I was toying with the idea of changing the way flanking worked for my game. Instead of making it a situation dependant on the attacker, I thought of making flanked a condition, imposed on the defender. It's a subtle difference, but one that certainly would have a consequence in the game. The flanked conditon would still rely upon two people attacking from opposite sides, but once that was achieved, all attackers would gain the benefit.
My reasoning for the change is this:
If a defender has to worry about attacks coming in from multiple sides, then he/she/it should be distracted enough to affect all incoming attacks, not just those two individuals that happen to be at exactly 180 degrees apart.
I think all PCs would benefit, but ranged combatants and rogues would see the biggest benefit. Of course, this change could work against the party, but in my experience, it would help the PCs more often than hurt them.
I was wondering what other people thought about this. Is there some "butterfly effect" I'm not considering? Does the rule change make sense?
Well that's a great idea and all (in fact, that's what they did in 4E), but how do you propose one be given that condition?
Well that's a great idea and all (in fact, that's what they did in 4E), but how do you propose one be given that condition?
Thanks for your interest. As I said...
The flanked conditon would still rely upon two people attacking from opposite sides, but once that was achieved, all attackers would gain the benefit.
Rezdave,
Also, thanks for your interest.
No, I get the reason. But theoretically, if the defender is flanked, then at some point in the round, the defneder will be looking elsewhere. Or to say it another way, regardless of where the attacker is, the defender will not be looking that way when they turn their attention to one of the two flankers. See below:
In the diagram above, the defender is D. If an attacker is in positions 1, 2, and 8, then at some point in the round, the defender will be facing away from #1.
In addition, if a defender is surrounded, (say in positions 1, 2, 6, and 8) they are going to to be less able to defend themselves from everyone, even if every attacker is not directly opposite another attacker. At least once during the round, the defender's back will be tward everyone in the attacking group. If it's not, then they are deliberately turning their back (making themselves blind) to a section of the battlefield.
Anyway, that's my theory. You disagree, and I respect your opinion. My concern is that if I do implement this rule in my game, will there be unintended consequences? I think my rule change is realistic, but that doesn't mean it's the best rule for game ballance.
An interesting idea.
a little napkin math.
Level 10 human rogue +7/+2 attacks from BAB
22 dex 15 +1 level + 2 racial +4 magic item
14 str 13 +1 level
other stats to taste
+3 Composite shortbow(+2) base damage 1d6+5 = 8.5 damage
Sneak attack 5d6 = 17.5 damage
Average damage with sneak attack = 26 damage per shot.
Feats - point blank shot, rapid shot, manyshot, deadly aim, weapon focus(shortbow)
Full attack at 30' is +16/+16/+11 normally +18/+18/+13 with the flanking bonus
First shot would average 8.5 + 26 = 34.5 damage due to manyshot
Second and third shot would be 26 damage each.
Against a target with an AC of 24(normal for a CR 10 encounter), you get an average damage of 58.375. If you factor in crits you will add about 5-10%, for an average of 63 ish damage per round.
A fighter who specializes in archery can do about the same amount of damage.
If the rogue uses deadly aim, they will actually do less damage.
I was toying with the idea of changing the way flanking worked for my game. Instead of making it a situation dependant on the attacker, I thought of making flanked a condition, imposed on the defender. It's a subtle difference, but one that certainly would have a consequence in the game. The flanked conditon would still rely upon two people attacking from opposite sides, but once that was achieved, all attackers would gain the benefit.
Does the rule change make sense?
I think it makes total sense in a simulationist perspective. Whether it adds to the quality of the game is another question (as Rez elaborated above), but personally, I'd tend to agree with you.
Actually, I'd go farther and change the name of the condition to "overwhelmed" or something of the sort; which could, among other ways, be bestowed upon a defender by flanking him. This leaves you with the possibility of houseruling various ways to bestow the "overwhelmed" condition (by other means than flanking the defender), to the great pleasure of all rogues of your world.
'findel
Thanks all. I may use the "overwhelmed" condition. Possibly something like "if 4 or more opponents threaten a creature..." or perhaps, "If the defender is flanked more than once..."
