Say you're facing off with a powerful rogue who's sneak attack could jack you up. One of his allies summons a weak creature to flank you so that the rogue can get his deadly sneak attacks on you. Can you turn all of your defensive focus on the rogue to prevent him from sneak attacking you? What would be the bonus to the other attacker(s)? I'd say +2 or +4 and you're flat-footed. I'm not aware of any rule that covers this but I feel that there shoud be.
If I allowed such a thing, it would go something like this.
You may ignore a creature. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature, which gains the benefits of invisibility. Any abilities that you have that negate these advantages (uncanny dodge, blindfight, etc.) are not useful. Ignored creatures cannot be used to generate a flank with you (although they can flank you). These effects last until the beginning of your next turn, at which point you may ignore the creature again.
However, I doubt very much that I would allow it, since it could be called the "Make Melee Rogues Horrible" rule. One of the main class features of the rogue is the ability to do large amounts of damage when flanking.
Would you like a rule that, at the cost of an AoO, forced a wizard to use not use any of his spells from his highest three levels? Or force a fighter to not use any of his fighter feats? (Actually, if you were in combat with said wizard or fighter, that would be great, but not if you were the fighter or the wizard.) That's the sort of effect this rule would have on rogues.
Say you're facing off with a powerful rogue who's sneak attack could jack you up. One of his allies summons a weak creature to flank you so that the rogue can get his deadly sneak attacks on you. Can you turn all of your defensive focus on the rogue to prevent him from sneak attacking you? What would be the bonus to the other attacker(s)? I'd say +2 or +4 and you're flat-footed. I'm not aware of any rule that covers this but I feel that there shoud be.
If you do not react to the attacks of an opponent, you are helpless with regard to that opponent. That means it can coup de grace you. If you do react to the attacks of an opponent, it cannot CDG you, but it provides flanking bonuses to its allies.
EDIT: To be clear, this isn't an official rule. Officially, you can never ignore an opponent -- if they threaten your square, they are able to provide flanking bonuses. This is my personal ruling on the situation.
Say you're facing off with a powerful rogue who's sneak attack could jack you up. One of his allies summons a weak creature to flank you so that the rogue can get his deadly sneak attacks on you. Can you turn all of your defensive focus on the rogue to prevent him from sneak attacking you? What would be the bonus to the other attacker(s)? I'd say +2 or +4 and you're flat-footed. I'm not aware of any rule that covers this but I feel that there shoud be.
Make sure you have Protection from Evil up so the summomed creature can't threaten you?
I'm not really seeking to nerf the rogue or anything. I just don't feel like you would have to pay attention to a totally ineffective threat. Say someone casts a spell that creates a flanking affect on you but the magical flankers can't hurt you or could only do minimal damage. Why not totally ignore them? It just makes sense.
I'm not really seeking to nerf the rogue or anything. I just don't feel like you would have to pay attention to a totally ineffective threat. Say someone casts a spell that creates a flanking affect on you but the magical flankers can't hurt you or could only do minimal damage. Why not totally ignore them? It just makes sense.
Because if you truly totally ignore them, they can take their time to line up a perfect shot (take a full-round action) into a vulnerable spot in your armor, or slit your throat from behind (coup de grace). Remember, you're completely ignoring them. You're acting like they don't even exist. It's the same as having solipsism cast on you.
As for the spell you mention -- you don't ignore the spell because the spell says you believe it's a real threat.
I think of it this way: if you are ignoring a creature, you are considered helpless to it. Look up "helpless". Go ahead, I'll wait.
As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets his sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.
Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.
That's why you can't ignore that creature. No matter how little a threat it is to you normally, if you don't give at least minimal defense against it, it will kill you at leisure. And that little bit of defense is all the distraction that rogue needs to sneak you.
I disagree that you are helpless to it. You are still moving, you're not paralysed. It still has to line up a perfectly placed strike against a moving target, even if you aren't actively dodging it. You might even have a set of full plate protecting your backside. You're trying to tell me that a summoned monkey is going to be able to kill a 20th level Fighter in full plate if he ignores it?
I agree with the Attack of Opportunity. They definitely should get that, for sure.
|
I disagree that you are helpless to it. You are still moving, you're not paralysed. It still has to line up a perfectly placed strike against a moving target, even if you aren't actively dodging it. You might even have a set of full plate protecting your backside. You're trying to tell me that a summoned monkey is going to be able to kill a 20th level Fighter in full plate if he ignores it?
