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.
Soft cover (creatures, allies or other) does not break line of sight. Therefore you're being observed, therefore you cannot use Stealth unless you've got some type of Hide in Plain Sight ability.
|
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.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.
+1, thieves are not just thieves anymore, they are rogues now. if you want to play a rogue without flanking, then basically it turns them into an Expert. a class too underpowered for serious play. i would never play an earlier edition either. i play 3.5 and would love to play pathfinder. don't think of rogue as an updated version of thief, think of it as a new class added after they omitted thief. the above options that supposedly aren't that hard, actually are difficult, feinting requires sacrificing a precious resource, and making an opposed check that is nearly impossible to make. (Bluff versus targets Sense motive Bonus + Attack bonus. most opponents have huge attack bonuses, which alone make feinting impossible) hiding, requires cover, which is pretty much nonexistant. unless you fudge the rules a little, such as wearing black clothing at night. (rules don't say it gives cover, but it should) a plain solid black kimono should be sufficient. but the rules don't cover that. invisibility, or the equivelant requires a wizard to burn a spell slot he'd rather not, or buy a ring that alone costs enough money to bankrupt a 10th level character or incur massive debt to characters of 7th level or lower. the black kimono trick requires it to be night on a regular basis. which means whole party must agree to be nocturnal. and do one of the following, play a darkvision race, take 2 shadowdancer levels or take a warlock level.
Soft cover (creatures, allies or other) does not break line of sight. Therefore you're being observed, therefore you cannot use Stealth unless you've got some type of Hide in Plain Sight ability.
No concealment less than full concealment breaks line of sight yet you can still make a stealth check. Clearly, simply being in less than full concealment is not the same as being observed.
|
... there was a huge thread on this basic topic not long ago ...... and yet no one has posted THIS link yet from Wizard's Rules of the Game column.
FWIW ... I have only scanned enough of the thread to get the gist and verify that this link has not been offered.
IMHO ...
There is absolutely no reason in the world that a high level Tank-Fighter shouldn't be able to ignore the goblins surrounding him so that the Grandmaster Rogue doesn't get Sneak Attack damage.
There is no reason in the world why a high-DR creature should not ignore the Commoners surrounding it to focus on the Grandmaster Rogue with DR-bypassing weapons and a high Sneak Attack.
The fact of the matter is, if you're on the battlefield in an M-1 tank, you don't worry about the locals and their small arms if there are T-82s on the battlefield and you're pretty darned certain the irregular infantry doesn't have RPGs or TOWs. You simply ignore them, even if they are climbing all over you.
Same should apply here.
FWIW,
Rez
So in other words, you want to make use of a house rule the DnD 3rd Ed designer came up with, and didn't force to be implemented in 3.5 edition.
Got it.
|
|
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.
So in short you are fine with sneak attack, so long as its limited to the first round or two for the first few levels, and then a gambit that you MIGHT be able to bluff the monster into being feinted and possibly get another one.
Rather than let the rogue be the team player he is, and take advantage of flanks that already set up desirable situations for allies, and potentially end fights faster.
Despite the fact he has the inherent flaw of being a melee attacker and all that includes. (This is including and not limited to the one attack a turn in most situations.)
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.
That cover only counts for ranged attacks. It doesn't count for the purposes of determining cover for stealth checks. You need actual obstacles to be able to have cover that allows for stealth attacks.
The fact of the matter is, if you're on the battlefield in an M-1 tank, you don't worry about the locals and their small arms if there are T-82s on the battlefield and you're pretty darned certain the irregular infantry doesn't have RPGs or TOWs. You simply ignore them, even if they are climbing all over you.Same should apply here.
Unfortunately, that's when the enemy infantry climbing aboard gets inventive with demo charges and other improvised explosives. There's a reason tanks that leave off anti-personnel weapons have, in the past, been found too vulnerable to infantry. Same with tanks moving about in areas too close to enemy infantry without their own infantry escort.
|
|
why nerf the rogue? it is already underpowered enough. (in 3.5) giving it more skill points doesn't help it that much. just makes it easier to be the jack. or cheapens the intellect requirement, but increasing wisdom dependancy. i like the revamping of the skill system. but it's not enough of an improvement to an underpowered class. in JaronK's 6 tiers, rogue was among tier 5. tier 6 being the worst. the oriental classes were pretty much lower tier than thier "Western" counterparts. the reason for the rogues "inferiority" being a lot of it's niches was beaten by some other class. skill monkey, meet factotum. glass cannon, meet sorcerer or wizard. negotiation, meet beguiler or bard. scout/spy meet druid. don't strip the rogue of the ability to sneak attack by flanking.
