There's a house rule I'm considering, but before I implement it, I'd like other peoples input on potential abuses.
The basic rule is this: When in combat with an opponent and the opponent's buddy who's granting the opponent flanking, you can ignore the buddy which denies the main combatant any flanking bonus he would get from the buddy. However, the buddy still gets the flanking bonus, plus for every round that you ignore him, he either gets a free attack of opportunity against you or may move away or do anything else which would usually provoke an attack of opportunity without it actually provoking one, since you've already declared that you're paying no attention to the buddy and as such he should be able to do what he wants.
Anyone see any obvious abuses for this?
Anyone see any obvious abuses for this?
It pretty much directly harpoons a major class ability. If you are ok with that then I really don't see any other repercussions.
Personally I don't like it.
Hmm, true, it does cause trouble with sneak attack damage.
What if the price of ignoring the buddy is that, if the buddy manages to land a blow, it's treated as if he had sneak attack damage as a rogue of his level, and if the buddy already has sneak attack damage, it stacks?
For example, someone's fighting with Joe the Wizard and Bob the Rogue. They concentrate on Bob, leaving themselves open to Joe, but if Joe manages to score a lucky hit, it may be a really lucky hit. And it might be even worse if Joe and Bob did a magical or mundane clothing swap before the battle, and rather than leave yourself open to the Wizard, you left yourself open to the Rogue.
What if the price of ignoring the buddy is that, if the buddy manages to land a blow, it's treated as if he had sneak attack damage as a rogue of his level, and if the buddy already has sneak attack damage, it stacks?
But if the choice is being made to ignore the helper then most likely he as to roll at least a 15 on the dice to hit, and the player either feels like he can deal with it, or he is just reckless. Either way its not good. I dont think a standard combat action should be able to negate a class ability.
Hmm, true, it does cause trouble with sneak attack damage.
What if the price of ignoring the buddy is that, if the buddy manages to land a blow, it's treated as if he had sneak attack damage as a rogue of his level, and if the buddy already has sneak attack damage, it stacks?
I see flanking as a team effort. Maybe the flanker is incapable of actually hitting the defender but he is still able to effectively interfere with him enough that the primary attacker can gain advantage from it.
So maybe Joe the Wizard can't effectively strike the defender but he can put his staff between the defenders legs. Maybe not tripping him but interfering enough where Bob the Rogue can get an opening to sneak attack.
|
I'm a huge fan of this sort of rule. It does not negate sneak attack. What it does is prevent the rogue from using sneak attack in it's easiest form, forcing them to find other ways.
My primary love of this idea is that I think that the target should have some way of preventing sneak attack as a choice (and with risk). Sneak attack conditions are typically extremely easy to come by, so occasionally taking the flank sneak attack option away is no different than a DM occasionally throwing out monsters with SR (or spell immunity) at the casters. They just need to find out something different to do in those encounters.
I'm a huge fan of this sort of rule. It does not negate sneak attack. What it does is prevent the rogue from using sneak attack in it's easiest form, forcing them to find other ways.
My primary love of this idea is that I think that the target should have some way of preventing sneak attack as a choice (and with risk). Sneak attack conditions are typically extremely easy to come by, so occasionally taking the flank sneak attack option away is no different than a DM occasionally throwing out monsters with SR (or spell immunity) at the casters. They just need to find out something different to do in those encounters.
What is so hard about limiting sneak attack without trying to nerf it?
It seems a reasonable combat tactic: Leave your flank open to guard fully against a major threat. And it should also be a double-edged sword, where if you leave your flank unguarded, well, it's unguarded, so someone can make a better attack than they might otherwise.
And honestly, the whole business of sneak attack was originally someone sneaking out of the shadows or striking from surprise, not tag-team wrestling.
I think I'm going to do it this way: You can chose to ignore a flanker. If you do, they ignored buddy gets the following:
1. You don't get any Attacks of Opportunity on him, regardless of what he's doing.
2. His flanking bonus is doubled against you.
3. A successful crit on the buddy's part is counted as a coup de grace for purposes of forcing a Fortitude save versus death. Sneak attack bonuses stack if you've left yourself unguarded against someone with them.
