|
An attack must be completed to become an attack otherwise it's just thinking of an attack. Granted the wording should be better but you have to complete the attack to gain the condition. Upon attacking whether it be swinging an axe or throwing a punch you have made an agressive action causing the spell to drop. Once the attack has been initiated an opponent is not going to have time to react as the time it takes to complete an attack is miniscule.
In reference to readying an attack against an invisisble opponent. Even if you know there is an invisible opponent in the room you cannot in my opinion ready an attack action anyway, unless you know for certain which square the invisible opponent is in or coming at you from. If there are 8 empty squares surrounding your character you cannot prepare to attack them all that is unless you have eyes in the back of your head. It would mean your character is continually turning on the spot watching 360 degrees around him therefore not readying an attack against a specific threatened square. If you guess the square correctly fair enough. This is why you get a flanking bonus as a defending characters attention is split between the guy in front of him and the guy behind him.
Yes, actually, it is. Otherwise the attacker could just take 20 on their initial attack.
Where does it say that? Or is this just a series of inscrutable house rules you're pulling out to support your nonsensical decision that you allow a CdG for ignoring someone? You couldn't Take 20 on your initial attack anyway, what with it not being a skill check; not to mention that you can still hit on less than a 20, in which case your victim is now aware of a threat being present and will actually move.
As an aside, I do wonder about the idea/implications of an invisible foe that hasn't revealed itself flanking with a rogue, or even after the invisible foe has revealed itself (and is still invisible).
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"?
First I don't mean to be insulting, so I appologize for doing so, and I do understand these are your house rules. I did read and I do understand your position.
I don't agree with it, it doesn't make sense, and it isn't supported with how the rules work already. An attacker you are unaware of for whatever reason treats you as flat footed. To suddenly say that instead of this you are helpless is a huge leap that doesn't connect. Helpless lets you CDG as a full round action because they aren't moving at all. Any movement means it is impossible to perfectly line up the shot to make it an auto critical and possibly killing blow. Even just having concealment means that it takes two rounds to CDG someone -- 1 to find them the second to actually CDG.
Being unaware of someone is not the same as being helpless to them, the rules already give examples of being unaware of someone and what happens in those situation. To not expand directly off the rules with your house rule just doesn't make sense.
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.
I don't understand this. How do you decide which rules you let your players break? If I was a paladin and wanted to cast wizard spells? How about my monk getting to move 50' and then attack? Can I trade my free and immediate actions for a standard action? How about pulling up on the grip of a reach weapon to threaten nearby squares?
Why have rules at all? I can come up with any half-assed rational for any action I want. If I get one good enough to convince you I get to break the rules? (I like to call that cheating)
Continued in my next post. . .
I know. This seems to be one of those things where the rules aren't quite a completely accurate reflection of reality.
What does reality have to do with *anything*. You can cast spells in this game. When we get sick do we lose hit points? Is there some machine at the hospital they can hook me up to that tells me how many I have left? It's a *game*. Reflecting reality is not a design goal - having fun is.
Is there a problem with the flanking rule? Is there some reason it's unbalanced or needing review? I am having trouble understanding the reasoning behind letting the player cheat. What is the problem with the rule from a design perspective?
I don't understand this. How do you decide which rules you let your players break?
By applying common sense, intelligence, and the rule of cool (is it cool? yes? does it break the game? no? then the answer is yes!).
If I was a paladin and wanted to cast wizard spells?
I'd probably allow a switch for the first four levels of bard spells if the character concept was sound. I'd also probably allow a custom spell list if the concept was sound and the custom list had the same general power level of the paladin spell list, but my players don't usually like to go through that much effort. I'd enforce that they were arcane spells and thus suffered an arcane spell failure chance, though, and they'd lose the ability to cast from the normal paladin spell list and lose the ability to take the Battle Blessing feat, which auto-quickens every paladin spell.
How about my monk getting to move 50' and then attack?
This is already allowed in the rules. It's even allowed to move 50' then full attack if they can find a way to gain pounce, and there are quite a few of those.
Can I trade my free and immediate actions for a standard action?
No. Actions are one of the few things I don't have any give on. Fortunately, my players have also never asked such a silly question.
How about pulling up on the grip of a reach weapon to threaten nearby squares?
I'd tell them to take the feat Short Haft from PHB2.
Why have rules at all? I can come up with any half-assed rational for any action I want.
If it's a half-assed rationale, I say no. If bending the rule is going to break the game (see your silly "can I trade a free and an immediate for a standard?" question), I say no. If it's a good character concept and bending the rule isn't going to cause mechanical problems with the game, I say "yes, but <consequence>" or "yes, if <action>". Is it really that hard to understand?
If I get one good enough to convince you I get to break the rules? (I like to call that cheating). I am having trouble understanding the reasoning behind letting the player cheat.