I agree with the Attack of Opportunity. They definitely should get that, for sure.
If he is *totally* ignoring it, why not? Monkey climbs up to neck, monkey starts biting neck, monkey breaks skin, fighter bleeds, fighter dies.
I agree, if you are completely ignoring something then you're effectively helpless to it. If you are ignoring it to the extent that you're suggesting, which is still moving around and 'dodging', then that's just normal combat. You're focusing your attention on someone else and 'ignoring' the other guy, but only in the loosest sense of the word.
I disagree that you are helpless to it. You are still moving, you're not paralysed. It still has to line up a perfectly placed strike against a moving target, even if you aren't actively dodging it. You might even have a set of full plate protecting your backside. You're trying to tell me that a summoned monkey is going to be able to kill a 20th level Fighter in full plate if he ignores it?
Yes, a monkey is going to be able to kill a fighter in full plate if the fighter makes no move to defend himself, even if the fighter is dancing a jig at the time.
|
No. Let me rephrase: no.
This ability already exists under RAW: Improved Uncanny Dodge. Rogues of sufficiently high level can do it, and they can only really do it against opponents that are lower level than they are or are closely matched.
Flip it around: If you were playing a Rogue, would you consider it fair that the DM allowed NPCs to do this and nerf your character's combat ability? I think most any player would cry "foul!"
-Skeld
I'll remember that fact when I sneak up to someone while I'm invisible, any argument that would allow the formerly flanking fighter a coup de grace will apply to the unseen assailant.
I'll remember that fact when I sneak up to someone while I'm invisible, any argument that would allow the formerly flanking fighter a coup de grace will apply to the unseen assailant.
Incorrect. A standard magically invisible attacker becomes visible the instant they start their attack, before the attack is completed, giving the defender a chance to get out of the way or at least reduce the severity of the attack. Even a greater invisible or naturally invisible (invisible stalkers) attacker provides a split second of warning -- whether it be the whoosh of wind as the sword slices its way towards the defender's neck, the scuff of a foot on the floor, the feeling of wrongness exuded by an ethereal attacker, etc -- allowing the defender to attempt to dodge.
Frogboy is saying that his character is intentionally and completely ignoring his attacker. You don't ignore an invisible attacker, you just don't have as much opportunity to defend yourself against them because you don't have the normal visual cues.
|
|
I'll remember that fact when I sneak up to someone while I'm invisible, any argument that would allow the formerly flanking fighter a coup de grace will apply to the unseen assailant.Incorrect. A standard magically invisible attacker becomes visible the instant they start their attack, before the attack is completed, giving the defender a chance to get out of the way or at least reduce the severity of the attack. Even a greater invisible or naturally invisible (invisible stalkers) attacker provides a split second of warning -- whether it be the whoosh of wind as the sword slices its way towards the defender's neck, the scuff of a foot on the floor, the feeling of wrongness exuded by an ethereal attacker, etc -- allowing the defender to attempt to dodge.
Frogboy is saying that his character is intentionally and completely ignoring his attacker. You don't ignore an invisible attacker, you just don't have as much opportunity to defend yourself against them because you don't have the normal visual cues.
This.
Cosmo made a really good point when I told him that I wanted to get into a debate on the forums and was sad that it would be inappropriate and proceeded to tell him what the debate was:
"Flanking is more than just splitting your attention and fighting two opponents. Even if you were ignoring that other opponent, he could come up and cover your eyes or kick you in the back of the knee. Even if he was completely unable to do damage to you, he could distract you just long enough for your other opponent to get that flanking bonus. So, yeah, flanking is more than just defending from two people. You're literally surrounded on two sides and they're working with each other against you, which gives them advantages even if one of them can't hurt you."
Yep, that's another perfectly valid way of looking at it.
Personally, I'm a "Yes, but..." DM. I rarely tell my players flat-out "No, you can't do that"; I provide them with consequences instead. Sometimes the consequences are harsh enough that they decide they don't really want to do the action they were asking about after all. On the other hand, I have had a player choose to ignore an opponent and take the CDG before. He gambled and it paid off (he made the CDG save as it was pretty low, and the opponent he was focused on missed him on its next attack).