I think this leaves sneak attacks intact as sneaky things, rather than the current bouncing rogue twin tactics. Plus it gives the weaker opponent the chance to occasionally do something surprising and deadly. Plus a poor strategy decision letting your guard down against the wrong attacker? That can be even worse.
|
I'm a huge fan of this sort of rule. It does not negate sneak attack. What it does is prevent the rogue from using sneak attack in it's easiest form, forcing them to find other ways.
My primary love of this idea is that I think that the target should have some way of preventing sneak attack as a choice (and with risk). Sneak attack conditions are typically extremely easy to come by, so occasionally taking the flank sneak attack option away is no different than a DM occasionally throwing out monsters with SR (or spell immunity) at the casters. They just need to find out something different to do in those encounters.
I disagree with this line of thinking. I disagree whole heartedly. In no way shape or form should you purposefully hamper a class ability with no return to that class. While yes, tactically you could change clothes, that works once.
The reason why Rogues flank for sneak attack, is so the fighter doesn't out damage them when he gets a full attack, and the rogue is scrambling to have his damage play keep up. Its a logical fallacy that sneak attack was broken, in fact it was quite often the opposite. Rogues had to expose themselves to danger in order to actually get the chance for sneak attack, generally had lower AC, and couldn't hit as often as the front line characters.
The fact they are second string attackers forced onto the front lines is bad enough, deliberately hampering their best ability is worse still. Take away sneak attack, and you relegate rogues to being skill monkeys, where they don't get to do much. All their class abilities hinge on sneak attack, including and not limited to their capstone ability.
There is not nearly enough payback to the poor rogue for what happens.
|
Shouldn't someone whose ignoring you and not doing anything to move out of the way (which they'd have to do, otherwise they'd not be ignoring) effectively be denied their dexterity or something similar? Be treating them like they're being attacked by an invisible creature since that's the best parallel I can think of at the moment.
There was a Piazo post that said covered this exact point. They said that ignoring the flanker effectively make you helpless to them.
That means the attacker that you are flanking could do a coup de gras as a full round action. Since you are completely ignoring that person they can do anything they want to you. I think that is a bit much but at the very least every attack done by the ignored guy should be an automatic crit.
As someone mentioned there has been another thread on this.
What you have suggested seems fine. I wouldn't agree that if you ignore a flanker that you are helpless, a coup d'grace takes a full round which is 6 seconds and as I have said before you would soon start giving your full attention to them then.
Give the flanked critter a DEX of 0 to the attack being ignored and sneak attack works a treat.
Just hope the flanker isn't an assassin with death attack...
I'm not sure what would be the advantage of ignoring a flanker? The flankee has no penalties to get rid of? It only grants advantage to their opponent as far as I remember.
I don't see how, in essence, one would gain advantage of ignoring anyone actively engaged in melee with him/her. Or is this a case when the flankee is somehow forced to ignore one of the the flankers?
There was a Piazo post that said covered this exact point. They said that ignoring the flanker effectively make you helpless to them.
That means the attacker that you are flanking could do a coup de gras as a full round action. Since you are completely ignoring that person they can do anything they want to you. I think that is a bit much but at the very least every attack done by the ignored guy should be an automatic crit.
I believe that allowing a coup de grace would be excessive as would be inflicting an auto-crit. Helpless should really mean utterly helpless, and even against an ignored foe, the definition of the condition really isn't met.
I'd be more inclined to impose the flanking bonus to the attacker and the blind condition with respect to the ignored attacker since you are explicitly ignoring his presence. That is, IF I were to allow someone to ignore one flanking opponent. Which is something I would not actually do.
I'm not sure what would be the advantage of ignoring a flanker? The flankee has no penalties to get rid of? It only grants advantage to their opponent as far as I remember.
I don't see how, in essence, one would gain advantage of ignoring anyone actively engaged in melee with him/her. Or is this a case when the flankee is somehow forced to ignore one of the the flankers?
The issue arose because a player said in a game that his PC was ignoring a critter flanking him under the idea that the people flanking him wouldn't get the +2 to hit flanking bonus. He was just trying to get around a rule.
*edit* What ever happens it should be a whole lot worse than just accepting the +2 to be hit, etc.I personally would have called for a WILL save in order to have the presence of mind not to instictivly duck out of the way of the battle axe being driven into his back. And then reduce his effective DEX to 0.