As you said, there is realism, and then there is [Pathfinder] (edited comment).
The only problem with an "overwhelmed" rule is that I currently have 3 players, so it may not see much use. I would have to run an NPC (which I may end up doing anyway), for the party to see any benefit. Stuff to think about.
On a side note, Does anyone else have any problems finding Pathfinder players? I know about 10 people that jumped on the 4e bandwagon, but I'm having a hard time finding Pathfinder players. Frustrating!
Thanks all. I may use the "overwhelmed" condition. Possibly something like "if 4 or more opponents threaten a creature..." or perhaps, "If the defender is flanked more than once..."
As you said, there is realism, and then there is [Pathfinder] (edited comment).
The only problem with an "overwhelmed" rule is that I currently have 3 players, so it may not see much use. I would have to run an NPC (which I may end up doing anyway), for the party to see any benefit. Stuff to think about.
On a side note, Does anyone else have any problems finding Pathfinder players? I know about 10 people that jumped on the 4e bandwagon, but I'm having a hard time finding Pathfinder players. Frustrating!
LOL you ninja'ed me. I was going to say make surrounded a condition. Still, I like this, but I'm not sure if I'd use it- it may lead to metagaming on the part of the players and/or a lot of whining when it happens to them. This is only with the people I play with though, and possibly because we use the critical hit/fumble decks.
And I hate 4th ed with a passion that rivals my hatred of Whedon. Unfortunately most of my friends love him, but they also hate 4e, so I can tolerate their presence. ;-)
Maybe it's a regional thing. Where are you?
Thanks all. I may use the "overwhelmed" condition. Possibly something like "if 4 or more opponents threaten a creature..." or perhaps, "If the defender is flanked more than once..."
As you said, there is realism, and then there is [Pathfinder] (edited comment).
The only problem with an "overwhelmed" rule is that I currently have 3 players, so it may not see much use. I would have to run an NPC (which I may end up doing anyway), for the party to see any benefit. Stuff to think about.
Oh, there's always the 20+ goblins that you can throw at your party once in a while...
But in the end, its your group, your game and you can houserule it as you wish. That's what houserules are for: fine-tuning an already good set of rules to fit the needs of a much more restrained clientele; your own gaming group.
For doing a bit of combat simulation myself, I could argue that one can be overwhelmed by only two opponents flanking a single defender (as opposed to two opponents facing a single defender). That's the premises of the flanking bonus in RaW.
But one could also be overwhelmed by an enemy assailing a defender already fighting for his footing (strong river current up to his knees, backed in the bushes, fighting on the edge of a precipice) or fumbling with his weapon, etc.
For simplicity sake, you could uniformly apply the 'overwhelmed' condition instead of 'denied DEX bonus to AC' and just be done with it. Flat penalty and vulnerability to Sneak Attack for everybody! No need to go back to your reference documents to see how much DEX bonus they loose...
'findel
Maybe it's a regional thing. Where are you?
Indiana
I know lots of people playing 4e, about an equal # that still play 3.5 (some of which only JUST converted from 3.0), and only the 4 of us (3 players and myself) that play Pathfinder. And those 3 players only play Pathfinder because I wanted to run a Pathfinder game. If I had said I was running 3.5, they would have been just as happy playing 3.5.
It's very frustrating, because I really like Pathfinder. One convert at a time, I guess.
Maybe it's a regional thing. Where are you?
Indiana
I know lots of people playing 4e, about an equal # that still play 3.5, and only the 4 of us (3 players and myself) that play Pathfinder. And those 3 players only converted because I wanted to run a Pathfinder game. If I had said I was running 3.5, they would have been just as happy playing 3.5.
It's very frustrating, because I really like Pathfinder. One convert at a time, I guess.
As far as I'm concerned, 3 players is my ideal group...
Take advantage of the things you can do with 3 players that you can't easily do with 5 or 6.
'findel
4 is my ideal, followed by 5 as a close second. Having only 3 players runs the risk of a TPK if any one of the PCs fall. You end up pulling punches and faking dice rolls too often for my liking. I only like to do that in rare circumstances. 4 or 5 players gives a little wiggle room. A player can still fall, and it doesn't run the risk of ending the adventure.