By that definition, all house rules are cheating. Frankly, that's more than a little insulting. It's not cheating because I say it's not. It's not cheating because it's a cooperative game and all players are aware of the rules alteration. The only way to cheat in D&D is to break a rule without the DM's permission. Rule Zero (it's a game, have fun) and Rule One (the DM's word is law) gives me all the permission and justification I need as a DM to change any rule I want to at any time.
It would mean your character is continually turning on the spot watching 360 degrees around him
This is the basic assumption of the 3rd edition combat rules. There is no facing in D&D. If a character were surrounded by 8 medusas, they would have to make 8 saves against the petrifying gazes (unless they averted their gaze or shut their eyes, of course). Since they take the penalties of having 360 degree vision, they also get the benefits of 360 degree vision -- one of which is being able to ready an attack against an invisible foe.
Where does it say that?
Where does it say you aren't? The rules work much more smoothly if you don't make characters morons who are unable to detect a sword passing through the space a half inch to their side. This is D&D, not one of those cartoons where the drunk guy is oblivious to all the weapons just missing him.
I don't agree with it, it doesn't make sense, and it isn't supported with how the rules work already. An attacker you are unaware of for whatever reason treats you as flat footed. To suddenly say that instead of this you are helpless is a huge leap that doesn't connect. Helpless lets you CDG as a full round action because they aren't moving at all.
It makes sense enough that two or three other people in this thread (out of what, 8 total posters?) have agreed with me. That's more than enough vindication for a set of personal house rules, as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, an attacker that you're unaware of but willing to defend yourself against treats you as flat footed. I've never denied that. I've also never said that an attacker that you're unaware of and willing to defend yourself against treats you as helpless... that's you, frogboy, and virgil. I've explained myself two or three times now, and I'm not going to do it again. Feel free to not like my house rule; I never asked you to use it in your games.
Even just having concealment means that it takes two rounds to CDG someone -- 1 to find them the second to actually CDG.
This is actually not true. If they are helpless, you can take a full round action to deal maximum critical damage and force them to make a Fort save vs 10+damage or die. There's no chance of a miss. Concealment doesn't enter the picture unless it's TOTAL concealment, which is a very, very different thing.
I disagree completely on what it means to ignore an opponent I guess. Helpless gives you a Dex of 0, and flat footed, in addition to the inability to move or take action. To me you are completely Unaware of the creature you are ignoring but you aren't helpless. I can be completely unaware of an invisible creature but that doesn't mean the invisible creature can CDG. To me the similarity between the situations is too great to ignore, and create a new way to be helpless... especially when you aren't helpless.
It's not a question of if I want to defend myself, it's a question of if they can CDG just from me being unaware of them.
Even ignoring them they would provoke by moving away, and since doing a CDG provokes this is another problem I have with your house rule.
(EDIT: agree on the CDG and concealment, it does take total concealment ot require extra time to locate the victim.)
Even ignoring them they would provoke by moving away, and since doing a CDG provokes this is another problem I have with your house rule.
I'm not going to debate the other stuff yet again, especially since you insist on continuing to misrepresent my position, but I'm especially amused by this comment because you're not even being consistent with yourself. You said being helpless makes you flat-footed. Flat-footed creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
Even ignoring them they would provoke by moving away, and since doing a CDG provokes this is another problem I have with your house rule.I'm not going to debate the other stuff yet again, especially since you insist on continuing to misrepresent my position, but I'm especially amused by this comment because you're not even being consistent with yourself. You said being helpless makes you flat-footed. Flat-footed creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
No you are misreading what I'm saying, but I did mess up on the flat-footed and AoO part.
However I still maintain it's exactly the same as being unaware of an opponent which is not the same as being helpless but is exactly the same as being caught by an opponent that you are unaware of because they are either invisible or you didn't know they were there.
Your position is that if you ignore an opponent and go about your regular stuff with no regard to what they are doing they can sit there and treat you as if you are helpless to them (which you are not, you are unaware of them) and then be CDG by them.
In which case if I play in a campaign you use this rule in then I'm going to insist you let me CDG opponents that are unaware of me for whatever reason.
In effect I see ignoring an opponent as making their next action towards you the same as if you were surprised by them (except they can take an full round action instead of simply a standard or move action).
I also agree that "helpless" is going way too far, and that it's just another way of saying "no," since even the most pathetic opponent can coup de grace you and have a good chance of killing.
+4 to hit and flat-footed is perfect. You still can't afford to ignore anyone who's a credible threat - you're not ignoring the warrior in favor of the rogue - but you are ignoring the Summon Monster I when you're a 20 HD dragon.