|
[Full of sarcasm] :) NO, no, no. That wouldn't be letting the Rogue be a team player at all. He has to be up there out fighting the fighter or nothing. [End sarcasm]
Seriously though I think that you guys are assuming to much of the worst. I'm not a fan of the "you can't" style of play, so more options are a good thing in my book.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, if a character who's surrounded wants to ignore one opponent and concentrate on the other, he might be required to make a Wisdom roll, or perhaps a Concentration check. That's because it takes some will-power to completely ignore somebody right nect to you who's threatening you with a weapon.
Well, if a character who's surrounded wants to ignore one opponent and concentrate on the other, he might be required to make a Wisdom roll, or perhaps a Concentration check. That's because it takes some will-power to completely ignore somebody right nect to you who's threatening you with a weapon.
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.
Above. My post earlier in this thread.
Bottom line for me as a player and DM is as above. I don't see why people want to cripple rogues.
And for those who reference rogue as thief, that was probably old school thinking. Like Back-stab and 101 other minor changes not to tread on copyright toes.
Seriously though I think that you guys are assuming to much of the worst. I'm not a fan of the "you can't" style of play, so more options are a good thing in my book.
I just have a different perspective. You see it as "you can't" ignore someone, I see as "you can't" use your class power when the game system would normally allow it.
Seriously though I think that you guys are assuming to much of the worst. I'm not a fan of the "you can't" style of play, so more options are a good thing in my book.I just have a different perspective. You see it as "you can't" ignore someone, I see as "you can't" use your class power when the game system would normally allow it.
Agreed.
What is being proposed is taking a fundamental ability of a class away which is wrong.How about if I as a DM said that your Cleric couldn't channel positive energy because the Big Bad has Feng Sueied his furniture to enhance negative energy? You would be understandably pi$$ed off because I have stuffed a class ability with a house rule. Same thing applies here. Don't do it. Its unfair to rogue players.
Suppose the DM has planned an adventure to eliminate a Thieves' Guild that is supported by the corrupt Town Guard (NPC Warriors). The PCs choose to Ignore the Warriors to prevent the Rogues from getting SA damage each time they swarm the party. Well, the guild will quickly start dressing a few guardsmen like thieves and put high-level rogues in the uniforms of guard conscripts. The PCs will get stung badly for a couple rounds, and when they say "I focus my attacks on the guy in a guard uniform who Sneak Attacked me" the DM replies, "Which one ... there are four that look alike and you were ignoring them so you don't know which struck you."
Personally, I'd be happy if the monsters choose to Ignore my beafy THF Fighter to focus on the Rogue. That just lets me get in a free AoO with a Two-Handed Power Attack against a very low AC at my best Attack Bonus. Using a weapon with a decent Crit-range and maybe even Keen or other magic, I stand to do more damage than the Rogue could even with a sneak attack. The monster's Ignore tactic to remove the Rogue's SA-damage actually benefits a PC party in this case. Sure, the Player of the Rogue might like the thrill of doing more HP damage, but that's just a pissing contest. By drawing the full attention of the opponent he enabled the Fighter to bring it down faster and so contributed significantly to the successful defeat of the monster and so gets his full XP and needs to take it and shut up and be happy.
My players came to much the same conclusion as you when I mentioned the new house rule to them last night. The rogue players were frankly delighted that they would have the opportunity to use Bluff and Disguise to trick people into letting their guard down to concentrate on bigger threats, at which point they could gut the suckers like fish.
Other DMs are free to not use it if it doesn't suit their playstyle, but since my players were well pleased with it, I'm going to go with it.
@Rezdave
In my party we spend the last few sessions with a rogue, a bard, a wizard, and a cleric. Neither the bard nor the cleric are good at melee (in my party anyhow), but they were the only flanking options my rogue had. Given an Intelligent opponent with this option I think it's inevitable he would ignore the cleric/ bard in our party to focus on the rogue. Heck sometimes my rogue has had to resort to working with the wizard for flanking.
You suggest it's a situational situation but in my case it's a situation that would come up nearly any time we are in melee.