Of course, the larger the group, the more likely they will want to split up. GAH!!! So I guess there is a silver lining for a small group.
PS, you "ninja'ed" me. I edited my post, and you replied before the edit. One of my players is a mini's wargamer, so I really consider him a "new" player, rather than a convert.
Yeah, i am leaning towards something like
Flanked - 2 people on opposite sides of you. +1 to hit for everyone who is flanking, makes you vulnerable to sneak attacks.
Overwhealmed - 3 or more people are threatening you +1 to hit everyone who is attacking that target, makes you vulnerable to sneak attacks.
Classes that gain immunity to flanking also gain resistance to being overwhealmed. For every 5 levels add one to the overwhealmed threshhold. For example a level 10 barbarian requires 5 attackers threatening them to be overwhealmed.
You may want to add a size modifier to the criteria for determining "overwhelmed". A large or larger critter simply has more places to be attacked from, but that shouldn't make it easier to overwhelm it.
You may want to add a modifier to the criteria for determining "overwhelmed" for the size of the attacker. Otherwise a bunch of tiny creatures can overwhelm by simply all entering another creature's square (wich they have to do anyway since they have no reach).
You may want to add a size modifier to the criteria for determining "overwhelmed". A large or larger critter simply has more places to be attacked from, but that shouldn't make it easier to overwhelm it.
You may want to add a modifier to the criteria for determining "overwhelmed" for the size of the attacker. Otherwise a bunch of tiny creatures can overwhelm by simply all entering another creature's square (wich they have to do anyway since they have no reach).
Good idea. Subtract the size modifier from 3 for creatures larger than medium and you get.
Large - 4 creaturesHuge - 5 creatures
Gargantuan - 7 creatures
Collassal - 11 creatures
Also make a larger creatures count more for overwhealming purposes. For each size category larger, the creature counts as one extra for purposes of overwhealming. So getting threatened by 2 giants is worse than getting threatened by 2 humans. This also gives spells like enlarge person and righteous might an nice little bonus.
I like this idea alot. I would go even further and give the flanking condition any time an opponent (or PC) is facing more than one opponent. Positioning shouldn't matter...if you're facing 2 opponents at once, you are going to be distracted regardless of where those opponents are positioned.
I'd be careful about granting Sneak Attack by simply outnumbering your enemy. While there is nothing *wrong* with that, it would change the game significantly.
As for the rest, facing two opponents that you can clearly see and block their attacks coming from more or less the same angle is definitively not like facing two enemies that purposefully try to flank you and take advantage of your dead angles and unprotected areas. That being said, outnumbering your opponent should be a huge advantage.
In my game, I've done away with flanking completely and replaced it with gang-up. If the attackers are outnumbering the defender by 2 (i.e. 3 against 1), each attacker gains a +2 to hit.
I was toying with the idea of changing the way flanking worked for my game. Instead of making it a situation dependant on the attacker, I thought of making flanked a condition, imposed on the defender. It's a subtle difference, but one that certainly would have a consequence in the game. The flanked conditon would still rely upon two people attacking from opposite sides, but once that was achieved, all attackers would gain the benefit.
My reasoning for the change is this:
If a defender has to worry about attacks coming in from multiple sides, then he/she/it should be distracted enough to affect all incoming attacks, not just those two individuals that happen to be at exactly 180 degrees apart.
I think all PCs would benefit, but ranged combatants and rogues would see the biggest benefit. Of course, this change could work against the party, but in my experience, it would help the PCs more often than hurt them.
I was wondering what other people thought about this. Is there some "butterfly effect" I'm not considering? Does the rule change make sense?
My group has used this very house rule for more than a year now.
If a defender is flanked by attackers, that defender is treated as flanked (we call it "harried") for all other attackers.
And you absolutely nailed it, ranged attackers and rogues (and especially ranged attacking rogues) love it.
As a DM I have yet to observe any situation that made me think "OMG guys this is too overpowered".
And if you find problems with it in your game...just tweak it or go back to RAW. It's just a house rule.