There are clear different levels of distraction already. One level is distractions that grant an attack of opportunity but with your full AC. Worse is flanking that grants sneak attacks at a diminished AC. There's surprised/flat-footed, which is slightly worse. Then there's helpless, which really is sleeping/paralyzed/tied up/bleeding out. We don't need more different levels/rules, we just need to pick the one that fits best. Helpless IMO goes way too far, and you're already flanked, so the flat-footed level is just right, as Goldilocks would say.
Your position is that if you ignore an opponent and go about your regular stuff with no regard to what they are doing they can sit there and treat you as if you are helpless to them (which you are not, you are unaware of them) and then be CDG by them.
No, it isn't. That's your misrepresentation of my position. Please stop, go back about a dozen posts, and start reading again. I have already explained this. Please stop blatantly lying about what I'm saying. What I'm saying has nothing at all to do with being aware of an opponent and everything to do with choosing to defend against an opponent.
To my mind they are just ignoring them. They are still aware that they are there, you can't ignore something that you aren't aware of, and I would treat them as being flatfooted and would be subject to sneak attacks. I wouldn't allow a CdG as that is a full round action and as soon as that started I would hope that the player concerned would react. If not then I would be tempted to allow it.
I also agree that "helpless" is going way too far, and that it's just another way of saying "no," since even the most pathetic opponent can coup de grace you and have a good chance of killing.
And yet I've had characters accept the consequences and ignore an opponent, so clearly it isn't a "no". The consequences are severe because being able to ignore a flank at will is a severe mechanical advantage; you normally have to go through half a dozen levels in a specific class to get the ability to do that, and even then it's beatable by a rogue higher level than you.
To my mind they are just ignoring them. They are still aware that they are there, you can't ignore something that you aren't aware of, and I would treat them as being flatfooted. I wouldn't allow a CdG as that is a full round action and as soon as that started I would hope that the player concerned would react. If not then I would be tempted to allow it.
Ahh, that's the thing -- they aren't allowed to react once they've decided not to react to attacks from the ignored opponent. That's the entire point of the house rule.
To my mind they are just ignoring them. They are still aware that they are there, you can't ignore something that you aren't aware of, and I would treat them as being flatfooted. I wouldn't allow a CdG as that is a full round action and as soon as that started I would hope that the player concerned would react. If not then I would be tempted to allow it.Ahh, that's the thing -- they aren't allowed to react once they've decided not to react to attacks from the ignored opponent. That's the entire point of the house rule.
Why not?
If that snarky little halfling starts climbing up his back or whatever and takes a full round action to set up his CdG what stops the player from reacting to it in those six seconds?5' step as a free action and your out of the way.
Agreed if as a DM you state that the "insert name here" has whipped out a dagger and is readying to draw it across your PCs throat/stick into kidneys and the player still ignores the threat then a CdG might be possible.
But to me there is a world of difference between ignoring something, being unaware of it and being helpless.
Why not?
If that snarky little halfling starts climbing up his back or whatever and takes a full round action to set up his CdG what stops the player from reacting to it in those six seconds?
What stops the player? The player (who is aware of my rule) has already told me "I'm going to ignore whatever the halfling does and focus my attention on the other guy"; thus, the player stops the player from reacting. I don't allow "psyche!" in my game. Once you've made an informed decision you don't get to go back on it when you find out the result of the consequence sucks. As the saying goes at our table, "all mistakes are final" (and yes that applies to the DM, too; I've had some encounters that would have been a lot harder if I'd remembered to have creatures actually use certain special abilities).
EDIT: I dunno, maybe I havn't been clear on this. This rule is entirely player-initiated. I never use this one against the PCs because, frankly, doing so would just make it too easy on them (free CDGs? my players would be all over that). The player has to tell me "I'm choosing to not defend myself against Opponent 1 so that Opponent 2 doesn't get flanking benefits against me", at which point his character will stop trying to defend himself against Opponent 1.
To my mind they are just ignoring them. They are still aware that they are there, you can't ignore something that you aren't aware of, and I would treat them as being flatfooted. I wouldn't allow a CdG as that is a full round action and as soon as that started I would hope that the player concerned would react. If not then I would be tempted to allow it.Ahh, that's the thing -- they aren't allowed to react once they've decided not to react to attacks from the ignored opponent. That's the entire point of the house rule.Why not?
If that snarky little halfling starts climbing up his back or whatever and takes a full round action to set up his CdG what stops the player from reacting to it in those six seconds?
5' step as a free action and your out of the way.
Agreed if as a DM you state that the "insert name here" has whipped out a dagger and is readying to draw it across your PCs throat/stick into kidneys and the player still ignores the threat then a CdG might be possible.
But to me there is a world of difference between ignoring something, being unaware of it and being helpless.
It is unfair to the rogue to deny a class ability. Assuming this was a real rule the fighter would have to decide at the beginning of the round if the opponent was ignored, and it should not change until the next round.