The only situations in which you might Ignore is when there is a single Champion who is getting flanking from a bunch of mooks. Whether it's a Fighter with a big crit-range or a Wizard going after your Touch-AC or yes ... even a Rogue with sneak attack, then it might be worth using. This is not a Rogue-nerf tactic, but a situationally valid tactical combat choice.
You are trying to paint it like it's not a rogue targeted thing but your example doesn't hold water. If the attacker is ignoring the mooks they just use "Aid another" and get the same attack bonus flanking gives. Effect is rogue does Xd6 less damage, fighter and wizard get same bonus.
|
|
Seriously though I think that you guys are assuming to much of the worst. I'm not a fan of the "you can't" style of play, so more options are a good thing in my book.
I just have a different perspective. You see it as "you can't" ignore someone, I see as "you can't" use your class power when the game system would normally allow it.
I think you have this backwards and opposite? Or are we completely not understanding each other.
Agreed.
What is being proposed is taking a fundamental ability of a class away which is wrong.
How about if I as a DM said that your Cleric couldn't channel positive energy because the Big Bad has Feng Sueied his furniture to enhance negative energy? You would be understandably pi$$ed off because I have stuffed a class ability with a house rule. Same thing applies here. Don't do it. Its unfair to rogue players.
Not at all. There are actually spells, places, and mechanics for that. There is a lower level spell in Spell Compendium that litterally cuts off Divine Casters from their power source for I think 10/level. There is also Anitmagic, Dispelling, S.R., Immunity to entire types of effects, Areas with resistance to (or can completely negate) certain types of magic, such as Unhallowed areas.
Not to mention that by saying how wrong this is, you are essentually saying that ALL SR and Saves for ALL Spells need to be removed from the game, because they are hampering class features. It works both ways, and Rogues have it far easier than casters there, because they do not lose their infinite Sneak attack on a miss, there is no Sneak Attack Resistance to negate, and there are a lot fewer things with Immunity to Sneak Attack effects.
Now, I would be angry if all my Cleric ever faught was Golums, which is much more what I think you guys are assuming it would be like.
Not at all. There are actually spells, places, and mechanics for that. Not to mention that by saying how wrong this is, you are essentually saying that ALL SR and Saves for ALL Spells need to be removed from the game, because they are hampering class features. It works both ways, and Rogues have it far easier than casters there, because they do not lose their infinite Sneak attack on a miss, there is no Sneak Attack Resistance to negate, and there are a lot fewer things with Immunity to Sneak Attack effects.Seriously though I think that you guys are assuming to much of the worst. I'm not a fan of the "you can't" style of play, so more options are a good thing in my book.I just have a different perspective. You see it as "you can't" ignore someone, I see as "you can't" use your class power when the game system would normally allow it.Agreed.
What is being proposed is taking a fundamental ability of a class away which is wrong.
How about if I as a DM said that your Cleric couldn't channel positive energy because the Big Bad has Feng Sueied his furniture to enhance negative energy? You would be understandably pi$$ed off because I have stuffed a class ability with a house rule. Same thing applies here. Don't do it. Its unfair to rogue players.
I'm saying no such thing about saves etc and quite frankly that ticks me off. If you read my post what I am saying is people are trying to take away a core ability (RAW) of a class which is wrong.
If I came to a table with a rogue build based around acrobatics to tumble to the rear of the enemy to get a sneak attack because I'm flanking them and I get told that doesn't work because of X house rule I would question why a fundamental class feature has been stuffed.Would people be happy if wizards could only cast 1st level spells on a Monday and stuffed that class ability?
Why houserule a class ability to make it worse?
What compensation is being made for taking that choice away from the player's rogue?
Well its not going to happen in my game and whatever you do in yours is fine. Each to their own if the players are happy that is the main thing but if I was playing a rogue at that table I would be less than happy.
|
|
You mean overpowered, right?
Tier 5 is the 2nd weakest tier out of 6. every niche the rogue could have covered. some other class did better and laughed. Not every DM used Campaign Setting sourcebooks. Campaign Setting sourcebooks (Especially Ebberron and Faerun) were loaded with cheese. try lesser planetouched. races that should've kept thier ecl. unless further stripped down. the newer splatbooks are also loaded with cheese. the first 4 completes seem tame on paper, the 2nd set of expansions seems to be more powerful. the only advantage the rogue really has is it has it's own thuerge class for every magic system out there. even the variant ones. so basically that means what? a rogues power is more multiclass synergy? what if a rogue wanted to go pure rogue?
|
|
And for those who reference rogue as thief, that was probably old school thinking. Like Back-stab and 101 other minor changes not to tread on copyright toes.