Considering that everything in a single round of combat happens at the same time.
I use realistic combat rules.
The Combat Facing System.
Shields only protect from where they would protect, thus you could literally wield a shield on your left arm to protect from your left side and front, and then strap a shield to your back to prevent rear attacks from hurting as much.
>.> You could literally dual wield shields and it would work!, and stack for frontal attacks, lol. (Well sort of, depends I'd say)
But anyway, with the combat facing system you are flanked if attacked from your side, and ambushed if attacked from your rear. It opens up a lot of tactics for combat in my opinion.
Here
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm
Thanks all. I may use the "overwhelmed" condition. Possibly something like "if 4 or more opponents threaten a creature..." or perhaps, "If the defender is flanked more than once..."
As you said, there is realism, and then there is [Pathfinder] (edited comment).
The only problem with an "overwhelmed" rule is that I currently have 3 players, so it may not see much use. I would have to run an NPC (which I may end up doing anyway), for the party to see any benefit. Stuff to think about.
On a side note, Does anyone else have any problems finding Pathfinder players? I know about 10 people that jumped on the 4e bandwagon, but I'm having a hard time finding Pathfinder players. Frustrating!
I don't have any trouble finding pathfinder players. Then again I do post by post games via GaiaOnline in and outside of guilds.
Aside from that I could have a real life game or two going on if I wanted, but that would overwhelm me. I think the real thing is, what you gotta do is either get the 3.5 players (Some if not most 4.0 In my opinion would still player Pathfinder.) or bring New blood into the hobby.
I was new blood not too long ago, hell still am technically I suppose. lol.
Like a year ago or whatever.
The only problem with an "overwhelmed" rule is that I currently have 3 players, so it may not see much use. I would have to run an NPC (which I may end up doing anyway), for the party to see any benefit. Stuff to think about.
In our last session, the Cleric cast Monster Summoning just to get something in position for flanking when noone else wanted to risk the AoO for closing with it [large creature had reach].. Heck, the Celestial Eagle even got to smite evil the nasty flaming evil thing, too, thanks to the flanking bonus, so props.
Point being: if you think they need an NPC to round out the party, then do it, but if not, don't worry -- between spells, situational modifiers, temporary allies, etc, you might just find that people are getting those bonuses anyway.
In terms of finding players, nope, but then other than a few people who dipped a toe into 4e and went "ewwww", almost all of us were happy to keep with a system that made more sense.
The only problem with an "overwhelmed" rule is that I currently have 3 players, so it may not see much use. I would have to run an NPC (which I may end up doing anyway), for the party to see any benefit. Stuff to think about.In our last session, the Cleric cast Monster Summoning just to get something in position for flanking when noone else wanted to risk the AoO for closing with it [large creature had reach].. Heck, the Celestial Eagle even got to smite evil the nasty flaming evil thing, too, thanks to the flanking bonus, so props.
Point being: if you think they need an NPC to round out the party, then do it, but if not, don't worry -- between spells, situational modifiers, temporary allies, etc, you might just find that people are getting those bonuses anyway.
In terms of finding players, nope, but then other than a few people who dipped a toe into 4e and went "ewwww", almost all of us were happy to keep with a system that made more sense.
Count me in the "ewwww" group. 4e has some neat ideas, but they completely changed the system and made it incompatible with all of my 3-3.5 books.
They changed the system by making flanking a condition called "combat advantage" which is, normally, achieved... just like flanking in 3.x. How terrible.
They changed the system by making flanking a condition called "combat advantage" which is, normally, achieved... just like flanking in 3.x. How terrible.
Which I must admit is one of my favourite change of 4 ed. Within the abstraction of a RPG combat system, having an edge on someone is just that; having an edge on someone. It may not matter if you are being flanked or if your forced to fight in mud up to your knees, the system may mechanically convey the fact that you are in distress just the same.
IMO, there are too many conditions or situation that mean more or less the same things in 3.5, such as being flanked, charged, lower than your enemy, flat-footed, denied DEX bonus to AC...