You can't power attack for your first attack, realize you misjudged the opponent, then not power attack for the next 3 attacks. Either you get to ignore the character or you don't If you choose to ignore you should have to deal with the penalties the entire round.One abuse is could occur when the rogue has a higher init, and you deny the flank by ignoring his buddy. You attack the rogue. The ignored character goes, but you suddenly change your mind and decide to pay attention to him. That is not fair at all.
There are also different levels of ignoring people in real life. If this were an actual rule I am sure it would have set conditions. As a rogue what would you* consider to be fair compensation to just allow anyone, to effectively have uncanny dodge all the time, no matter what their level is.
If there was a feat that allowed you to raise your AC against one target, while lowering it against another that might work, but to negate a class ability out right as a common ability is nonsense.
you*=those that think its fair to allow anyone to ignore a flanker
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.
So if a Rogue attacks someone while he is invisible and not flanking his opponent, he only gets a sneak attack on the first strike?
I also agree that "helpless" is going way too far, and that it's just another way of saying "no," since even the most pathetic opponent can coup de grace you and have a good chance of killing.
+4 to hit and flat-footed is perfect. You still can't afford to ignore anyone who's a credible threat - you're not ignoring the warrior in favor of the rogue - but you are ignoring the Summon Monster I when you're a 20 HD dragon.
There are clear different levels of distraction already. One level is distractions that grant an attack of opportunity but with your full AC. Worse is flanking that grants sneak attacks at a diminished AC. There's surprised/flat-footed, which is slightly worse. Then there's helpless, which really is sleeping/paralyzed/tied up/bleeding out. We don't need more different levels/rules, we just need to pick the one that fits best. Helpless IMO goes way too far, and you're already flanked, so the flat-footed level is just right, as Goldilocks would say.
This is pretty much what I thinks makes the most sense. I would add in a free AoO to any ignored opponents as well since you're leaving yourself open.
I know. This seems to be one of those things where the rules aren't quite a completely accurate reflection of reality.What does reality have to do with *anything*. You can cast spells in this game. When we get sick do we lose hit points? Is there some machine at the hospital they can hook me up to that tells me how many I have left? It's a *game*. Reflecting reality is not a design goal - having fun is.
Is there a problem with the flanking rule? Is there some reason it's unbalanced or needing review? I am having trouble understanding the reasoning behind letting the player cheat. What is the problem with the rule from a design perspective?
Magic might not be based on reality but combat and all of those combat manuevers are. There's a reason that grappling used to be "complex". You had to make a touch attack (get you hands on your opponenet). Then you had to make an opposed grapple check (to establish the hold). Since you are initiating a grapple, your opponent has to use grapple and can't make an escape artist check until a hold is actually in place. Then you can do various actions that make sense while holding on to someone including pinning them. Then you have different actions that can be attempted since your even more tangled up. These rule at least used to be based on reality. They were however replaced with the CMB system which doesn't do as good a job but is a nice time saver.
And no, there's no problem with the flanking rule as-is. It might not reflect reality but I have no intention of changing in my game. Makes for an interesting debate though, don't ya think? :)
So if a Rogue attacks someone while he is invisible and not flanking his opponent, he only gets a sneak attack on the first strike?
That is correct, unless he has a way to stay invisible the entire round.
That is correct, unless he has a way to stay invisible the entire round.
So if a Rogue attacks someone while he is invisible and not flanking his opponent, he only gets a sneak attack on the first strike?
+1. It's always been that way.
To my mind they are just ignoring them. They are still aware that they are there, you can't ignore something that you aren't aware of, and I would treat them as being flatfooted. I wouldn't allow a CdG as that is a full round action and as soon as that started I would hope that the player concerned would react. If not then I would be tempted to allow it.Ahh, that's the thing -- they aren't allowed to react once they've decided not to react to attacks from the ignored opponent. That's the entire point of the house rule.Why not?
If that snarky little halfling starts climbing up his back or whatever and takes a full round action to set up his CdG what stops the player from reacting to it in those six seconds?
5' step as a free action and your out of the way.
Agreed if as a DM you state that the "insert name here" has whipped out a dagger and is readying to draw it across your PCs throat/stick into kidneys and the player still ignores the threat then a CdG might be possible.
But to me there is a world of difference between ignoring something, being unaware of it and being helpless.It is unfair to the rogue to deny a class ability. Assuming this was a real rule the fighter would have to decide at the beginning of the round if the opponent was ignored, and it should not change until the next round.
You can't power attack for your first attack, realize you misjudged the opponent, then not power attack for the next 3 attacks. Either you get to ignore the character or you don't If you choose to ignore you should have to deal with the penalties the entire round.
One abuse is could occur when the rogue has a higher init, and you deny the flank by ignoring his buddy. You attack the rogue. The ignored character goes, but you suddenly change your mind and decide to pay attention to him. That is not fair at all.There are also different levels of ignoring people in real life. If this were an actual rule I am sure it...