The point I was tring to make and that got ignored, was that Flanking for Sneak Attack is a very new thing. It was argued that if you take that away, there is no point in playing a rogue. What I said was, that is false, for many reasons, particularly because that feature has not by far always been a feature of rogues and because rogues used to deal even less damage (and have fewer HP), but still entered combat. Trying to say that Rogue and Thief are two different classes is also false (at least for this purpose). Thieves had kits to make them a little however you wanted them, from swashbuckler to catburgler to street thug. You could focus the same way you can now, but they still did far less damage with sneak attack, had generally lower AC and HP, and had a harder time getting their sneak attack.
|
|
Not true. In fact, with a little effort, the Rogue can outclass many other classes. They can UMD to Heal, use all gear in the game, out fight the fighters, (used to be able to) out AC everyone, and they never run out of their abilities. Most spells or effects can be duplicated to an extent by common Skills (or negated through them). The real problem is, a Rogue can do many of these things at the same time, that is to say one character can focus on many of them.
Seriously though I think that you guys are assuming to much of the worst. I'm not a fan of the "you can't" style of play, so more options are a good thing in my book.I just have a different perspective. You see it as "you can't" ignore someone, I see as "you can't" use your class power when the game system would normally allow it.I think you have this backwards and opposite? Or are we completely not understanding each other.
Your perspective ->
GM says "Yes you can ignore that flanker"My perspective
GM says "No you can't get flanking because he is ignoring the bard"
From my POV being able to ignore flankers is exactly the sort of "You Can't" style of play you claim to not like.
Also, it seems like you are thinking of it more from the perspective of a player 'option' while I am looking at it as something that would more often be used against the players. Not from evil killer GMs but from just GMs intelligently role playing enemies. In particular in my specific case.
|
|
I am generally thinking of it from both, but I think that Players would often use it more than NPC's.
My perspective is that I like to have options, and (I'm not trying to be rude when I say this, just can't think of a more clear way) the fact hat the Rogue may get hurt a little more than other classes is a poor reason not to allow something that makes perfect "real world" sense. In most games, there are option to specify that you are going to defend yourself against a specific target moreso than others, or that you are going to specifically watch out for something if you think there is a chance it might happen.
|
|
stripping the rogues ability to sneak attack by flanking is as already said, only casting first level spells on monday, or only being able to channel positive energy on a full moon.
if you are being flanked. it is awfully difficult, no, nigh possible to ignore one target in favor of the other. human instincts will make you attempt to dodge the thrusted dagger. even if you ignore it. every action has a reaction. to fully ignore is comepletely impossible. yeah, you can choose not to interpret the gossip to your left, but you hear it and still know it is occurring. and because of that, you know there is gossip to your left. even if you ignored an attack from one side. the attack from the other side is still gonna get the "flanking bonus". purely because of the guy on the other side helping. even if you ignore the little girl with the dagger to better defend against the guy in plate with the claymore. both are going to flank you. because both threaten your life. the wounds from ignoring the dagger slow your reaction to the opposite side. still giving that flank bonus. no way to fully remove focus from an object. your mind might say the dagger was harmless, but your body feels otherwise.
And for those who reference rogue as thief, that was probably old school thinking. Like Back-stab and 101 other minor changes not to tread on copyright toes.The point I was tring to make and that got ignored, was that Flanking for Sneak Attack is a very new thing. It was argued that if you take that away, there is no point in playing a rogue. What I said was, that is false, for many reasons, particularly because that feature has not by far always been a feature of rogues and because rogues used to deal even less damage (and have fewer HP), but still entered combat. Trying to say that Rogue and Thief are two different classes is also false (at least for this purpose). Thieves had kits to make them a little however you wanted them, from swashbuckler to catburgler to street thug. You could focus the same way you can now, but they still did far less damage with sneak attack, had generally lower AC and HP, and had a harder time getting their sneak attack.
I ignored this point (or at least handwaved it away) because flanking for Sneak Attack has been in the game since 3.0. That means it's been through (official, and one presumes rigorous) playtesting for 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder. At least. It's survived all of that unchanged. Not one revision or errata that I can think of. That leads me to believe that it's an integral, balanced part of the game that we're playing now.
