A Dire Rat is behind me and a level 7 Rogue on the other. I want to completely ignore the rat. Can I and if I can what happens?
There have been several arguments (in every sense of the word) about this on these boards about the subject.
The short version is, "officially, no; house rule it if you want".
If you totally ignore the rat and you're not looking at it, I think it may leave you flat-footed against said rat and it also gets a flanking bonus even if the rogue does not.
|
There have been several arguments (in every sense of the word) about this on these boards about the subject.
The short version is, "officially, no; house rule it if you want".
People tended to fall into one of 2 buckets on this.
a) Of course you can turn your back completely to one foe and focus on the other such that he can't sneak attack. How can he sneak attack if you're focused on him and watching his every move?
b) So you think it's ok to allow a player to decide whether or not to ignore a major class feature of an opponent just by saying "I ignore it"?
I fell into the "b" category. how would you feel if you were playing a Rogue and the DM, at every opportunity, told you that his NPC could ignore your Sneak Attack bonus? That's really how you need to approach the question.
-Skeld
A Dire Rat is behind me and a level 7 Rogue on the other. I want to completely ignore the rat. Can I and if I can what happens?
Nothing in the rules allows you to ignore a combatant. There was thread on a houserule for this situation a while back though.
b) So you think it's ok to allow a player to decide whether or not to ignore a major class feature of an opponent just by saying "I ignore it"?
Aren't you saying the exact opposite? "I'm watching that Rogue like a hawk!!" - meanwhile his Sword and Board Tank buddy is attacking you from the rear... flat footed, no shield etc?
I would allow someone to completely ignore a flanker...at the risk of allowing a coup d'grace. (mostly because it's completely meta-game, how do you know you're facing a level 7 rogue? How do you know that rat isn't awakened?)
|
|
If you completely ignore the rat, it will freely bite your shins, get under your feet, make disconcerting noises behind you and generally distract you enough that you can't defend yourself effectively against the rogue.
The DM could make up a separate rule to account for this, but any such rule would have very similar aggregate effects to granting the rogue the flanking bonus again, so the difference isn't worth arguing about.
Also, what Skeld said.
Hiya.
Two quick replies to two different quotes...
A Dire Rat is behind me and a level 7 Rogue on the other. I want to completely ignore the rat. Can I and if I can what happens?
Sure. Why not? What would happen...ask your DM. That's his job. To adjudicate situations that the rules do not specifically cover, or situations in which the player decides to do something 'unexpected' or 'unusual'. This would be one of those situations. He will take the situation into account, think about a reasonable recourse, think about how such a ruling may alter the campaign as a whole, and then make a ruling. Simple.
What I'd do...allow it, but give the rat it's normal attack, as well as a free one (AoO) against the flat-footed AC of your character. I may also tack on a x1 multiplier if it gets a critical.
Nothing in the rules allows you to ignore a combatant. There was thread on a houserule for this situation a while back though.
Nothing in the rules allows you to use a cooked turkey as a shield, but you could try. That's one of the main good things of RPG's...freedom of choice.
There is a spell called 'solipsism' in the spell compendium making you think you are alone in the world. You ignore everything and everyone, making you effectively helpless. Continuing this line of thought, if you ignore the rat, you are considered helpless to it and it can therefore coupe de grace you.
I'd simply rule you can't ignore flankers. They will always annoy somehow like mentioned above. Run thru your feet, waggle their tail in front of your face. You can never ignore it completely, therefore your front opponent would still get his flanking bonus.
A variation houserule would be to allowing people to ignore opponents in combat to deny people in front of you the flanking bonus. However:
* Opponents behind you would still get the flanking bonus.
* A concentration check is required. Let's say 10 + opponent's HD or something?
Or they would crit all the time with all their attacks and get an extra AoO every round against you since you're not paying attention.
There have been several arguments (in every sense of the word) about this on these boards about the subject.
The short version is, "officially, no; house rule it if you want".
People tended to fall into one of 2 buckets on this.
a) Of course you can turn your back completely to one foe and focus on the other such that he can't sneak attack. How can he sneak attack if you're focused on him and watching his every move?
b) So you think it's ok to allow a player to decide whether or not to ignore a major class feature of an opponent just by saying "I ignore it"?
I fell into the "b" category. how would you feel if you were playing a Rogue and the DM, at every opportunity, told you that his NPC could ignore your Sneak Attack bonus? That's really how you need to approach the question.