I'm not sure what would be the advantage of ignoring a flanker? The flankee has no penalties to get rid of? It only grants advantage to their opponent as far as I remember.
I don't see how, in essence, one would gain advantage of ignoring anyone actively engaged in melee with him/her. Or is this a case when the flankee is somehow forced to ignore one of the the flankers?
The idea here is that you're trying to ignore a lesser threat in order to focus all your attention (and thus defence) on a greater threat. While people in this thread have said that they don't intend to, the original thread was all about denying a Rogue their sneak attack from flanking. The idea being that if all the attention is focused on the Rogue and you ignore the other, the Rogue is no longer truly flanking you and thus can't sneak attack.
Personally, I'm against it.
Player: I want to ignore the guy behind me and focus on the Rogue entirely.
DM: Well, the Rogue is still flanking you because you have to at least put *some* attention on the other guy.
Player: Nope, I'm ignoring him completely. No way am I letting that Rogue stab my kidney again.
DM: You sure?
Player: Yep.
DM: Ok. He reaches around and tries to cut your throat. Save vs. Coup De Gras.
If the player (or DM, however it works) is so worried about being flanked, then don't allow yourself to get in that position. Or get out of it as quickly as you can (Withdraw, Acrobatics check, whatever).
However, the buddy still gets the flanking bonus, plus for every round that you ignore him, he either gets a free attack of opportunity against you or may move away or do anything else which would usually provoke an attack of opportunity without it actually provoking one, since you've already declared that you're paying no attention to the buddy and as such he should be able to do what he wants.
If it were me, I'd stiffen the penalties a bit and try and work within the existing conditions instead of creating something new that might complicate things or be clunky in the way it interacted with other effects.
My suggestion, if you choose to ignore an attacker (thus avoiding the distraction that normally allows them to flank you) then they effectively have total concealment versus you, which grants them the following bonuses:
-You cannot take attacks of opportunity against them, regardless of their actions (as in your suggestion)
-You are flat footed vs. their attacks (which could be very bad indeed if they harmless old man you thought you'd ignore turns out to be a wily old rogue)
-They are effectively invisible, granting them a +2 to their attack rolls against you on top of the effects of flat footed.
I think these penalties would work well to discourage someone from using this unless the attacker they were ignoring was really no threat at all, and since it's all coming from an existing condition it should mesh well with any class abilities or skills that depend upon those conditions.
However, the buddy still gets the flanking bonus, plus for every round that you ignore him, he either gets a free attack of opportunity against you or may move away or do anything else which would usually provoke an attack of opportunity without it actually provoking one, since you've already declared that you're paying no attention to the buddy and as such he should be able to do what he wants.If it were me, I'd stiffen the penalties a bit and try and work within the existing conditions instead of creating something new that might complicate things or be clunky in the way it interacted with other effects.
My suggestion, if you choose to ignore an attacker (thus avoiding the distraction that normally allows them to flank you) then they effectively have total concealment versus you, which grants them the following bonuses:
-You cannot take attacks of opportunity against them, regardless of their actions (as in your suggestion)
-You are flat footed vs. their attacks (which could be very bad indeed if they harmless old man you thought you'd ignore turns out to be a wily old rogue)
-They are effectively invisible, granting them a +2 to their attack rolls against you on top of the effects of flat footed.
I think these penalties would work well to discourage someone from using this unless the attacker they were ignoring was really no threat at all, and since it's all coming from an existing condition it should mesh well with any class abilities or skills that depend upon those conditions.
I think I'll do all of these, plus one other:
The individual you're ignoring still gains a Flanking bonus from the individual you are not, so if the ignored guy is indeed a wily old rogue, this could be particularly bad.
-You are flat footed vs. their attacks (which could be very bad indeed if they harmless old man you thought you'd ignore turns out to be a wily old rogue)
-They are effectively invisible, granting them a +2 to their attack rolls against you on top of the effects of flat footed.
I think I'll do all of these, plus one other:
The individual you're ignoring still gains a Flanking bonus from the individual you are not, so if the ignored guy is indeed a wily old rogue, this could be particularly bad.