They changed the system by making flanking a condition called "combat advantage" which is, normally, achieved... just like flanking in 3.x. How terrible.
Yes, 500+ dollars worth of books going to waste because WotC wanted to move away from OGL d20 system to try and make more money for themselves is terrible.
They changed the system by making flanking a condition called "combat advantage" which is, normally, achieved... just like flanking in 3.x. How terrible.Yes, 500+ dollars worth of books going to waste because WotC wanted to move away from OGL d20 system to try and make more money for themselves is terrible.
Could you go more off-topic?
Could you go more off-topic?They changed the system by making flanking a condition called "combat advantage" which is, normally, achieved... just like flanking in 3.x. How terrible.Yes, 500+ dollars worth of books going to waste because WotC wanted to move away from OGL d20 system to try and make more money for themselves is terrible.
Yes, I can.
|
If a defender has to worry about attacks coming in from multiple sides, then he/she/it should be distracted enough to affect all incoming attacksYou're mis-interpreting the reason flanking exists.
Anyone being attacked by 2+ opponents has to be worried about being attacked form multiple sides, and by your reasoning should be threatened by flankers all the time. "Level of worry" is a non-factor in flanking.
Flanking is entirely about the inability to see 2+ opponents at the same time. Creatures with binocular vision (i.e. all humanoids and most animals) cannot look in two directions at once, so they cannot simultaneously see opponents standing diametrically opposed around them. This means you have to take your gaze off one opponent to see the other, and hence cannot react appropriately to what one is doing when facing the second.
However, using peripheral vision, you are still able to view anyone not diametrically opposed, and can still react appropriately to their threats.
This is the reason creatures with prehensile eye-stalks or many-eyes are generally immune to flanking, because they can see all threats at once and need never "take their eyes off" any opponent.
FWIW,
Rez
mmm I don't buy that at all.
If we are simply working out what the eyes see, then flanking should be applied as a condition as the OP said.
With peripheral vision you can see that there is movement, but not what is actually going on. To see what is going on, you have to change your focus of attention. You can only focus your attention in one direction at a time.
And if the reason for flanking is that you cannot see the person directly behind you, then the defender should pick one opponent to treat as normal and the second one is treated as invisible to the defender.
For what it is worth we have been using that same concept since before 3.5. At the time we didn't think in terms of applying the condition, but to apply the condition I would simply say that the requirements of the RAW flanking must be met, that is attackers 180 degrees around the defender. The defender then has the Flanked Condition and I would make it a flat -2 AC, rather than a +2 to hit, since the defender has the condition and not the attackers, and it essentially works out the same.
J.R. Farrignton:
Great minds think alike.
Mirror, Mirror:
South Bend (formerly Indianapolis)
Rezdave:
Although we accept that actions in a round "happen simultaneously", in reality they do not. Even in a multi-on-one fight, the multi- group tends to take turns attacking. If you can keep them in peripheral vision, you can react defensively to every attack. If you have to take your eyes off someone, then they have an advantage ... hence flanking.
There is some truth to what you say, but, I would imagine that if you have to react to an attack not directly in front of you, you would be at least a fraction of a second slower than if you were actually facing the attacker. After all, your block 1) starts further away if it started on the other side of your body from the attacker, and 2) you are also making another move (the turn) before and during the block.
Doesn't the +2 advantage simulate this?
Incidentally, I'm speaking as someone who has trained 2-on-1 and 3-on-1. So long as they don't get on opposite sides of you, then you're OK.
If the combat is 2 on 1, then my proposed rule is no different from the RAW. And if it's 3 on 1, then it is only different from the RAW if, as you say, they get on opposite sides of you.
Also, while you said you have training in facing multiple opponents (likely more than I do), you have to admit it is harder to face multiple opponents than facing a single opponent. At least I found it so. In fact, I thought it was more difficult, no matter where they were, even if they were not "flanking".
My contribution to that debate is this link ... read the last bit.
