|
As to the OP, I would have to say that while I would not run with a CDG, I would have any attack from the ignored opponent be considered a confirmed critical; the only thing I would roll for would be to see if they fumble when attacking the lummox who decided to just turn their back on them. As the character is not defending themselves from the opponent, they have no defense against the attacker.
As to whether an opponent is "dangerous", the only thing a combatant has to base that decision on is from when they were in actual combat with them, not ignoring them. Sure, a 10th level fighter may look at the summoned kobold and chuckle, thinking there is no threat to him at this point from such a lowly creature, but he's never turned his back on one of those little buggers before ...
Just my 2 cp.
Sure, a 10th level fighter may look at the summoned kobold and chuckle, thinking there is no threat to him at this point from such a lowly creature, but he's never turned his back on one of those little buggers before ...
So if he tries it, and the little bugger hurts him bad, he probably won't do it again, right?
Let him try the first time, and let him decide based on the results whether he wants to keep doing that.
|
|
Sure, a 10th level fighter may look at the summoned kobold and chuckle, thinking there is no threat to him at this point from such a lowly creature, but he's never turned his back on one of those little buggers before ...So if he tries it, and the little bugger hurts him bad, he probably won't do it again, right?
Let him try the first time, and let him decide based on the results whether he wants to keep doing that.
Pretty much. Of course, it would be best to outline the effects of the action to the player first (after all, most characters, especially fighter-types, would have some concept of what could happen); if they proceed with it, so be it.
|
I don't know about letting ignore opponents, because I'm also of the mind that it's about situational awareness and keeping an eye on all directions -- that is also why there are no cumbersome facing rules or "attacking from behind" bonuses and such. Ergo, if players insisted that this should be possible (rendering flanking bonuses, Sneak Attacks and such pretty much ineffective -- at least from one opponent), I'd likely discuss introducing facing and all that it entails (surprised automatically by opponents outside their field of vision, bonuses from attacking from behind, etc.). I'm fairly sure that they would sooner or later want to go back to the RAW, because I think more often than not the numbers (i.e. number of combatants) would be stacked against them.
But, anyone is free to use any house rules they want in their campaigns...
No, I don't think that is what people said; I personally said that I think Readying should work against invisible creatures using 'Invisibility' (not 'Greater Invisibility' or abilities equivalent to it) and unseen opponents ,such as those using 'Shot on the Run' or 'Spring Attack' to attack from total cover (for example). If it doesn't work against Invisible opponents (either first or directly after the first attack roll; whatever is the "correct" interpretation), it makes 'Invisibility' as spell and ability much more powerful than intended.So some of you guys are actually trying to tell me that you can ready an attack against a enemy with improved invisibility and because you "readied" it, you get to go first?
Sorry, no dice if I'm DMing. If you ready an attack against someone or something that you can't possibly react to fast enough, you're going to get attacked first and then get your swing in.
I have no problem with allowing someone to ready an attack against an invisible foe but their attack has to trigger first and it's quite possible that it will. In optimal lighting conditions, an invisible attacker can be spotted with a DC 20 Perception check when they are withing 10ft. If you spot them coming then you can interrupt their attack. You're going to be attacking an invisible opponent and face the 50% miss chance from that. Otherwise, if you fail to notice them, they are getting the first shot in and you go after them. That's my stance anyway.
Actually, I think invisible beings *DO* become visible ("phase" into view) before any attacks are resolved; if they didn't, you couldn't ready any attacks against invisible/unseen opponents (such as my example of using 'Shot on the Run' above) which would, in my opinion, make Readying a lot weaker and Invisibility a lot stronger than intended by the rules. Improved Invisibility is another matter, naturally.
Nope, it has been clearly stated in the 3.5 FAQ, you still gain the benefit of invisibility on your first attack. It is even mentioned in the Player's Handbook with a reference to the table of adjustments in combat.
If you are invisible, and make a full attack, you have the advantage of invisibility on your first attack only.
The spell doesn't go off because you are going to attack, but because you actually attack and make an attack roll.
I don't know if PRPG has changed anything on this, but it's how it worked in 3.5. The 3.5 FAQ is still available on WotC's site.So, how does that work against someone who readied an action against you? You get one attack, he gets his attack, then you get the rest of your attacks if you're still alive?
I know I *may* be wrong here; I've mostly played 3.0, and I can't recall how we handled invisibility in AD&D anymore.
Hmmm...
That is correct, and ready action makes no special provisions for being invisible so even if you are invisible your attack is interrupted. It does not make sense from a logical point of view, but its a balance thing, or like someone said before how do you counter phase spider and things that are incorpeal. They could just use hit and run tactics all day.
That is correct, and ready action makes no special provisions for being invisible so even if you are invisible your attack is interrupted. It does not make sense from a logical point of view, but its a balance thing, or like someone said before how do you counter phase spider and things that are incorpeal. They could just use hit and run tactics all day.
There's a reason that Phase Spiders used to be feared. They were dangerous opponents. Maybe we can get some heavily armored clerics to chime in on this one. :)
That is correct, and ready action makes no special provisions for being invisible so even if you are invisible your attack is interrupted. It does not make sense from a logical point of view, but its a balance thing, or like someone said before how do you counter phase spider and things that are incorpeal. They could just use hit and run tactics all day.There's a reason that Phase Spiders used to be feared. They were dangerous opponents. Maybe we can get some heavily armored clerics to chime in on this one. :)
Please don't mention those(I am not talking about the spiders). I thought that thread would never die, lol
Maybe I'm soft but if your totally ignoring someone aren't you just flat footed?