Okay, I'll give this one to you. Frankly, I've never actually tried passing this one over on the DM as it would just make the rules somewhat difficult to manage.
But what happens when an invisible attacker secretly flanks someone without them even knowing about it? All of their attention is still focused on "flanking" rogue but even though he's flanking, you're not paying any attention to invisible stalker on the other side because, well, you don't even know it's there. Does the stalker get to kill you for free? Why does an assassin have to size you up for 18 seconds while your totally unaware to get that potentially killing blow?
That is totally nonsensical. An "exuded wrongness from an ethereal attacker"? That's what Perception checks are for, and in some cases you can actually attack and the target still doesn't notice you.
Being blind and fighting two opponents when you believe there to only be one doesn't give one a free CdG, because from both of their attacks there's a chance you don't even know what square it's coming from.
Actively ignoring someone doesn't make you easier to hit than the broad side of a barn with a massive cross hair over the load-bearing button. You also don't gain flanking bonuses with ranged attacks against people in melee combat with your allies, even if said ally is on the opposite side of your target. That level of argument, you might as well grant flanking bonuses if you're threatened in melee by two or more foes, regardless of where they are in relation.
Okay, I'll give this one to you. Frankly, I've never actually tried passing this one over on the DM as it would just make the rules somewhat difficult to manage.
But what happens when an invisible attacker secretly flanks someone without them even knowing about it? All of their attention is still focused on "flanking" rogue but even though he's flanking, you're not paying any attention to invisible stalker on the other side because, well, you don't even know it's there.
Invisible characters don't flank.
Does the stalker get to kill you for free? Why does an assassin have to size you up for 18 seconds while your totally unaware to get that potentially killing blow?
I already answered this above.
Being blind and fighting two opponents when you believe there to only be one doesn't give one a free CdG, because from both of their attacks there's a chance you don't even know what square it's coming from.
Again, just because you don't know what square the attack is coming from doesn't mean you don't know the attack is coming.
Actively ignoring someone doesn't make you easier to hit than the broad side of a barn with a massive cross hair over the load-bearing button.
Yes, actually, it does. It means you aren't defending against them at all. It means that even though you can see and hear the attack coming, you don't make any move at all to defend yourself. When you don't defend yourself against an attack, you get hit by it.
You also don't gain flanking bonuses with ranged attacks against people in melee combat with your allies, even if said ally is on the opposite side of your target.
How is that relevant to the discussion?
If you do not react to the attacks of an opponent, you are helpless with regard to that opponent. That means it can coup de grace you.
"Awwwwww, come on man! I was trying to dodge the BBEG Ninja! No WAY his pet squirrel ripped out my throat!"
LOL, couldn't resist... I agree, Coup de Grace-ville.
If you do not react to the attacks of an opponent, you are helpless with regard to that opponent. That means it can coup de grace you."Awwwwww, come on man! I was trying to dodge the BBEG Ninja! No WAY his pet squirrel ripped out my throat!"
LOL, couldn't resist... I agree, Coup de Grace-ville.
lol :D
I know. This seems to be one of those things where the rules aren't quite a completely accurate reflection of reality.
Actively ignoring someone doesn't make you easier to hit than the broad side of a barn with a massive cross hair over the load-bearing button.Yes, actually, it does. It means you aren't defending against them at all. It means that even though you can see and hear the attack coming, you don't make any move at all to defend yourself. When you don't defend yourself against an attack, you get hit by it.
So the broad side of a barn is harder to hit than a Pixie who's zipping around, dodging an attacker from one side but completely ignoring you? Interesting. :)
No, they're both automatically successful attacks assuming they're in range. You cannot miss a stationary object; you don't even roll to hit them.
So are you selling those Cosmo dolls?
No, they're both automatically successful attacks assuming they're in range. You cannot miss a stationary object; you don't even roll to hit them.
And even an automatic hit from the ignored flanker isn't enough, even if it were a mindless constuct that's blindly clubbing at the living thing in front of it. Assassins everywhere are in deep regret at the years of training spent to perfect that killing blow. :(
D&D 3.0 (hated it) not only ...
Did you just do an Antoine Merriweather?
Assassins everywhere are in deep regret at the years of training spent to perfect that killing blow. :(
Why? Assassins aren't dealing with people who deliberately decide not to defend against their attacks.