Well that's sort of already covered under these two. Versus the person you're ignoring, you'd lose dex to AC from being flat footed and they'd get a +2 to hit you (and since you're flat footed, they'd get sneak attack damage). Certainly up to you though, adding flanked on top would make the total flat footed and +4 to be hit.
Kevin, I would like a clarification from you please. Is your intention for this:
A) Deny a person flanking just the +2 bonus to hit.
B) Deny a person flanking the +2 bonus to hit and sneak attack.
There is a large difference between the two and knowing which you trying for would make it easier to give accurate feedback.
Denying both.
At higher levels, a +2 bonus is basically trivial, but sneak attack is very dangerous.
If you're fighting the master thief, it's kind of absurd that bringing a red-shirt street urchin along with him to the battle gives him such an extreme advantage. You should be able to ignore the kid if you want. However, if the kid is actually a higher level halfling rogue in disguise? Well, that's sneaky.
I'm also wanting a reason and mechanic for that reason where someone can wade into battle and draw fire so a weaker ally can escape. Denying the rogue sneak attack is a strategic choice, at the price of letting the wizard run away without an attack of opportunity. Of course the wizard could also use that freedom to cast a possibly deadly spell.
It's strategy, and I'd like for it to look more like a actual combat with choices rather than a miniatures battle with illogical mechanics.
Kevin, I would like a clarification from you please. Is your intention for this:
A) Deny a person flanking just the +2 bonus to hit.
B) Deny a person flanking the +2 bonus to hit and sneak attack.
There is a large difference between the two and knowing which you trying for would make it easier to give accurate feedback.
Denying both.
At higher levels, a +2 bonus is basically trivial, but sneak attack is very dangerous.
If you're fighting the master thief, it's kind of absurd that bringing a red-shirt street urchin along with him to the battle gives him such an extreme advantage. You should be able to ignore the kid if you want. However, if the kid is actually a higher level halfling rogue in disguise? Well, that's sneaky.
I'm also wanting a reason and mechanic for that reason where someone can wade into battle and draw fire so a weaker ally can escape. Denying the rogue sneak attack is a strategic choice, at the price of letting the wizard run away without an attack of opportunity. Of course the wizard could also use that freedom to cast a possibly deadly spell.
It's strategy, and I'd like for it to look more like a actual combat with choices rather than a miniatures battle with illogical mechanics.
If the little street urchin is *that* weak, then kill (or otherwise incapacitate) him and be done with it. If he can't be dealt with that easily then he's obviously *some* threat, and thus should provide flanking.
|
|
Making yourself "not flanked" against a rogue does not supernerf the rogue. Your making it a much bigger deal that it really is. There are a lot more (realistic) ways that a rogue can still sneak attack, and a rogue is not a fighter. Shouldn't be thinking they are suppossed to keep up with the fighter, which is why so many people (at least than I've talked to) hate the 3E rogue.
-The individual you're ignoring still gains a Flanking bonus from the individual you are not.(...)
-You cannot take attacks of opportunity against them, regardless of their actions (as in your suggestion)
-You are flat footed vs. their attacks
-They are effectively invisible, granting them a +2 to their attack rolls against you on top of the effects of flat footed.
I say this is fair, within the set of rules provided by the game and easy enough to implement.
Making yourself "not flanked" against a rogue does not supernerf the rogue. Your making it a much bigger deal that it really is. There are a lot more (realistic) ways that a rogue can still sneak attack, and a rogue is not a fighter. Shouldn't be thinking they are suppossed to keep up with the fighter, which is why so many people (at least than I've talked to) hate the 3E rogue.
The rogue's damage is situational, while the fighter's damage ability always on, so unless the DM is playing favorites or is new the rogue should not be keeping up with the fighter. I have never been, seen, or DM'd a rogue that gets sneak attack at will.
I personally like it for the same reasons: As it stands right now, "Sneak Attack" might as well be renamed "Flank Attack" because that's the only time you see rogues using it now.
Admittedly, I'm a 1st ed AD&D player so I like the idea of thieves hiding in shadows, getting surprise, and beg, borrowing or stealing to get a Ring of Invisibility.