I am generally thinking of it from both, but I think that Players would often use it more than NPC's.
My perspective is that I like to have options, and (I'm not trying to be rude when I say this, just can't think of a more clear way) the fact hat the Rogue may get hurt a little more than other classes is a poor reason not to allow something that makes perfect "real world" sense. In most games, there are option to specify that you are going to defend yourself against a specific target moreso than others, or that you are going to specifically watch out for something if you think there is a chance it might happen.
Exactly. And I really dislike the metagaminess when DMs say, "Okay, you see a fighter, a cleric, a wizard, a rogue and a bard" rather than "You see a guy in chainmail, a girl with a big ankh around her neck, a guy with a pointy hat, a nondescript sort of guy, and this guy in really flamboyant clothes with a mandolin."
They guy with the chainmail may be a rogue, the girl with the ankh could be a necromancer, they guy with the pointy hat could be another rogue who's wearing a wizard hat because hey, it's magic, and you're not going to pitch a magic hat just because it doesn't match your fashion sense, the nondescript guy might be the actual wizard who got tired of everyone shooting arrows at the guy in the pointy hat, and the dude with the mandolin might be a cleric who's also a choir director and youth minister on the side.
The whole "I ignore the wizard to concentrate on the rogue" is something that comes up from metagame knowledge. In a realistic world, very few people would know what class someone was or what abilities they had.
|
|
Exactly. And I really dislike the metagaminess when DMs say, "Okay, you see a fighter, a cleric, a wizard, a rogue and a bard" rather than "You see a guy in chainmail, a girl with a big ankh around her neck, a guy with a pointy hat, a nondescript sort of guy, and this guy in really flamboyant clothes with a mandolin."
They guy with the chainmail may be a rogue, the girl with the ankh could be a necromancer, they guy with the pointy hat could be another rogue who's wearing a wizard hat because hey, it's magic, and you're not going to pitch a magic hat just because it doesn't match your fashion sense, the nondescript guy might be the actual wizard who got tired of everyone shooting arrows at the guy in the pointy hat, and the dude with the mandolin might be a cleric who's also a choir director and youth minister on the side.
The whole "I ignore the wizard to concentrate on the rogue" is something that comes up from metagame knowledge. In a realistic world, very few people would know what class someone was or what abilities they had.
i agree with the above to an extent. certain fashion trends may hint ones profession, but may also be decieiving. my dm throws steriotypes based on appearance. he described a particular little girl (a PC) (16 but looks 12) in a black yukata as looking like some kind of spellcaster. (she is actually a rogue) and the party doesn't know her class in character. they have an idea out of character. metagame knowledge is why every pc has a race, class and attributes that synergize.
The whole "I ignore the wizard to concentrate on the rogue" is something that comes up from metagame knowledge. In a realistic world, very few people would know what class someone was or what abilities they had.
And you're assuming that this is happening. Has never happened to me, even with a rookie DM. After a round, maybe two, of combat though, you usually have a decent clue of what each NPC *probably* is. When the nondescript looking guy with no apparent holy symbol started waving his fingers around and saying gobbeldygook, and a few seconds later a hellhound appeared, I assume he's probably a wizard, maybe even a conjurer. When the guy in chainmail manages to find a gap in my defenses and skewers my spleen while I'm flanked by the Hellhound, I assume he's probably a Rogue. Etc.
I would suggest implementing "ignoring flankers" where you focus all your effort on one opponent, for the sake of all others. This would have the following affect.
1. The person chooses the target in front, and ingnores the one behind
2. The person is considered flat footed for all other opponents
3. The target that is denied flanking, may still use a flank attack but at a -4 penalty.
4. The other person who is flanking recieves a +4 bonus to hit, and their crit range is doubled.
You could modify the mechanics as necessary, but the thought is to make flanking harder for the person in front, but they still have a chance. However, by focusing on one opponent you are considered flat-footed (surprised for all others). The person flanking from behind has a much easier time hitting you and there is a better chance to crit.
This is almot like an all out defense maneuver against one opponent, but still allow you to act against them.