-Skeld
I remember...I'm a group B myself.
Its removing a core ability from a class which is unfair.
|
Nothing in the rules allows you to ignore a combatant. There was thread on a houserule for this situation a while back though.Nothing in the rules allows you to use a cooked turkey as a shield, but you could try. That's one of the main good things of RPG's...freedom of choice.
It is not so much that "nothing in the rules allow ...", rather than the rules explicitely state that when you are flanked (with due diagrams and explanations), you get the "flanked" condition and all its consequences.
You can still ignore the rat, mind you. But it doesn't change the fact that you are still under the "flanked" condition.
Suppose now the rat is invisible, you just don't know about it (yet), and you are therefore ignoring it.
Are you still flanked? Can the rogue sneak attack you?And what if the rogue does not know about the invisible rat either?
If the rat isn't visible, it doesn't provide flanking bonuses for anyone else. Against it, you are denied your Dex to AC and it gets a +4 bonus to attack you.
That's a circumstance where you actually don't know the target is there. If a player seriously wanted me to accept a new game action "ignore" that was able to negate the largest class feature of an entire class (which is not terribly akin to "I want to be immune to spells"), I'd look at it this way: you're helpless against the rat. Let's see if the rat is clever enough to coup de grace.
My point is that if you're ignoring the rat utterly, totally, and without exception, you're seriously opening yourself up. More than just getting attacked by someone invisible who becomes visible during that attack. As the dagger plunges in, you react. Oh no, you're asking me to accept you're unreservedly ignoring the rat's actions. Ok. Helpless.
|
|
Nothing in the rules allows you to use a cooked turkey as a shield, but you could try. That's one of the main good things of RPG's...freedom of choice.
I definitly agree with this statement as far as freedom of choice and it ultimately being the GM's discretion...
The dangerous part is the "Nothing in the rules allows[states]you can't do... "
The rules don't say a lot of things. And nothing frustrates me more than people inferring things from what the rules do not say.
If they had to take the time to include all the stuff that the rules could say then there would be no game because the rule book would be the size of a skyscraper!.
|
By the same token, you don't want to overnerf an already-weak class by allowing this. It's realistic, but DND has long ago passed up realism for game balance, and this is a case of that. Think of it this way, the rat knowling at your butt is painful and distracting :).
Obviously this would be a huge boon to enemies (plenty of useless summons or even wizards have run up to provide rogues a flank opportunity), would it be fair if they nerfed a PC class like this? What's good for the gander...
A Dire Rat is behind me and a level 7 Rogue on the other. I want to completely ignore the rat. Can I and if I can what happens?
Yes, you can avoid being flanked by the rat. Close your eyes. According to the D&D 3.0 FAQ (which may or may not be valid now), you cannot be flanked if you are blind (or can't otherwise see). As a side note, you cannot be flanked by invisible creatures.
somehow become invisible, draw my sword, and move to
the other side of that foe, thus flanking the foe. Does my ally
still get a flanking bonus even if I am invisible?
You get a flanking bonus from any ally your foe can see (and
who is in the correct position to flank). If your foe can’t see
you, you don’t provide a flanking bonus to any ally.
Sharp readers will note that this means you cannot flank a
blind creature; however, truly blind creatures are effectively
flanked already (they can’t use their Dexterity bonus to AC and
you a +2 bonus to attack them). Creatures with the blindsight
ability effectively “see” within blindsight range and can be
flanked.
While it would normally be considered a bad idea to become effectively blind over being flanked, you can use this to your advantage. If you happen to have uncanny dodge and close your eyes (assuming no other conditions -- no helpless, no immobilized, etc.), a rogue can never sneak attack you. If you have the Blind-Fight feat and close your eyes (again assuming no other conditions), you can't be sneak attacked in melee.
|
|
A Dire Rat is behind me and a level 7 Rogue on the other. I want to completely ignore the rat. Can I and if I can what happens?Yes, you can avoid being flanked by the rat. Close your eyes. According to the D&D 3.0 FAQ (which may or may not be valid now), you cannot be flanked if you are blind (or can't otherwise see). As a side note, you cannot be flanked by invisible creatures.