Having them run around like tag-team wrestlers with short swords cheapens a lot of the feel.
|
|
I agree. But it's not that the DMs are new or playing favorates so much as sneak attack is just so easy to gain. Particulary through flanking. Taking that away ***sometimes*** really just makes the rogue think tactically, and is really no different than SR for spellcasters, except at least they still get their attacks rather than wasting both their action and a spell for the day.
I personally like it for the same reasons: As it stands right now, "Sneak Attack" might as well be renamed "Flank Attack" because that's the only time you see rogues using it now.
Hmm? Why does it matter what it's called. It's part and parcel of the class. It's pretty specifically in the rules. If you are going to take the benefit away then just do it and give then some ability to compensate for it.
Having them run around like tag-team wrestlers with short swords cheapens a lot of the feel.
I'm not super fond of rogues getting sneak attack bonuses from flanking either to be honest. But I don't think it's fair to yank a class ability out from the players without some compensation either.
|
|
I think somehow your missing the point. Sneak attack is in no way being yanked away or nerfed from the rogue. Instead, we would like for the rogue to have to put a little effort into it and step back from being just as damaging as front line fighters (not Fighters per se).
Rogues can still sneak attack when from stealth(1), against unaware targets(2), through feinting(3), against helpless targets(4), and whenever their targetis denied their dex(5) or has not acted yet(6).
Additionally, unless your using metagame knowledge, you wouldn't likely know not to let the rogue get the flank until after they have sneak attacked you already. Regardless though, whoever is still flanking you has a much better chance to hit, that rogue still does normal damage, and the target must risk deciding beforehand which one is better. Hell, for all they know the "rogue" could be a dex based fighter and the tank they just ignored could be a str based rogue with power attack and some crit feats that can now only miss ona one with power sneak attack. . .
All this is doing is giving the target some option to defend against massive extra damage and adding more tactic options to play. It may (not sure) also help with some of the problems that "zirging" brings.
|
|
Making yourself "not flanked" against a rogue does not supernerf the rogue. Your making it a much bigger deal that it really is. There are a lot more (realistic) ways that a rogue can still sneak attack, and a rogue is not a fighter. Shouldn't be thinking they are suppossed to keep up with the fighter, which is why so many people (at least than I've talked to) hate the 3E rogue.
I'm sorry, but if you think the rogue is brought to the aprty because he MIGHT be able to pick a few locks, you are already short changing the rogues status in the party.
The rogue is supposed to be there to do a lot of damage quickly, in order to help speed up fights. He gets a lot of skills to make up for the fact he doesn't get the feats like the fighter, in order to master certain combat styles. He doesn't have spells like the other classes because he's a rogue, if he knows a spell its a cantrip or two, nothing really amazing. Just little tricks that help him from time to time. The skills make up only a little for it.
Now, I dare you to look at all those rogues talents and tell me that sneak attack is not the main rogue ability. Look at their capstone and look at it as well. I am NOT blowing this out of proportion. You've talked of your hate of the rogue, and I agree I hate those kinds of rogues too...
Because they're players disruptive to the table. If they were any other class I'm sure you'd hate those classes just as much. Tell me again why you have a beef with the rogue, that doesn't stem from a player playing a jerkass.
EDIT: And seriously, 1d6 per two levels is alot of damage? Wizards do far more damage than that without trying. Infact after level 10 or so, Wizards get to do save or suck or save or die. THe game stops being about damage and starts being about "how can I end the fight with the least possible fuss". Sneak attack isn't this horrendously broken mechanic. Just because they have to team up with party members to do some damage in no way makes them the stars of the show.
I honestly don't get your hatred of the class ability. So much stuff the rogue can take is based entirely on their ability to sneak attack, that to specifically say "Sorry but the enemy is going to ignore the wizard to beat on you" is largely unfair. Its effectively forcing the rogue into the role of tank, and if you don't give them the bab and hit points to compensate, you are largely going to see rogues die.
When you give someone the tactical ability to ignore someone merely to screw over one CLASS you change that classes role. You say its making them "work for their ability".
I call it forcing the rogue to play a role they weren't designed to perform in the first place.
Well, there's "designed for" and "redesigned for." I really liked a lot of the flavor of the 1st ed thief.
As for the "Hide in Plain Sight" business, I'm having more and more trouble with that because it starts straining credibility. If there's a lot of junk to hide behind, yeah, sure--bounce in and out of cover and keep bushwacking someone. But if you're standing in the middle of an empty lot, how in the hell are you hiding?