Flanking is part of the core rules, so I do not think it is wise to nullify it all together.
|
|
Not that I think this is the real problem, but "ignoring" is a bad word for what I'm meaning. You are still aware that the person you are "ignoring" is there and some matter of threat. Rather, your opting to lower your defenses a little towards one (or more) threats in order to focus against another single threat.
What you just suggested is kind of pointless. You give everyone targeting you a +2 (+4 total) and lose all Dex (and Dodge and certain other bonuses) so that one target (who can still Flank you) gets a -4 (which probably equals out to a total + without your Dex except at the lowest levels).
|
|
heres another idea. leave the flanking rules alone. keep them as they are in core. ignoring flankers will get abused fast, the above variant requires a facing rule. the abuse being, rogues will have thier power drop significantly. both as PC's and NPC's. as anyone will now just ignore the other guy to better evade the rogue. the rogue becomes useless at the target's whim.
Thanks for the clarification on my mechanics, you are right it goes too far in one direction. But the main point is either you totally ignore everyone else and focus on one person flanking you (to remove sneak damage), or if you are still keeping any eye out for anyone else (that may attack), then you can not remove the ability for the rogue to backstab, because you may get distracted.
because both threaten your life.Ah, but that's the point, what if one of them DOESN'T threaten your life!
Should you be allowed to ignore them? Some say yes (because it makes logical sense), and some say no (because the RAW are the RAW and logic be damned)!
I think it's debatable that it even makes logical sense. So he can't hurt you, but he may still be able to trip you up, grab on, all sorts of things that aren't technically "hurting" the PC by the rules. So don't just say that the anti-ignore people are just slavishly following the rules as they are written.
because both threaten your life.Ah, but that's the point, what if one of them DOESN'T threaten your life!
Should you be allowed to ignore them? Some say yes (because it makes logical sense), and some say no (because the RAW are the RAW and logic be damned)!
Not logic be damned. Logic take a back seat to the rules because we're playing a game.
|
|
why do we need this extra detail? is D&D/PFRPG really meant to apply every law of physics? every rule of logic? every real life law? if thats the case, then halflings can no longer damage giants. a fireball's damage multiplies for each square the target occupies. collossal creatures with thier 8x8 space take 64 times the damage of a fireball that they occupy all 64 squares of. paladins get arrested for touching people in places i cannot mention on these boards. elderly wizards like gandalf go to retirement homes. fighters can't join the militia without graduating high school, college and boot camp. which means they need more intellegence.
it needlessly interferes with the fantasy aspect of a fantasy game.
realism and fantasy don't mesh 100%. thats why logic takes a massive backseat to the rules. a fantasy game does not need to require a newtonian physics book. balance, and consistency supersede logic.
So don't just say that the anti-ignore people are just slavishly following the rules as they are written.see the post below yours, it appears that is the case ;)
I didn't say throw out logic completely, did I? Nope, didn't say it. I said it has to take a back seat. That is to say, where logic and rules conflict, the rules win because we're playing a game. In my humble opinion.
If a fighter armed with a dagger attacks a giant, even if that said giant never presents anything higher than his knee that the fighter can reach with his dagger... well that doesn't make logical sense, but I don't think anyone will deny the fighter's right to continue to make attacks, deal lethal damage, and eventually kill the giant. And no, there's no hamstringing involved (the giant stays at full combat capacity until he hits 0 HP after all), and there's no leaping up on the giant to stab at squishy bits (fighter's wearing adamantine full plate with no ranks in Acrobatics or Climb).
We accept these kinds of logical impossibilities all the time while we play this game. Because it's a game. With rules.
|
|
I didn't say throw out logic completely, did I? Nope, didn't say it. I said it has to take a back seat. That is to say, where logic and rules conflict, the rules win because we're playing a game. In my humble opinion.If a fighter armed with a dagger attacks a giant, even if that said giant never presents anything higher than his knee that the fighter can reach with his dagger... well that doesn't make logical sense, but I don't think anyone will deny the fighter's right to continue to make attacks, deal lethal damage, and eventually kill the giant. And no, there's no hamstringing involved (the giant stays at full combat capacity until he hits 0 HP after all), and there's no leaping up on the giant to stab at squishy bits (fighter's wearing adamantine full plate with no ranks in Acrobatics or Climb).
We accept these kinds of logical impossibilities all the time while we play this game. Because it's a game. With rules.
+1 that was a better way of saying what i tried to get across. your wording is much more elegant than mine. this is also why called shots don't exist.