I did edit my original to state that the rogue would get a sneak attack as I would treat the charcter as flatfooted.
I've read through the thread but this right here is one thing I wanted to point out. The character engaged in focused combat with somebody else is not a stationary object, he's constantly moving and fighting.
I never said a character engaged in focused combat was a stationary object, thanks. The question was whether a barn was HARDER to hit than a character engaged in combat.
I think the main issue with Zurai's house rule is the level of ignoring in question here. When I think of ignoring, I think of focusing my attention on something else. I'm not entirely oblivious to the presence of what I'm ignoring, but I'm also not aware of what exactly it's doing. So, for me, I would probably go with flat-footed and +4 AC.
What Zurai is talking about would be a near zen-like level of ignoring. Quite literally removing the presence of the ignored enemy from your mind. While this is possible, and would definitely allow the character in the middle to negate the flanking bonus, I'd still say a coup-de-grace is a bit of a stretch. After all, a CdG is a lined-up shot against a stationary opponent. Even if I'm ignoring you, I'd still be moving around to dodge my opponent, making it a lot harder to specifically target the little weak points necesary for a death attack. I would, however, say that auto-criticals on successful hits (probably with the +4 to hit of the 'lesser' ignoring applied) and treating the target as flat-footed sounds reasonable.
Though, I'd probably also allow the ignored character to ready a 'distraction' used on the flanker's turn to allow that rogue to still get his sneak attack. This way, if the small animal or insubstantial creature wants to be helpful, it could still try to trip up the poor sap in the middle.
Yeah, this adds an extra level of complexity, but (since I have yet to play a campaign into the higher levels) my players don't seem to mind. If it becomes a problem, I'll fix it then.
Of course, if coup-de-grace works in your campaign, and your players are willing to take that risk, cool for them. More options in combat is always a good thing, imo.
What Zurai is talking about would be a near zen-like level of ignoring. Quite literally removing the presence of the ignored enemy from your mind.
Not quite. It's more like "Sheathing the Sword" from The Wheel of Time books (or various other similar concepts in other literature and shows). You're abandoning all your defense towards the opponent and allowing him to strike you at will so that you can focus all your attention on the 'more dangerous' foe. It's not an exact translation because Sheathing the Sword is only shown being used against a single opponent, but that's the general concept.
What Zurai is talking about would be a near zen-like level of ignoring. Quite literally removing the presence of the ignored enemy from your mind.Not quite. It's more like "Sheathing the Sword" from The Wheel of Time books (or various other similar concepts in other literature and shows). You're abandoning all your defense towards the opponent and allowing him to strike you at will so that you can focus all your attention on the 'more dangerous' foe. It's not an exact translation because Sheathing the Sword is only shown being used against a single opponent, but that's the general concept.
But still, I think my analysis is close. That said, I do like the rule, I just think CdG is a little harsh. Especially for my own games, where all of my players seem to have abysmal rolls everywhere outside of character creation.
As to the concept you are mentioning, I'm a little confused.'Sheathing the Sword' is abandoning your defense to focus on the greater threat, but it is used against a single opponent? Wouldn't that make it only one threat to begin with?
As to the concept you are mentioning, I'm a little confused.'Sheathing the Sword' is abandoning your defense to focus on the greater threat, but it is used against a single opponent? Wouldn't that make it only one threat to begin with?
Like I said, it's not an exact translation. Spoilers for Wheel of Time:
I'm sure I could dig up a reference to a similar concept being used against multiple opponents, it's just that the Wheel of Time reference came to me first.
Mainly I wanted to re-emphasize that it's not about making yourself unaware of your other opponent, it's about choosing not to defend yourself against him. You're still aware of him, you just choose not to react to him so that the "primary" foe doesn't get any advantage from your reactions.
EDIT: And yes, it IS harsh. It's intended to be. I don't want my players to ignore flanks willy-nilly, and I assure you they'd use the "oh you're just flat-footed" every time they were flanked, especially the characters with no dex to AC anyway. Being flat-footed isn't much of a penalty to most characters, especially when you can choose not to be flat-footed OR flanked to the rogue doing 6d6 sneak attack per hit. Hell, that'd even be a net gain against a pair of 6d6 sneak rogues; you're flanked anyway, so they'd both do +6d6. If you can ignore one of them so that you're flat footed towards him (but so what, he was sneak attacking you anyway) but not flanked by the other, you're taking way less damage each round for no penalty at all. That's bad game mechanics. My way, you really can't afford to ignore that second rogue because you're going to be facing a minimum of a DC 48 save-or-die.
Like I said, it's not an exact translation. Spoilers for Wheel of Time:** spoiler omitted **
I'm sure I could dig up a reference to a similar concept being used against multiple opponents, it's just that the Wheel of Time reference came to me first.