Wow, that's taking it 180 degrees from what I suggested. If I were a defender, I'd MUCH rather provoke an AoO that MAY happen (previous AoO, Combat Reflexes, Etc.), than take a 10d6 sneak attack. If you are ignoring your opponent, then the attacker should get the same bonus as being invisible, which would still provoke the sneak attack. After all, they are ignoring the attacker, which should allow the attacker to pick his target area (precision based damage).
Also, the rule on the link even said that you are losing your dex bonus to AC... which usually allows a Sneak Attack.
If the defender does something to stop the attacker from sneak attacking, then they are not really ignoring the attacker, are they?
Everyone Else:
Thanks all for the input. I am going to try out my rule as proposed. It seems to have worked for someone else. Also, it's a small change from the RAW, and one that's easier to grasp than an "ovwewhelmed" rule would likely be.
I just found out a 4th and 5th player are interested in playing, so I'll see how it goes when the group is bigger.
Wow, that's taking it 180 degrees from what I suggested. If I were a defender, I'd MUCH rather provoke an AoO that MAY happen (previous AoO, Combat Reflexes, Etc.), than take a 10d6 sneak attack. If you are...
My contribution to that debate is this link ... read the last bit.
Yeah, that's some serious BS. One can hardly believe that "the Sage" would suggest it. He must have gotten really screwed by some Rogues in 3e.
I could see the logic if you ignore attacker A in order to deny attacker B his flanking/sneak attacking. But you should then be denied your Dex bonus versus attacker A. So, it is a gamble; if attacker A turns out to have a vicious sneak attack that you were unaware of, you pay the price.
Even so, it is a total shutdown of sneak attacks using spells and companions for flanking. Maybe that is good. I remember a spell in Forgotten Realms 3.0 that did nothing but flank your target for any ally facing it. It was kinda bogus. But it seems like there should be some comparison of BAB or skill, or concentration....or....something.
From a purely RW standpoint - love the change. If your groups down w/realism - play it out. go for it! Fighting a lot of people is just a bad idea - getting surrounded, or even semi-surrounded is even worse, and it doesn't take long for you to get totally out-maneuvered, timed, and overwhelmed.
I'm speaking from experience on that one with having fought many people at the same time and keeping them all in front of me - HARD as hell, even when they were in front. They didn't come from the sides, or behind - all in my "front facing" if you will - totally too many incoming attacks to keep track of easily. This was with "boffer" weapons and mock-swords on all sides - so, yeah very close to exactly the medieval/fantasy melee situation. If a guy was to shoot at me with an arrow, I'd likely be toast for having NO clue he was anywhere near (ie: I'd be "flat footed" to his ranged attack w/that many people on my buttocks)!
In my own games, I often give bonuses that just keep stacking for the more and more enemies that surround/occupy threatening spaces around you - reach weapons and all, too.
I could see the logic if you ignore attacker A in order to deny attacker B his flanking/sneak attacking. But you should then be denied your Dex bonus versus attacker A. So, it is a gamble
My contribution to that debate is this link ... read the last bit.
The point is to use this tactic when you're pretty certain "Attacker A" is not a high-level sneak attacker. If you're surrounded by a horde of kobold peons plus one Rogue (you know this by reputation, past experience or whatever) then you might feel pretty secure ignoring the kobolds if you're high enough level and facing only the Rogue directly.
If "Attacker A" is a wizard who is Touch Attacking you and you're getting nailed every time because you're a Tank, what's an extra 1d4-1 from his piddly dagger if he even gets near your AC when his Sneaky buddy is on the other side of you?
This option is not a gamble, it is a tactic to use when you're pretty certain of the results.
Even in a den of Rogues, you face the main guy and let the apprentice stab at you (he still has to hit), cause his extra 1d6 won't compare to his boss.
FWIW,
R.
No, I get it....and as written, if you were in that "den of Rogues", you could instead ignore the main guy, and kill off his apprentices one by one while he futilly wails on your back because you magically turned off his flanking.
Even in a den of Rogues, you face the main guy and let the apprentice stab at you (he still has to hit), cause his extra 1d6 won't compare to his boss.No, I get it....and as written, if you were in that "den of Rogues", you could instead ignore the main guy, and kill off his apprentices one by one while he futilly wails on your back because you magically turned off his flanking.No you don't get it. If you ignore him he gains no flanking, but you lose your Dex. bonus to AC so he can still Sneak Attack you.