I'd almost rather hand out Rings of Invisibility to all rogues of a certain level and leave it at that.
|
|
Well, there's "designed for" and "redesigned for." I really liked a lot of the flavor of the 1st ed thief.
As for the "Hide in Plain Sight" business, I'm having more and more trouble with that because it starts straining credibility. If there's a lot of junk to hide behind, yeah, sure--bounce in and out of cover and keep bushwacking someone. But if you're standing in the middle of an empty lot, how in the hell are you hiding?
I'd almost rather hand out Rings of Invisibility to all rogues of a certain level and leave it at that.
To support what Kryt-Ryder is saying think of Predator. You strike out attack, then dive into the foliage, or fade back deep. The guy doesn't know where the attack came from, only that you aren't sticking around to get attacked back. Its a very hair raising experience, as you realize they're there, but you have no clue where they're coming from. That's what Ranger's do, they've learned to blend in and make it hard to follow their movements.
Shadow dancers fade to black, making it hard to figure them out.
Also, I hate to break it to you man, but rogues are NOT thieves. They haven't been for awhile. They are the guys like Han Solo, who dabble on the wrong side of the law. Some of them are duelists, others are just dirty fighters, like a street fighter. But it comes down to, these guys learned how to hit people where it hurts. While rogues CAN be thieves, they are not supposed to be JUST thieves.
Hence why they've lost some of that thief feel. In fact I just made the Rogue class into a samurai, and the only way this works is mainly on the way the character acts. I just felt it was very fitting for the character though.
|
|
I hate that the rogue class usually brings out the worst in the players. I also really dislike that Sneak Attack can not really be avoided by the target (unlke say spells which have S.R., saves, and similar built in things). I do not hate rogues (I very much do in WoW. . . ) and I do not hate Sneak Attack.
I just think the flanking was the worst thing added to the class in 3E, and that it is way to easy to gain, meaning many players ignor all the other things that they can still do to Sneak Attack. I just listed 6 off the top of my head. WotC sort of realized this, and made sure that with the Ninja, specifically took away the Flanking part of Sudden Strike.
|
i agree that rogues are not *just* thieves.
why give everybody the option to deny a rogues sneak attack.
why this variant shouldn't exist?
a d6 per 2 levels, thats only +35 damage per attack at level 20 (assuming straight rogue) getting that magic 4th attack means +28 per attack. at the pre epic cap. and the least loss goes to nightsong enforcer, get that magic 16 bab and keep the 2d6 sneak, but too late to get 4th offhand attack. unless your 4 levels of nightsong enforcer were completed before 18th level (started at 14th or earlier) you won't get that 4th offhand attack at 19th level. a situational +35 per swing doesn't equal mr power attacking greatsword fighter, who only needs to maintain 1 weapon, has better to hit, better damage. and doesn't need flank, he only flanks for you out of sympathy. which means, to draw that sympathy, the rogue is going to have to most likely be a 5 foot even less than 100 pound 12 year old girl. or look and act like one. but the dm would probably apply metagame knowledge and suddenly every monster knows the 12 year old girl is really a rogue.
I think somehow your missing the point. Sneak attack is in no way being yanked away or nerfed from the rogue. Instead, we would like for the rogue to have to put a little effort into it and step back from being just as damaging as front line fighters (not Fighters per se).
?? Flanking is probably the most common way rogues get sneak attack damage, certainly below level 5 it is the most common way. How is this not yanking it or nerfing it?
If you want to nerf a class ability at least be honest about it.
|
|
That is the point. It is the most common way, but taking Flanking away does not mean that rogues can not still sneak attack, they just have to actually do something in order to sneak attack. It doesn't nerf the class, it changes what has become the norm, and only sometimes.
Have any of you guys so against this actually tried it? If you go around overusing this option to try to avoid Sneak Attacks, you will be dead much faster than if you were actually sneak attacked all those times. It is risky, but the tactical option is well worth it, I think.
That is the point. It is the most common way, but taking Flanking away does not mean that rogues can not still sneak attack, they just have to actually do something in order to sneak attack. It doesn't nerf the class, it changes what has become the norm, and only sometimes.