** spoiler omitted **
While it would normally be considered a bad idea to become effectively blind over being flanked, you can use this to your advantage. If you happen to have uncanny dodge and close your eyes (assuming no other conditions -- no helpless, no immobilized, etc.), a rogue can never sneak attack you. If you have the Blind-Fight feat and close your eyes (again assuming no other conditions), you can't be sneak attacked in melee.
Say what?
According to the D&D 3.0 FAQ (which may or may not be valid now)
I would tend to go with this one on that.
Say what?
According to the D&D 3.0 FAQ (which may or may not be valid now)I would tend to go with this one on that.
*Shrug* That's how it was in 3.0/3.5. Since PF doesn't have any significant changes to wording (other than the rogue's uncanny dodge text, which I don't think significantly alters the ability), I assume it works the same way.
Unearthed arcana have rules for combat facing, which replace sneak attack from flanking with backstabs: the rogue can be alone or you can be surrounded, if you're facing away from him he gets SA, if not he doesn't.
Turning your back on an opponent to face another is a free action the first time of your turn, and a move action the second time.
Movements and actions directed sideways or backwards take penalties.
|
|
*Shrug* That's how it was in 3.0/3.5. Since PF doesn't have any significant changes to wording (other than the rogue's uncanny dodge text, which I don't think significantly alters the ability), I assume it works the same way.Say what?
According to the D&D 3.0 FAQ (which may or may not be valid now)I would tend to go with this one on that.
Your probably right. It just doesn't make much sense thats all sounds like someone just trying to get themselves out of situation they shouldn't have been in to begin with. However sometimes you can't help it, and you have to feel the sting!
|
|
Unearthed arcana have rules for combat facing, which replace sneak attack from flanking with backstabs: the rogue can be alone or you can be surrounded, if you're facing away from him he gets SA, if not he doesn't.
Turning your back on an opponent to face another is a free action the first time of your turn, and a move action the second time.
Movements and actions directed sideways or backward takes penalties.
Don't get me started on Unearthed Arcana...I like Charmin better...it's much softer.
Just a little joke. I appreciate Pathfinder for keeping it simple so far. Most of the rules problems we ran into in the game just had to do with people wanting everything they can get there hands on and not roleplaying...if you catch my drift.
What is that ?
What is that ?
Toilet roll.
Izal is better ;0
Oh... So that's why google had nothing about "charmin alternative rules".
I'm curious of the possible ramifications for other classes and their abilities.
Can one also pay extra attention to the Mage to completely avoid a fireball or lightning bolt? or to steel oneself against a will or fortitude attacking effect?
Its not so much 'I focus on you so you can't sneak attack me" that bothers me as it is the overall game ramifications. "I concentrate on you so your main class ability is negated" is to me, the larger issue.
Once you let them ignore one class ability you've opened the door to the rest of them, without any real solid footing to deny it aside from just saying "sorry, no, but i want you to be immune to SA but not anything else".
-S
A Dire Rat is behind me and a level 7 Rogue on the other. I want to completely ignore the rat. Can I and if I can what happens?Yes, you can avoid being flanked by the rat. Close your eyes. According to the D&D 3.0 FAQ (which may or may not be valid now), you cannot be flanked if you are blind (or can't otherwise see). As a side note, you cannot be flanked by invisible creatures.
** spoiler omitted **
While it would normally be considered a bad idea to become effectively blind over being flanked, you can use this to your advantage. If you happen to have uncanny dodge and close your eyes (assuming no other conditions -- no helpless, no immobilized, etc.), a rogue can never sneak attack you. If you have the Blind-Fight feat and close your eyes (again assuming no other conditions), you can't be sneak attacked in melee.
Interesting... but you effectively blind yourself which brings a host of other problems. Even if you get to keep your dex bonus to AC (which, if you go by martial arts movies, is reasonable...), you still suffer from all of the other penalties: -2 to AC, -4 to DEX and STR based checks, move no faster than half speed (without Acrobatics checks), and a 50 percent miss chance on all attacks. Meanwhile, you remain vulnerable to other attacks, while being surrounded by enemies.
I would also say that it would be REALLY hard to keep your eyes closed in combat voluntarily without a blindfold (will saves, concentration checks). And you couldn't open them up to attack (since it's all 'simultaneous') and then close them to defend.
That's a brain teaser to be sure, to keep yourself from being vulnerable, you make yourself more vulnerable, but that's ok, because you're not flanked?
Huh.
|
|
Aren't you saying the exact opposite? "I'm watching that Rogue like a hawk!!" - meanwhile his Sword and Board Tank buddy is attacking you from the rear... flat footed, no shield etc?