Mainly I wanted to re-emphasize that it's not about making yourself unaware of your other opponent, it's about choosing not to defend yourself against him. You're still aware of him, you just choose not to react to him so that the "primary" foe doesn't get any advantage from your reactions.
Ah, that makes sense to me now. It's like Iai-do from the kendo schools. Completely ignoring defense in favor of attacking more efefctively. Or, in this case, ignoring one side of defense to improve defense against another. I can see how you drew a CdG from that reference, but I think I'd probably leave that out of my own games.
Like I said, my characters have a notorious ability to fail when placed in situations on and below their level of ability. I've seen far more than my fair share of natural 1s in just 3 years of being a DM. It's quite amusing, though, to see a bunch of (essentially) super-human heroes who can't hold on to their sword in a fight with CR 1/3 goblins.
I can see how you drew a CdG from that reference, but I think I'd probably leave that out of my own games.
Like I said, my characters have a notorious ability to fail when placed in situations on and below their level of ability. I've seen far more than my fair share of natural 1s in just 3 years of being a DM. It's quite amusing, though, to see a bunch of (essentially) super-human heroes who can't hold on to their sword in a fight with CR 1/3 goblins.
Heh. Yeah, I hear you. One of the running jokes in our group is that one of the players rolls an average of like 1.5 on a d6 or 4.5 on a d20 when he's playing a PC and an average of 5 on a d6 or 19 on a d20 when he's DMing. It's quite remarkable how badly he rolls as a player and how insanely well he rolls as a DM (we do play with open rolls by the DM, so it's not like he's just telling us he rolled so well -- we can all see the dice).
My rule's not for everyone, I freely admit and accept that. I'd also support the "even if he can't hurt you, he can still distract you" and the "ignored opponents get automatic criticals on successful attacks" interpretations, too. Flat-footed just isn't enough of a deterrant.
Ah, that makes sense to me now. It's like Iai-do from the kendo schools. Completely ignoring defense in favor of attacking more efefctively. Or, in this case, ignoring one side of defense to improve defense against another.
It's funny, this *doesn't* make sense to me now - what does this have to do with the rules in the pathfinder book?
It's funny, this *doesn't* make sense to me now - what does this have to do with the rules in the pathfinder book?
Ah, that makes sense to me now. It's like Iai-do from the kendo schools. Completely ignoring defense in favor of attacking more efefctively. Or, in this case, ignoring one side of defense to improve defense against another.
This debate is not based on a real rule. It is all hypothetical. Basically we are trying to figure out what is fair penalty to avoid a sneak attack through flanking that is gained by ignoring the flanking character.
It's funny, this *doesn't* make sense to me now - what does this have to do with the rules in the pathfinder book?
You've already established that you view any deviation from RAW as cheating, so there's no place for you in a discussion of house rules. Please stop trolling.
It's funny, this *doesn't* make sense to me now - what does this have to do with the rules in the pathfinder book?You've already established that you view any deviation from RAW as cheating, so there's no place for you in a discussion of house rules. Please stop trolling.
He got me. I just realized he has been on this thread for a while.
Nexus this is mostly a mental exercise. It's not like we are petitioning that this become a real rule so your players can use it against you. Why are you so bothered by it?
One other "middle ground" could be a combination of things, so you'd be able to do a CdG, but you'd have to make an attack roll (maybe with an att. bonus). That way it's not an automatic CdG, but it's still more severe than "just" being flatfooted against the ignored opponent.
As an aside, for those who haven't read Wheel of Time, I think a more common comparison could be the Uruk-Hai fight from the LotR movie, where Aragorn impales the leader Uruk-Hai Lurtz on his sword and it grabs the sword and pulls itself closer - only that it doesn't attack, since it's missing an arm, which would be the point.
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. ...
Reminds me of someone telling me that applying "common sense" solved all rules problems in Pathfinder. I think you're now in the realms of rationalization, "the process of constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process". You've completely lost me.
Probably a good thing this board doesn't have a rolling-eyes smiley. I'd be tempted to use it.
|
|
I think that the official rule that best applies here is actually the surprise round.
Per the rulebook:
When a combat starts, if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you are surprised. If some but not all of the combatants are aware of their opponents, a surprise round happens before regular rounds begin. In initiative order (highest to lowest), combatants who started the battle aware of their opponents each take a standard or move action during the surprise round. You can also take free actions during the surprise round.
For example, this is how I would run the scenario that started this thread:
At the top of the round, a Rogue and a summoned Boar move in to flank the PC. At this point, the PC's focus is normal. On the PC's turn, he decides to completely ignore the Boar and focus solely on the Rogue to nullify the Rogue's flank (and backstab). Immediately, before the PC can continue, the Boar gains a 'surprise round' against the PC (with a +2 flanking bonus if it is in a flanking position). Once that 'surprise round' is over, the PC may continue has actions. The PC is considered to be flat-footed to the Boar until the PC's next turn. Of course, the Boar also is able to take it's normal turn when it's initiative comes around.