Here is a hypothetical situation:
1. A character is flanked by two enemies, though he is unaware of the second one. The first enemy does not get sneak attacks on him.
2. After he is made aware of the second enemy, the first enemy does get sneak attacks.
And yet we all know that simply being unaware of someone does not give them the opportunity to perform a coup de gras on you.
I think it makes sense to presume that you are merely unaware of the enemy you choose to ignore. The issue with rogue power could be handled differently - for example, the "ignored" character making Feint attempts to grant the rogue sneak attacks.
And yet we all know that simply being unaware of someone does not give them the opportunity to perform a coup de gras on you.
That's because you become aware of their attack when it is made and act to defend yourself. You are never unaware of an attack against you. Even if a creature is greater or naturally invisible and completely silent, you always know when you're being attacked and can always defend yourself to some degree. It's a lesser degree, barring uncanny dodge or similar ability, because you're missing some of the cues that you normally use to identify and attack, which decreases your ability to react.
That's entirely different from being aware of a foe and choosing not to react to its attacks at all.
I'd allow ignoring a foe at the cost of them getting free shots (+4 to hit, let's say, and maybe auto AoOs when you do stuff) in on you. Rogue melee damage is way too much IMO anyway, but that may be the 1e and 2e in me talking. "Backstab" used to be hard to set up but now as a rogue you're pretty much a chump if you don't have a way for every single attack you make to be a sneak attack. Ineffective flankers are cheese.
Assassins everywhere are in deep regret at the years of training spent to perfect that killing blow. :(Why? Assassins aren't dealing with people who deliberately decide not to defend against their attacks.
No, they don't decide that deliberately. Not sure how that would change anything though.
No, they don't decide that deliberately. Not sure how that would change anything though.
Because, again, in D&D there is no such thing as an attack you are not aware of. You always get that split second to twist so that the attack potentially misses your heart (or wherever). The exception is when you voluntarily choose to take the hit so that it doesn't distract you from "the real threat", which is exactly what you proposed in the original post.
No, they don't decide that deliberately. Not sure how that would change anything though.Because, again, in D&D there is no such thing as an attack you are not aware of. You always get that split second to twist so that the attack potentially misses your heart (or wherever). The exception is when you voluntarily choose to take the hit so that it doesn't distract you from "the real threat", which is exactly what you proposed in the original post.
Well, can you just divert 99.9% of your attention and just make that ever so slight twist just so you don't die?
Nope. That split second of inattention is all it takes for the rogue in front of you to sneak attack you.
EDIT: I want to re-iterate, because it seems like people missed this in my original post:
By RAW, you have no option to avoid flanking unless you have a feat or class feature that says otherwise. The ruling I've been debating here (you can choose to ignore a flanker at the cost of being helpless towards that flanker) is my own personal house rule.
Nope. That split second of inattention is all it takes for the rogue in front of you to sneak attack you.
EDIT: I want to re-iterate, because it seems like people missed this in my original post:
By RAW, you have no option to avoid flanking unless you have a feat or class feature that says otherwise. The ruling I've been debating here (you can choose to ignore a flanker at the cost of being helpless towards that flanker) is my own personal house rule.
The helpless part is really just not intelligent. By that idea simply being flat footed should make you "helpless" too. If you ignore them you don't know they are there but that simply means you are flat footed to them -- as if they were invisible. Since an invisible foe can't just CDG you by being invisible it makes no sense to say someone you are ignore could do it. You are still moving which makes the CDG impossible at best.
My current house rules is you can ignore a foe at expense of being flat footed for that foe.
The helpless part is really just not intelligent. By that idea simply being flat footed should make you "helpless" too. If you ignore them you don't know they are there but that simply means you are flat footed to them -- as if they were invisible. Since an invisible foe can't just CDG you by being invisible it makes no sense to say someone you are ignore could do it. You are still moving which makes the CDG impossible at best.
I've already explained this twice in this thread. What is it about these boards that people refuse to read all the posts in a thread before they respond? Why get insulting when you're responding directly to a post where I say "these are my own personal house rules"?
Personally Frogs I've always found it odd that trained soldiers like fighters and paladins can be flanked even though they are used to fighting in huge melees on a battle field, but rogues and reckless barbarians are tough to flank...
I've toyed with this idea, but unless rogues become abusive not used it. I do however still use 3.5 Fortification rules so....