Basically, you ignore a flanker to deny flanking and SA to his partner, but the guy you ignore gets to wail on you for free.
If you ignore the Head Rogue, he gets a free AoO with Sneak Attack as well as regular attack with Sneak Attack.
Better to face him and ignore the little guy who's trying to help him flank. That's the point.
R.
Wow....I did actually miss the loss of Dex bonus in Skip's article, my mistake. It is more reasonable than I thought, but it still completely shuts down a class ability, and often the "enabling flanker" isn't that dangerous.
But I withdraw the venom from my previous posts. It's not that bad.
Even in a den of Rogues, you face the main guy and let the apprentice stab at you (he still has to hit), cause his extra 1d6 won't compare to his boss.No, I get it....and as written, if you were in that "den of Rogues", you could instead ignore the main guy, and kill off his apprentices one by one while he futilly wails on your back because you magically turned off his flanking.No you don't get it. If you ignore him he gains no flanking, but you lose your Dex. bonus to AC so he can still Sneak Attack you.
Basically, you ignore a flanker to deny flanking and SA to his partner, but the guy you ignore gets to wail on you for free.
If you ignore the Head Rogue, he gets a free AoO with Sneak Attack as well as regular attack with Sneak Attack.
Better to face him and ignore the little guy who's trying to help him flank. That's the point.
R.
It is not my intention to either get off topic (flanking as a condition), OR start an argument, but...
the rule on the link says this:
"When you do, that opponent doesn't get the +2 flanking bonus when attacking you and that opponent does not provide a flanking bonus to any of its allies."
So, you could still "shut down" the head rogue by ignoring the guy directly opposite him. Perhaps that is a realistic idea, but I think the execution of that idea is still flawed.
I still believe that if you are completely ignoring an attacker, they should get the same bonus as being invisible versus attacks against you. If they don't, then you are NOT completely ignoring your attacker. You are moving your shield and/or armor into position to retain your complete bonus against the "ignored" attacker. If you were truly ignoring them, then you wouldn't do anything to hinder their attack. You would just act as if they were not there... same as an invisible attacker.
Also, if you are acting as if they were not there, you shouldn't threaten them. You are, after all, ignoring them.
I'm sorry, but the unofficial rule doesn't really hinder a defender with a Dex of 10. Providing a POSSIBLE AoO against your full AC (if you don't normally have a Dex mod) is not a sufficient drawback for ignoring an attacker.
For example:
What is to keep a walking tin can (fighter in full armor) from ignoring one of the flankers every time they get flanked? They would lose a non-existent Dex mod, provide a sneak attack opportunity to someone that would have gotten it anyway, while simultaneously gaining the benefit of denying at least one of their opponents any combat benefit. Wash, rinse, repeat.
So,
I might implement something like this, but use the same mods as invisibility, as I stated above. It would be a good balance for the slight increase in effectiveness of using flanking as a condition.
Anyway, thanks for the idea, even if I'm not using your exact idea.
Why does no one like the combat facing system? >.>
Why does no one like the combat facing system? >.>
I used to. We even adopted the facing system in Combat and Tactics, back in '95. Then along came 3.0 without it, and we've never looked back....well, I looked back, but realized that it doesn't fit the abstraction (or even the reality) of combat.
Normally, I hate "it's an abstract system", as an excuse for mind-numbingly stupid rules. In this case, I think its just not worth the bookkeeping. Now, I'm not very fond of the 'no facing-you see everything automatically' approach that d20 takes, but I haven't tried very hard to eradicate it either.
Why does no one like the combat facing system? >.>Realism is hard?
No it isn't. I'm working on a damage system where you can bleed to death from a single knife wound to the torso if you don't get any medical attention. In order to do this (And only this) the only things that need to be simulated are:
1. The severity of the wound and how much blood loss it causes per point of severity.
2. How much blood a human being has to lose before dying of blood loss.
These can both be done with numbers fairly easily.