Coup de grace and helpless don't really apply in this case. The character isn't helpless just stupid.
I would at worst have the character be flat footed and give the ignored character a further +4 to hit.
The ignored character doesn't get to do auto death or anything else. Other wise all hidden sneak attacks (vs flanking sneak attacks) would get the same bonus/effect.
Maybe I'm soft but if your totally ignoring someone aren't you just flat footed?
Coup de grace and helpless don't really apply in this case. The character isn't helpless just stupid.
I would at worst have the character be flat footed and give the ignored character a further +4 to hit.
The ignored character doesn't get to do auto death or anything else. Other wise all hidden sneak attacks (vs flanking sneak attacks) would get the same bonus/effect.
This works fine as long as he's, you know, still flanked by the rogue. Which would sort of defeat the whole purpose of trying to cheat.
Some may read 'trying to cheat' as 'using a magical action that isn't defined within the context of the game to deprive one of the core classes of their primary class feature' but I digress.
-Campbell
Maybe I'm soft but if your totally ignoring someone aren't you just flat footed?
Coup de grace and helpless don't really apply in this case. The character isn't helpless just stupid.
I would at worst have the character be flat footed and give the ignored character a further +4 to hit.
The ignored character doesn't get to do auto death or anything else. Other wise all hidden sneak attacks (vs flanking sneak attacks) would get the same bonus/effect.
Ahh yes, you know a thread has come full circle when folks start coming in with the same statements that were made on page 2 of a thread.
Ahh yes, you know a thread has come full circle when folks start coming in with the same statements that were made on page 2 of a thread.Maybe I'm soft but if your totally ignoring someone aren't you just flat footed?
Coup de grace and helpless don't really apply in this case. The character isn't helpless just stupid.
I would at worst have the character be flat footed and give the ignored character a further +4 to hit.
The ignored character doesn't get to do auto death or anything else. Other wise all hidden sneak attacks (vs flanking sneak attacks) would get the same bonus/effect.
Hey don't beat me up for opening my mouth before reading every post :P
Actually I don't have a problem with people ignoring someone, as I have house ruled out the flanking and unaware requirements to sneak attack (or backstab as I always want to say).
I simply looked at what advantage flanking, attacks vs flatfooted and invisibility gave (basically to hit bonus or lowering effective AC level).
I just ruled that using sneak attacks is a -4 to hit penalty (I know double negative) that can be off set by ambushing (to catch flatfooted) and flanking. So it wouldn't apply in this scenario in my game. It wouldn't remove the rogue's sneak attack ability just lower his to hit effectiveness so I'm not as concerned with keeping it real.
Just a thought.
Hey don't beat me up for opening my mouth before reading every post :P
Not a problem. It's just been thrashed around a lot already.
flanked by a pair of rogues, the Monk in my game had a quick word with her Husband on her turn. She readied an action, and took a five foot step when the rogues attacked and swung with her battleaxe. It denied flanking bonuses quite well,as well as a pair of resultant sneak attacks.
That said, Johnothan tweet once had the flanking issue come up in regards to ignoring an attacker.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a
Obviuosly it's a house rule, but it's one used by one of the game creators and so it gels well.
Batts
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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. . .
This is a fine place to discuss the issue. The topic is germane because it's morphed from "do the Pathfinder rules as written offer a way to model this situation?" to "What are the ramifications and interactions with the rest of the Pathfinder ruleset if I allow this?"
House rules are not cheating. Just get that out of your system. Every professional game designer has used house rules, even Gary Gygax. Some of them turn those house rules into new game systems.
Addressing the OP: the suggestion that people have made here, of treating the target as flat-footed and provoking Attacks of Opportunity, is a house rule I've used in D&D 3.5 for years. I like it because it adds a realistic aspect to combat --there are situations where, due to stone skin or the illusory nature of the Hexblade's shadow companion, a flanker really doesn't pose any threat whatsoever-- and because it gives players tactical options, which I think makes the gameplay stronger.
(And because it's particularly satisfying to my wicked DM ways, when a player misjudges which opponent he should have been ignoring.)
It has not broken the game.
Chris Self, I hate to say it, but Cosmo is wrong when he suggests the hazards of flanking are simply people teaming up. Imagine Valeros fighting goblins to his north (using a rusty pole arm), east, and west. The goblin to his west is harassing him, trying to blind him, yanking his pouches around, and so forth. Why should this allow the eastern goblin a flanking bonus, but not the north goblin?
Then Valeros takes a 5' step north. He's got three goblins all over him, but none of them flank him. Why should a goblin directly to his south allow the north goblin to flank, where the two goblins to his southeast and southwest do not? Because flanking is about forcing Valeros to pay attention to two foes at once, on opposite sides.
If you think the ignored opponent should still contribute something to his comrade, I'd recommend he try to Aid Another in combat, rather than simply try to attack.
EDIT: How comes it that I have attracted the attention of one of the little blue people?
I think FR had marbles. The goblin(ignored one) could throw marbles under the opponents feats, making him try to balance, which would make him flat-footed, which is worse than being flanked.