Not really. I was pointing out that most people in the debate fell into one 2 camps, a or b.
Personally, I'm in the "b" camp. I wouldn't allow it as a DM. Allowing it and putting a bunch of caveats in place that make it worse than not allowing it doesn't make much sense to me.
-Skeld
As to the main post's question, I'd say if you do allow this (and it makes a ton of sense to just keep the flank and move on), then you would be effectively helpless/vulnerable (at the very least they'd be deliberately invisible to you, meaning you might not get uncanny dodge) to the other foe.
On the other hand, the rogue would be seriously trying to harm you. At the very least I might allow a free bluff/feint to get the flanking bonus and sneak attack (not to lose dex bonus).
You'd also be very vulnerable to maneuvers from behind (trip, grapple, overrun, etc.).
Simple answer, say no: it keeps everyone on the same level (PCs and Critters).
Also remind them that what's good for the player is good for the monster.
That's usually what I do, state the case plainly for the players and let them decide, though I keep final word.
I'm curious of the possible ramifications for other classes and their abilities.
Can one also pay extra attention to the Mage to completely avoid a fireball or lightning bolt? or to steel oneself against a will or fortitude attacking effect?
Its not so much 'I focus on you so you can't sneak attack me" that bothers me as it is the overall game ramifications. "I concentrate on you so your main class ability is negated" is to me, the larger issue.
Once you let them ignore one class ability you've opened the door to the rest of them, without any real solid footing to deny it aside from just saying "sorry, no, but i want you to be immune to SA but not anything else".
-S
This is why the answer should be no.
You'll get players saying that their PCs are pinching themselves really hard so sleep spell doesn't work :)Its not a case of can it be done but should it.
Is it fair to nerf a classes ability and a prime one at that?
Would it be fair to say a STR 4 fighter (yea I know...okay he has been hit by strength drain) can't use a tower shield because its really heavy? Nothing in the rules says he can't but common sense says he can't or at least be penalised.
While it would normally be considered a bad idea to become effectively blind over being flanked, you can use this to your advantage. If you happen to have uncanny dodge and close your eyes (assuming no other conditions -- no helpless, no immobilized, etc.), a rogue can never sneak attack you. If you have the Blind-Fight feat and close your eyes (again assuming no other conditions), you can't be sneak attacked in melee.
Uncanny Dodge protects against only one condition, being flat-footed. Being blind or fighting an invisible creature are two separate conditions with two separate sets of penalties, neither of which is the same as being flat-footed. So you would close your eyes and be blind, which is vastly worse than being flanked and not covered under Uncanny Dodge.
As for the Blind Fight feat: It does seem to be a loop-hole. You close your eyes making yourself blind, but with this feat you don't lose your DEX bonus to AC so the Rogue doesn't qualify to Sneak Attack you. However, as a DM I would not allow a loop-hole like this. A situation where, with your eyes open, you would be flanked should not improve because you lose your sight. IMO, Blind Fight was not designed to give you a better defense when you are blind than you normally have when you can see or to defeat SA via loop-hole in the rules; it was designed to mediate the crippling effects of being blinded.
As a DM I would rule that a person without Blind Fight would suffer all the negative effects of being blinded (which Uncanny Dodge doesn't protect against). However, a person with Blind Fight, since he doesn't lose his DEX bonus to AC or suffer the -2 to AC, would only suffer the normal flanked penalties (plus giving their opponents 50% concealment, automatically losing vision based skill checks, and suffer a -4 on STR or DEX based skills) instead of being crippled by the full effects of being blind. In either case it is better to just face the fact that you are flanked and try to maneuver out of it or focus your attacks on the rat, kill it, and taking away the Rogue's flanking partner.
..
For the OP: NO! Nowhere does RAW allow for this tactic.
As others have said, if you are going to allow PCs to do this to the monsters and NPCs then you have to let the monsters and NPCs do it to the PCs as well. The Rogue in your party will HATE you for opening that door. If you want to avoid being flanked then don't get flanked. Party tactics are the answer to this problem, not making up new combat rules. As a DM though, I wouldn't allow someone to simply ignore one combatant to focus on the other. I would no more allow a PC to say, "I am going to focus all my attention on the Rogue and ignore the rat, thereby denying the Rogue's flanking bonus and most powerful class ability," than I would allow a PC to say, "I disbelieve in arcane magic, so Wizards can't hurt me with their spells," or, "I don't believe in this Cleric's god, so his divine spells can't effect me."