Facing is not that hard either unless we're talking Aces and Eights, and even that is a fairly simple equation until you get into gun duels.
Compared to, say, a first level fighter yes that is complex, but at 10th level you're running in a group that will start summoning more combat participants willy nilly, give the fighter a huge damage boost and suddenly it's not so easy anymore. Let alone letting a druid loose on the situation.
All very amicably and swiftly, I might add, but either way I think OP has run it's course and now we can discuss tangential things.
True, I suppose. I love a good debate, especially about things I enjoy, like gaming. So...
The difference between an invisible opponent and an ignored one is that you don't even know where the invisible guy is. The ignored one is back there and you know it. More important, he knows that you know he's there, and he feels threatened because at any moment you could decide to stop ignoring him and take a swing at him. Unless he has detect thoughts up he may not know you're mechanically ignoring him.
Of course he knows he's there, but the defender doesn't think the guy is a threat. If an invisible guy stabs you in the face, don't you also know that there is an attacker there as well? The way I see it, the attack bonus has nothing to do with awareness. It represents the attacker's ability to pick his attack location. The "awareness" mechanic is the surprise round.
If a defender is purposely maneuvering their body to deny an attacker this ability, they are NOT ignoring the attacker. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Basically, you still know more or less what he's doing (general combat awareness) so if he drinks a potion or moves away improperly you can still AoO him (I'd say a Perception check wouldn't be out of line), but otherwise you're giving him very little of your attention.
As I've said, I disagree. The defender can't have it both ways. Either they care about what the attacker is doing, or they don't. Either they are ignoring them, or they are not.
You provide an actual AoO, not a possible one. The opponent can always elect not to take it if he thinks he can get a better shot later in the round, but it's there.
It's possible because if the attacker already used their AoO that round, they don't get another one on the defender (feat selection aside).
We call this type of fighter "Tank" for a reason. If an M1A1 Abrams is facing a T-80 to one side while surrounded by trained attack dogs, they'll darned well ignore the dogs until the enemy tank is dealt with. It's not just about guys with RPGs and TOWs.
I love a good straw man. To go with your modern tank scenario, a tank's armor is thinnest in the rear. You can bet that if an enemy could choose where to attack, it would be there. There is a reason ignoring enemies is not a common tactic. It's dangerous. Even a single man can take out a whole tank under the right conditions.
Of course everyone focuses on Rogues with this because it has the most dramatic effect upon them ... but you have to know they are a rogue to really take advantage of that. Many times a Rogue and Swashbuckler and Ranger will all look alike. You might think you're flanked by a THF Tank and a TWF Ranger and decide that the Tank really doesn't need that +2 bonus against your tankishness while you can take the Ranger's piddly twin-short-sword damage on the rare occasions he even hits. So you end up ignoring the wrong guy. Oops.
Well, to be fair, the article IS titled "All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four)", so I think a little rogue-centric discussion is valid.
Also, Rogue is one of the "main four" classes (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue). They have been around for a much longer time than rangers and swashbucklers. In fact, Swashbuckler is not even a core class. Perhaps it is metagaming, but if an opponent wants to melee attack me, and he's wearing leather armor and carrying a dagger, I'm guessing rogue.
Then again, perhaps it's NOT metagaming. If a character lived their entire life in the D&D world, they would have seen at least a few "adventurer groups". If they were a combatant, they likely battled a few. It's a logical guess.
But, regardless of the guess, my objection is not really about if an attacker is or isn't a rogue. It's about the proposed game-mechanics trade-off that happens when you ignore an attacker. I think ignoring someone should have more risk involved than the proposed rule.
I really think that if you ignored someone holding a sharp object and that is trying to kill you, you are taking a HUGE risk. Not just a "take a swing at my armor" risk, but a "take your best shot" risk.
In the proposed rule, a defender gives up nothing if they have no Dex bonus (fairly common) and the attacker already used/will use his AoO (somewhat common).
FWIW,
Not sure what this means. :)
PS, it's nice to have a debate without it degenerating into personal attacks. I appreciate it.
HTH :-)
There you go again. :)
What's HTH?
I must not be "up" on my text-message shorthand.