When the PC's next turn comes around, he may choose whether to ignore the Boar or not...and if he chooses to continue ignoring the Boar, the Boar gets another 'surprise round' before the PC can take the rest of his turn...and so on and so on.
I do think it is a bit odd to have the 'surprise round' at the top of the PCs turn, but it makes sense since the PC should only be able to change his focus on his turn.
I think that the official rule that best applies here is actually the surprise round.
That still fails the "Is this a superior options when flanked by two rogues of equal level?" test. You can only take a single standard action in the surprise round, so that's essentially a full attack plus one extra attack all with sneak attack plus a full attack without sneak attack (for ignoring one rogue) vs two full attacks with sneak attack (for choosing not to ignore a rogue). The first is less damage with no drawbacks.
Put me in the camp of being strongly opposed to the houserule that you're helpless and subject to a coup de grace if you ignore an attacker.
Too silly, for all the reasons already stated.
But, by RAW, a coup de grace needs a helpless opponent. A helpless opponent is stationary. Completely stationary. This is not the same thing as "well, his figure stayed on the same 5' square that whole melee round so he's stationary." No, the figure standing there while the character is swinging away at the monster might be stationary, but the character is not stationary at all.
Sleeping characters are stationary. Unconscious characters are stationary. Bound/shackled/tied up characters might be stationary if their bindings are restrictive enough. Held/paralyzed characters are stationary.
But characters hopping and leaping around while they battle an enemy are not stationary. Not at all.
And therefore they are not helpless to *any* attack made against them.
Now, the rule I've used when this debate came up in 3.x games was this:
If you ignore an opponent to deny flanking, then that opponent still gets the flanking bonus (after all, it is still flanking you with that other enemy that you are paying attention to) and all that comes with flanking (bonus to hit, sneak attacks, etc.). In addition, it will automatically hit you with every attack it makes while you ingore it, and each such hit is a critical threat. The attacker must make a normal confirmation roll (with the flanking bonus applied) to actually score a critical hit.
You must decide whether to ignore an opponent as a free action at the start of that enemy's round. Note that this means that after an enemy approaches you on that enemy's turn, you cannot ignore him immediately. His act of approaching you will get your attention and thus he will grant flanking conditions to his allies as appropriate, at least until his next turn. At the start of his next turn, you have had enough time to assess the threat and make a decision to ignore an opponent or not.
You can stop ignoring an opponent at any time, instantly, as a free action (not an instant action and it doesn't use up your instant or swift actions). You can even stop ignoring an enemy on that enemy's round and between that enemy's attacks, if you wish. However, you gain no benefit from ignoring that enemy after you stop ignoring him. In other words, if you don't want the rogue in front of you to sneak attack you, you must ignore the enemy behind you throughout his entire turn (enduring all of his attacks) and through the rogue's turn too.
You can ingore as many enemies as you want. It's your funeral. Every enemy you are ignoring will know you are ignoring them on a DC 10 Perception check. No, you cannot use bluff to fool them - you cannot bluff an enemy you are ignoring because bluffing requires you to pay some attention to them.
Anyway, that's my houserule for it.
So, if you have a rogue on one side and a monkey on the other, and you ignore the monkey, you must do so at the start of the monkey's turn. Then the monkey attacks and every attack is a critical threat. It also gets flanking (but the rogue will not get flanking) so when the monkey tries to confirm the critical hits, it adds the +2 for flanking. If the monkey is capable of multiple attacks, you can stop ignoring it at any time, even if it has only made some of its attacks - by doing so, you immediately force it to roll normal attack rolls (with flanking bonus) for any remaining attacks. If you get the through the monkey's round and you're still ignoring it, you have successfully denied the rogue the benefits of flanking.
Here's a tip. If you're being flanked by a house cat, or a small monkey, or a gerbil, or something equally harmless, then you're relatively safe risking those critical hits. If you're being flanked by a fire giant or maybe a tarrasque, I recommend not inviting certain death by granting them multiple easily confirmed critical hits.
|
|
You can only take a single standard action in the surprise round, so that's essentially a full attack plus one extra attack all with sneak attack plus a full attack without sneak attack (for ignoring one rogue) vs two full attacks with sneak attack (for choosing not to ignore a rogue). The first is less damage with no drawbacks.
Zurai, don't take this wrong, but I'm not certain you understand my suggestion. The 'surprise round' is a freebee for the ignored opponent and is very similar to a normal surprise round. In your PC vs two Rogue situation, using the 'surprise round' method is potentially much deadlier.