Have any of you guys so against this actually tried it? If you go around overusing this option to try to avoid Sneak Attacks, you will be dead much faster than if you were actually sneak attacked all those times. It is risky, but the tactical option is well worth it, I think.
Considering the rogue I am playing does 1d3+Sneak attack I can quite confidently say that it would be a MASSIVE nerf to him.
Even so, I'm cool with removing flanking but I would like to see the class get something out of it other than the shaft. Maybe some additional out of combat stuff?
That is the point. It is the most common way, but taking Flanking away does not mean that rogues can not still sneak attack, they just have to actually do something in order to sneak attack. It doesn't nerf the class, it changes what has become the norm, and only sometimes.
Have any of you guys so against this actually tried it? If you go around overusing this option to try to avoid Sneak Attacks, you will be dead much faster than if you were actually sneak attacked all those times. It is risky, but the tactical option is well worth it, I think.
I was just wondering the same about the anti-flanking folks. Getting into flanking position is NOT a sure thing, and is already a very risky proposition for a Rogue. With the flank option taken away, what incentive does the Rogue have for ever getting into melee? I'll happily sacrifice the 2-8 lbs worth of melee weapons my Rogue carries for a couple extra quivers of arrows for my shortbow, forget about the two-weapon fighting tree and just stick with Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, and maxing out stealth. Because now I'm just as usful as a Bard in melee, who can't cast spells or sing pretty songs to boot.
|
|
I was just wondering the same about the anti-flanking folks. Getting into flanking position is NOT a sure thing, and is already a very risky proposition for a Rogue. With the flank option taken away, what incentive does the Rogue have for ever getting into melee? I'll happily sacrifice the 2-8 lbs worth of melee weapons my Rogue carries for a couple extra quivers of arrows for my shortbow, forget about the two-weapon fighting tree and just stick with Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, and maxing out stealth. Because now I'm just as usful as a Bard in melee, who can't cast spells or sing pretty songs to boot.That is the point. It is the most common way, but taking Flanking away does not mean that rogues can not still sneak attack, they just have to actually do something in order to sneak attack. It doesn't nerf the class, it changes what has become the norm, and only sometimes.
Have any of you guys so against this actually tried it? If you go around overusing this option to try to avoid Sneak Attacks, you will be dead much faster than if you were actually sneak attacked all those times. It is risky, but the tactical option is well worth it, I think.
that i agree with, i was beaten to it, i didn't want to post a repeat. flanking is the only way to sneak attack at the low levels. as your stealth is barely better than enemy perception, cover is rare. especially if the dungeons are filled with featureless 10X10 rooms. i've run into dms who still use the featureless 10X10 room. i've been in too many. no features means no cover to hide behind. i've also been in too many tight corners to effectively use ranged weapons. so flanking is neccessary. dm also includes loads of traps.
|
|
Um, in the previous editions of the game theives did not have this Flanking option, they had to be the equivalent of hidden to sneak attack, and it did far less damage. They had incentive to get into combat back than, why wouldn't they now?
They want to get that surprize round attack, and also if their lucky the first round after that. They can still Feint and deal sneak attack. Or attack from hiding. Or invisible. Or when the target is denied their Dex. There are still a lot of ways that are not all that hard.
Also, I just wanted to throw out, even in a 10x10 featurelss room, why can't you hide beyind your allies? They provide cover, as long as the target is not closer to them than you are. Also, while many creatures have a better perception than you stealth, you can always do mundane things that do not offer a chance for them to see you. If you are behind an object as big as yourself (usually a 5ft square) they don't have line of sight, and can not even roll to see you. that means you are aware of them, and they are not aware of you, so when they get close enough you can surprize round them and attack from hiding.
Um, in the previous editions of the game theives did not have this Flanking option, they had to be the equivalent of hidden to sneak attack, and it did far less damage. They had incentive to get into combat back than, why wouldn't they now?
They want to get that surprize round attack, and also if their lucky the first round after that. They can still Feint and deal sneak attack. Or attack from hiding. Or invisible. Or when the target is denied their Dex. There are still a lot of ways that are not all that hard.
Never played an earlier edition of the game (save for a few isolated sessions of AD&D), and have zero desire to. I'm playing 3.5 and Pathfinder.