unlikely he will be able to be ignored anymore as the DC will be too high.
Kevin, I'd probably include something in there about "once a creature has proved to be a threat you can't ignore that creature again". At least for the same fight. Or something.
Kevin Andrew Murphy Contributor |
The "proved to be a threat" by doing just one point of damage once in the battle rule is ripe for abuse.
The quick and easy min-max with that? The rogue sends his mage friend around the other side of the tank, armed with a quarterstaff and True Strike. He won't be able to do it again, but so long as he's there, he's a flanker. Yay min-max cheese! Or not.
I'm not going to fix what I see as a broken rule with what I see as an equally broken patch.
I'll stick with it being a concentration check on the part of the defender. That fits fight choreography and it is never a certain thing either way, and that's something I like.
Aberrant Templar |
The "proved to be a threat" by doing just one point of damage once in the battle rule is ripe for abuse.
The quick and easy min-max with that? The rogue sends his mage friend around the other side of the tank, armed with a quarterstaff and True Strike. He won't be able to do it again, but so long as he's there, he's a flanker. Yay min-max cheese! Or not.
I'm not going to fix what I see as a broken rule with what I see as an equally broken patch.
I'll stick with it being a concentration check on the part of the defender. That fits fight choreography and it is never a certain thing either way, and that's something I like.
So the defender would have to roll a concentration check every round?
Luminiere Solas |
why should i allow a player to if flanked by a man in plate with a greatsword and a little girl in a kimono with a dagger ignore the little girl a second time if she ripped one of the player's lungs out with a dagger (sneak attack) and the fighter cutting a deep gash amongst that same players opposite side. both doing humongous amounts of damage.
heres an addition. if a creature deals damage to you equal to 10 plus your level plus twice your constitution modifier, you can never ignore that target again. you will always associate that target as a threat. you will know the harm they have done to you. anyone who looks extremely similar to the target you cannot ignore either. for example, a 12 year old 7th level female tian rogue in a kimono deals 22 damage to an 6th level fighter with 14 constitution, since it broke his threshhold of 20. the fighter can never ignore that little girl again, or any other 12 year old tian girl wearing a kimono with similar cosmetic features. (such as pigmentation, facial features, build, or clothing) (the fighter will always be reminded of the wound the little girl caused)