If someone did manage to talk me into allowing it, the penalties would be so much that they would likely not want to do it anyway. IMO if you are defending yourself at all, reacting to a creature’s attacks, then you will be flanked. If you decide to intentionally ignore a creature and make no effort to defend yourself or react to its attacks than you are voluntarily making yourself "helpless" to that creature, thereby vulnerable to coup de grace.
Uncanny Dodge protects against only one condition, being flat-footed. Being blind or fighting an invisible creature are two separate conditions with two separate sets of penalties, neither of which is the same as being flat-footed. So you would close your eyes and be blind, which is vastly worse than being flanked and not covered under Uncanny Dodge.
The problem is that 3.0/3.5 had a different writing of the uncanny dodge ability. The PF version doesn't seem to express whether it's different or the same version. . .
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class, she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
The resulting "cannot be caught flat-footed, even if the attacker is invisible" doesn't make sense. Why include the text "even if the attacker is invisible" -- if you aren't considered flat-footed when struck by an invisible attacker? Either you can be considered flat-footed when struck by an invisible attacker -- or the text is wrong.
@ Meabolex
I am aware of the difference between 3.5 and PF versions of UD. In 3.5 it was clearly the intent that UD would protect you from being flat-footed as well as from invisible attackers. However, the PF version is obviously different and only protects from being caught flat-footed.
Being attacked while flat-footed and being attacked by an invisible attacker are two very different conditions with two very different sets of penalties. If the designers wanted UD to protect against both they could have left the text the way it was in 3.5 books.
However, the PF version is obviously different and only protects from being caught flat-footed.
Actually, the only thing that's obvious is that the text has changed. It isn't clear whether the intent has changed.
If the designers wanted UD to protect against both they could have left the text the way it was in 3.5 books.
Exactly. Instead they left it in a state that doesn't make sense either way.
When in doubt, PF strives to be 3.X compatible. I don't know why this rule would be changed without a clear substitution. In other words, I'm following the 3.X version until there's an official ruling.
|
|
A Dire Rat is behind me and a level 7 Rogue on the other. I want to completely ignore the rat. Can I and if I can what happens?Yes, you can avoid being flanked by the rat. Close your eyes. According to the D&D 3.0 FAQ (which may or may not be valid now), you cannot be flanked if you are blind (or can't otherwise see). As a side note, you cannot be flanked by invisible creatures.
** spoiler omitted **
While it would normally be considered a bad idea to become effectively blind over being flanked, you can use this to your advantage. If you happen to have uncanny dodge and close your eyes (assuming no other conditions -- no helpless, no immobilized, etc.), a rogue can never sneak attack you. If you have the Blind-Fight feat and close your eyes (again assuming no other conditions), you can't be sneak attacked in melee.
Interesting... but you effectively blind yourself which brings a host of other problems. Even if you get to keep your dex bonus to AC (which, if you go by martial arts movies, is reasonable...), you still suffer from all of the other penalties: -2 to AC, -4 to DEX and STR based checks, move no faster than half speed (without Acrobatics checks), and a 50 percent miss chance on all attacks. Meanwhile, you remain vulnerable to other attacks, while being surrounded by enemies.
I would also say that it would be REALLY hard to keep your eyes closed in combat voluntarily without a blindfold (will saves, concentration checks). And you couldn't open them up to attack (since it's all 'simultaneous') and then close them to defend.
That's a brain teaser to be sure, to keep yourself from being vulnerable, you make yourself more vulnerable, but that's ok, because you're not flanked?
Huh.
This is a non-issue - being flanked in 3.0 was a much different situation than in 3.5/PF, as the spoiler itself shows (there's a world of difference between being flanked and being attacked by an invisible attacker in 3.5/PF, but almost none in 3.0), so that FAQ ruling is irrelevant. Flanking in 3.5/PF is very straightforward: do they threaten you? If yes, they can flank you. End of story.
This is a non-issue - being flanked in 3.0 was a much different situation than in 3.5/PF, as the spoiler itself shows (there's a world of difference between being flanked and being attacked by an invisible...
Ahh, I can't remember changes between all versions X: Yes, flanking is entirely based on positioning in 3.5/PF. My mistake.
|
I don't think you can ignore someone totally to focus on the other. Here is my reasoning.
