Flanking Flatfooted Full plate and Heavy Shield Question.

[DragonPrince]

Scenario:
Equip: I am wearing Full plate with a Heavy steel shield.
applicable attributes: Dex 13(+1)
Feats: Combat reflexes, Dodge,
Situation: I have 8 snakes around me 1 per square

Basically my Question is do i get to use my shield bonus for all of the atking snakes? or only the 1s i can see. also am i flatfooted when the snakes behind me are atking me?

So now this is what my DM says and ofc is making sense but the rules may say something different. And i just want to clarify the official rules before i go back and talk to him and he drops a 2000lb cow on my head :P
"tell me if some one is trying to kill you from the front and you are using a shield, how well can you keep an eye behide you, if you include a full plate helm... not at all. is that agreed?
so, if you can't look behind you at all times and there is something behind you it wound go largely unseen? ie invisible?

Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability."

Thanks guys.

[Criik]

Pathfinder simplified "facing" by saying there is no facing. You do not have a front or back. If creatures are on "opposite" sides of you (i.e. if you draw a line connecting the center of both of their squares and it crosses opposite sides of your square), then they are "flanking" and get a +2 to hit. You still get your shield bonus and your dex modifier against all targets.

[SlimGauge]

There is no facing in Pathfinder (unless you're using some of the special abilities of the Tower Shield). So unless something else is preventing you from using your shield bonus, you'll get it regardless of the orientation of the snakes to you.

Now, opposite pairs of snakes are flanking. That doesn't make you flat-footed, but it does allow them to utilize precision damage (if, say, they have levels in rogue or some other way of gaining sneak attack).

[Kalridian]

While logic would support the arguments of your GM, there is no facing in pathfinder. All Creatures are techincally considered to be looking in all directions at once, so there is no Bonus for attacking from behind and neither are you flat footed against such attacks.
At the same time, the AC bonus from the shield is an abstraction and works in all directions equally.

Tell your GM, that his houserules will unbalance the game IMMENSELY. If he Sticks to them, I recommend making a new character and playing a rogue with a high sneak, because apparently you will allways get sneak attack damage just for sneaking up from behind.

All of the snakes would get flanking bonuses on you 'though, which results in a +2 for each of them, since they each have a "partner" on your other side.

[Kazaan]

Let him know that your character also isn't a perfect square 5 feet on a side. Do a little experiment; measure out a square 15 foot to a side, then divide it into a grid of nine 5' squares, then stand in the middle one. Look at how much room you have to maneuver; this is a "tactical square". It gives you a lot of room to dance around in and, tactically speaking, you can even make small excursions outside of it (ie. the Lunge feat) but, tactically and mechanically speaking, you base your measurements upon occupying that square. You're more like an electron in an electron cloud; not in any particular place, but there are known orbits. Now, if you're facing down one opponent in one square, are you going to just stand there like a clod as if you were a Rock-em-Sock-em-Robot? No, you're going to be dancing in and around them, forward and back, all over the place. The idea that your shield and dex bonus work only against the enemy you're actively engaged in is ludicrous on the face of it because it relies on the aforementioned Rock-em-Sock-em-Robot presumption as well as disregarding the ability to divide your attacks in a full-attack between multiple targets. It's entirely within the rules to divide your individual attacks in a full-attack between multiple targets so you could attack one snake, attack his flanking partner, then attack the first snake again; which one are you "facing"? The answer is "all of them."

[DarkPhoenixx]

You can only be flat-footed before you acted on your initiative first time in encounter. No amount of snake can make you flat-footed.

Also by logic snake can break its teeth upon your armor, or they have limited amount of poison in sacks or you can put off your shield and then it should add its bonus toward the snake that attacks from the back while you can wield your sword two-handed.

By rules your supernatural-warrior sense allows you to anticipate snake attack and put your shield in the way, but this technique makes you vulnerable and gives snakes +2 to attack and ability to make sneak attacks.