Say you're facing off with a powerful rogue who's sneak attack could jack you up. One of his allies summons a weak creature to flank you so that the rogue can get his deadly sneak attacks on you. Can you turn all of your defensive focus on the rogue to prevent him from sneak attacking you? What would be the bonus to the other attacker(s)? I'd say +2 or +4 and you're flat-footed. I'm not aware of any rule that covers this but I feel that there shoud be.
One of the game designers on the WoTC website also believed it should be possible, but the downside is that you are flat-footed against that character if you use his houserule.
I think it make sense common sense wise, but I dont think its fair to the rogue.
My opinons:
If you choose to ignore character you should lose a lot. If he tries to take your sword(disarm), as an example he does not have to roll against your CMD. CMD is actively trying to prevent X. You can't actively do anything against someone you are ignoring. The only thing I would allow is your strength mod to CMD.
You lose your dex to AC. If the character is willing to use a full round action they should at least get an automatic crit.
I would not allow this at all, but if I did the above and more would take place. You may be a 20th level X, but a knife between your rib cages is a knife between rib cages, and all the levels in the world won't change that.
Personally Frogs I've always found it odd that trained soldiers like fighters and paladins can be flanked even though they are used to fighting in huge melees on a battle field, but rogues and reckless barbarians are tough to flank...
I've toyed with this idea, but unless rogues become abusive not used it. I do however still use 3.5 Fortification rules so....
I am pretty sure that when tribes go to war the barbarians go through the same thing. The barbarian living in the wild is probably also occasionally jumped by some wild animal. The fighter normally only has to worry about being jumped when he is on the battlefield. I would think the rogue's associates would be the reason their guard is always up.
|
I'd have the tendancy to allow the ignored flanker to attack normally or at +4 ATT (his opponet who happens to be ignoring him is still dodging and weaving his chosen foe) but let all successful attacks be automatic criticals - you ignore the enemy he hits you where it hurts. I tend to do the same if someone attacks invisibly, ethereally etc. They get a free perception test and failing that the invisible attacker gets a free critical with his FIRST hit, after that the target knows something is attacking him so he's more wary of the foe, OR if you don't like that make a perception test every round (DC of about 0-5 since the invisible attacker if being far less than sleathly if he's engaged you in meelee)
Again, just because you don't know what square the attack is coming from doesn't mean you don't know the attack is coming.
Did you see my other mention about Perception? It's not an automagic trait to know about every attack. It is actually feasible to get attacked and not even know it happened if it missed, in which case you very much not making any attempt to defend yourself against the attack, and yet the rules still do not give a CdG for the assailant.
"You're literally surrounded on two sides and they're working with each other against you, which gives them advantages even if one of them can't hurt you."
I don't really see a better way of saying this so I'll just quote Chris.
A dog or another animal who wouldn't be able to harm you could easily trip you or knock you off balance. Maybe it doesn't hurt you and you don't fall over but it's that sort of distraction that rogues take advantage of.
My suggestion is that perhaps you are looking at the wrong issue. The spell in question is the bigger issue. Spiritual weapon is much more realistic.
If Concentration still existed, I'd suggest using a Concentration check to see if you were able to keep focusing on the rogue to prevent them sneak-attacking you.
Unfortunately, this is one area that Spellcraft doesn't work well as a replacement.
It's not an automagic trait to know about every attack.
Yes, actually, it is. Otherwise the attacker could just take 20 on their initial attack.
|
On the subject of invisible opponents flanking. The way i read the spell description (and every other G.M. i know) you become immediately visable upon completing your attack not prior to it. In a sense it gives you one invisible attack then upon contact you lose it.
The reason you cannot use invisibility to coup de grace is nothing to do with the fact you are invisible but down to the fact that your opponent is still moving and not helpless.
On the subject of invisible opponents flanking. The way i read the spell description (and every other G.M. i know) you become immediately visable upon completing your attack not prior to it.
Nope, that's not how it works. You become visible the moment of the attack. "If the subject attacks ... it immediately becomes visible", not "If the subject attacks ... it becomes visible upon completion of the attack". And before anyone says anything, it does matter. If you know there's an invisible being in the room, you can ready an action to attack it the instant it becomes visible. That makes the order of operations very important because readied actions interrupt the action they're readied against, so if that attack kills the previously-invisible critter its attack never happened.