Combat isn't swing, miss or hit, rinse and repeat. It is a series of actions that mechanically play out to be a certain number of attacks per combatant per round. There are feints and blocks and shifting around in that lil' 5' square. There is scrambling to find a chink in which to sink your fangs, minor hits that don't damage a person because it either is deflected or doesn't make it through the armor.
All of this stuff, even if you tried to ignore it, would provide minor distractions that allow a rogue a chance to slip a blade into an unprotected area.
I mean realistically in a 6 second round I could swing a bunch of times but D&D equates all that into deflecting blows, faking out the opponent a bit, sidestepping blows and finally having a chance to land one good shot with low BAB. As you get better you can convert more of your effort into good blows and you probably gain a bit of speed with combat familiarity.
It's not just- step in, swing sword, wait. It's way more dynamic to me.
Not sure I follow the logic in the arguements regarding spells and disbelieving in magic. Those rules are straight forward.
So are the combat rules involving flanking.
There is also a leap that ignoring a rat makes the defender avaiable for a rat coup de grace, and makes them helpless to that attack, standing upright swinging a sword is not helpless, unconscious and laid out dying are the helpless condition, to say a full plate person is helpless redefines sneak attack it should be the rogue making this coup de grace (even a rougue can't do that so why can a rat?)
The key here is that the PC is choosing to "completely ignore" one of the two combatants. When you are flanked your opponents get +2 to hit you and Rogues can SA you even when you are actively paying attention to both of them and reacting to both combatants attacks. When you are struck by an invisible attacker you lose your DEX bonus to AC and the opponent gets another +2 to attack you but here you are still not "completely ignoring" the invisible attacker, you simply don't see him until the moment he attacks and you have very little time to react. Even when you are blind you are still able to defend yourself, albeit very poorly, but the key here is that you are still trying to defend yourself.
So not only are there no rules for ignoring one of two flanking opponents, but the penalties laid out for all these combat conditions automatically assume you are actively paying attention to all combatants and trying to defend against all combatants. If you just decide you are going to ignore one and be completely non-reactive to his attacks, then IMO you are volunteering to let that combatant do whatever he wants to you and telling him, "Go for it, I promise I won't defend myself." IMO that = vulnerable to coup de grace.
If the rat bit your ankle or pounced on your head it could not perform a coup de grace. Anyone sure that a rat can even decide to do that?
It might nibble a helpless foe but really, rat bites jugular, b/c rat knows anatomy/physiology with its 1 INT point.
1) It's not a regular rat, it's a Dire Rat, the same size category as a Halfling.
2) It doesn't take intelligence for a creature to instinctively recognizing where its attacks will cause the most damage. Would you put up such an argument if a Wolf or a Lion attacked a helpless man's jugular for a coup de grace? A regular rat probably couldn't do this (They are very tiny and mostly a scavenger creatures so would likely just try to run away, not attack a PC.) but a Dire Rat is a much larger creature and if it is attacking the PC than it clearly sees the PC as prey (Or at the very least a threat that it believes it can kill), an animal won't stay and fight if it doesn't think it can win.So could a Dire Rat climb up a PC's back and bite at his throat if the PC decided to completely ignore the creature and not react to its attacks? If you are going to break the rules and decide to ignore one of two combatants, than I don't see why not.
All of this stuff, even if you tried to ignore it, would provide minor distractions that allow a rogue a chance to slip a blade into an unprotected area.
That is why the best answer is just NO. RAW doesn't allow it.
Actually, the only thing that's obvious is that the text has changed. It isn't clear whether the intent has changed.
Arguing RAI on such an oddly worded bit of text is a pointless and never ending argument. You really can't even try to infer what the designer’s intent was when they changed this text but left fragments of the old text in there. My opinion is: If they changed it, then it is probably because they wanted it to change, so why assume that it still does exactly the same thing? The UD text has changed and, as it stands, only explicitly defends against one condition, being attacked while flat-footed, whether by a visible foe or an invisible one.
As a DM I would never allow ignoring a threat... that would nerf the rogue too much; If people are super insistant would regards to this issue I would also use it on them and I would say that the person gets a coupe de grace as a standard action. If we are going to fight and you turn away from me... you can assume that on my turn you are going to see a sword sticking out of your chest as I coupe de grace you.