Scenerio1: PC is flanked and doesn't ignore anyone
RogueA gets a flank attack with backstab
RogueB gets a flank attack with backstab
Scenerio2: PC is flanked ignores RogueA
RogueA gets a normal attack
RogueB gets a flat-footed flank attack with backstab (ala 'surprise round')
RogueB gets a flat footed flank attack with backstab (ala normal round)
Ignoring a foe is an unusual choice to make, but in extreme circumstanes, I can see a player doing it. The penalty should be potentialy severe...but it should not mean virtual doom for the PC.
Again, I believe that the rules for the surprise round are the closest thing that can deal with the situation of ignoring an opponent. I do not think that the 'helpless' condition should apply here, because if it did, then you would also have to allow it during surprise rounds...and that feels too unbalancing.
What Zurai is talking about would be a near zen-like level of ignoring. Quite literally removing the presence of the ignored enemy from your mind.Not quite. It's more like "Sheathing the Sword" from The Wheel of Time books (or various other similar concepts in other literature and shows). You're abandoning all your defense towards the opponent and allowing him to strike you at will so that you can focus all your attention on the 'more dangerous' foe. It's not an exact translation because Sheathing the Sword is only shown being used against a single opponent, but that's the general concept.
Except, you are completely ignoring Chris Self's argument that the value of a flanker is much greater than the actual threat he presents individually.
The whole idea of flanking is that 2 people working together when an opponent is at a disadvantage are a much greater threat than 2 individuals. By "ignoring" the second attacker you completely disregard this fact and the very real advantages it presents. Suddenly, the effects of teamwork and disadvantaged position are meaningless.
It's kind of like saying "I ignore the fact that he has higher ground".
This debate is not based on a real rule. It is all hypothetical. Basically we are trying to figure out what is fair penalty to avoid a sneak attack through flanking that is gained by ignoring the flanking character.
The answer is none, if you ignore the second opponent you are still flanked.
Example: Summoned dog moves between your legs because you are unaware of him you are COMPLETELY ignoring him and stumble, not a 'trip' but it's enough of a distraction the rogue takes advantage and stabs you.
Example: Creature pushes you from behind because you are unaware of him not enough to bull rush you but enough to allow the rogue an opening.
Example: Monkey jumps on your back, grabs at your sword. You prevent him from disarming you but the rogue stabs you as you do it.
The creatures don't have to actually successfully do these things for it to take your attention away for an instant. While they aren't a "threat" you CANNOT ignore someone wrestling your arm for a sword or someone between your feet.
This appears to be answered satisfactorily by Blake's houserule.
If the monkey attempts to disarm you, you can either stop ignoring it as a free action and prevent it grabbing your sword (while opening you up to sneak attacks from the rogue), or just keep ignoring it and let it take it (presumably auto-hit-and-critical-threat also applies to combat maneuver success), while stopping the rogue sneak attacking you.
It's funny, this *doesn't* make sense to me now - what does this have to do with the rules in the pathfinder book?You've already established that you view any deviation from RAW as cheating, so there's no place for you in a discussion of house rules. Please stop trolling.
Last time I checked this was the 'Rules Questions' Forum. There's a place to talk about house rules, and this isn't it. So if I'm posting on topic and you're talking about house rules. . .
The answer to your question is that there is no way to 'model the player removing a rogue class feature' in the RAW. Since this is the forum where we talk about the rules I don't understand where this discussion is going.
This appears to be answered satisfactorily by Blake's houserule.
If the monkey attempts to disarm you, you can either stop ignoring it as a free action and prevent it grabbing your sword (while opening you up to sneak attacks from the rogue), or just keep ignoring it and let it take it (presumably auto-hit-and-critical-threat also applies to combat maneuver success), while stopping the rogue sneak attacking you.
Which in turn weakens the rogue, as now whenever he sets up the flank, you can just ignore his partner until the partner comes for you, whereupon you can take an immediate action to remind yourself he's there (as it's not your turn, immediate action applies) but let the rogue go for you or keep ignoring it, not let the rogue sneak attack, and take less damage from the monkey/dog/barbarian/tarrasque.
Am I understanding this right?
Which in turn weakens the rogue, as now whenever he sets up the flank, you can just ignore his partner until the partner comes for you
You can only start ignoring a character at the start of that character's turn.
Thus if you choose to stop ignoring him when he tries to disarm you, then you'll still be vulnerable to the rogue's sneak attacks until the start of the flankers next turn.
Which in turn weakens the rogue, as now whenever he sets up the flank, you can just ignore his partner until the partner comes for youYou can only start ignoring a character at the start of that character's turn.
Thus if you choose to stop ignoring him when he tries to disarm you, then you'll still be vulnerable to the rogue's sneak attacks until the start of the flankers next turn.
Thanks for the clarification. Mind you, I thought free actions for the most part could only be taken on your turn . . . .