[shinrog]

Greetings

I am the GM referred to in this scenario, and I have in fact competed in team combat and group melee.

Thus taking away from life experience I have allowed my players to perform sneak attacks while flanking.

As I see it the person standing behind you is not in sight and thus not visible or *invisible* and therefore gets the same bonuses.

yes I do indeed understand that you are not rock'em sock'em robot fighting and not standing still, but neither are they.

The term flat footed was used, but not by me.

note : they snakes where Adamantine Cobras so they nom through plate armor.

but yeah, half the system we are playing is home brew and facing is a thing, not a big thing, but still it adds some feel I think.

the question is : are you having fun and am I having fun. I got a list of yes' so far and some ? but that's it.

[DragonPrince]

Someone said wrote:

the question is : are you having fun and am I having fun. I got a list of yes' so far and some ? but that's it.

So much yes from me :P

I was curious as to what the official rules are and now i know :)

Thanks to Everyone for your input btw.

[Gaskon]

You are welcome to play your game whatever way is the most fun for you and your group.

However, most experienced DMs will warn you that attempting to homebrew combat rules based on "real-life" experiences rarely results in a positive outcome.

Pathfinder combat rules are designed to simplistically model a variety of impossible elements (snakes made out of living metals! People that can shoot fire from their hands! A guy with a 3' sword killing a 50' flying lizard!) in a way that is predictable by all the players.

They are not designed to accurately reflect real world physics and limitations.

[ericpants]

That house rule seems like it may severely handicap the "tank" unless you have other house rules to compensate.

Also, Adamantine Cobras just have stronger defenses right? I don't think they nom through plate any easier.

[shinrog]

I don't know if this is in the severely in the handicapping department, but it is to keep my group of players more or less balanced.

one on one the tank is a bad-ass in group on one tank is a bad plan.

[Kazaan]

How, pray tell, do you determine "in front of" when there's no facing? Are you really under the impression that characters are just standing there with their feet firmly planted just exchanging blows like rock-em-sock-em robots? No one fights like that; the character in this situation doesn't fix his eyes in one direction on a single opponent over the full 6 second round; he's dancing around and staying in motion and re-angling his shield constantly. He's looking all about him and the +2 bonus his opponents get for flanking represents the extra chance that they can get a hit in while he's looking away. If you're going to make them flat-footed to an enemy's attack, balance demands that you don't grant the +2 for flanking.

[Terraneaux]

Poorly thought out house rules to keep players 'balanced'? Say it ain't so!

[Bad Sintax]

I just hope ALL of your house rules were discussed in detail with the players before you started. If not, god help you. To take out a fundamental aspect of the game rules will have large effects down the road. It's like saying, "I'm not going to do combat in rounds because in a real fight you don't attack once and then wait for six seconds while everyone beats on you." Which is true, however the rest of the game is based off of that rules assumption.

[DragonPrince]

Before we call this system broken let me give you guys a little background on the Setting we have for this particular game. Very different from anything else that i have played to date.

As with most custom games our DM was inspired by an outside source. In this case an anime called Sword Art Online(btw a very good watch for anyone and is only a few episodes long) SAO is a Virtual Memory MMORPG that once entered the players discover that this MMO is played for keeps. You have 1 life and cannot log out. If you die in the game you die in real life. And the only way to get out of the game is to defeat it.

So now Imagine an MMO style game where there is no magic and the talents and abilities are loosely based on the Pathfinder system using feats and abilities from different classes.

We have had only 2 sessions on this game so far and Shinrog is a really good DM with a mind that is usually able to identify the week spots or game breaking ideas in a standard game. So with a mind like that i feel he is able to take note of things that will break it completely and put a stop to them in some very creative manner :)

And as Shinrog said 1 on 1 the tank is 1 hell of a badass (im the tank btw)

[Kazaan]

In that case, this more likely belongs in the Homebrew section rather than rules questions.