Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jaimas 03-11-04, 11:30 PM	Now, from the main page, specifically an article on Sneak Attacks: A Totally Unofficial Rule for Dealing with Foes Trying to Flank You Jonathan Tweet (co-designer of the D&D 3rd edition game) and I have had many opportunities to ponder the tactical aspects of flanking and what you might be able to do about it if you find yourself flanked. After one extended discussion not long ago, Jonathan proposed the basics of the following rule, and I present it here, with some tweaks: You can disregard attacks from an opponent flanking you. 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. Ignoring a flanker, however, provokes an attack of opportunity from that flanker, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against that flanker. You do, however, continue to threaten that flanker. If the flanker is out of attacks of opportunity, you can ignore the flanker (and deny the flanking bonus) with impunity. If you can't see (or locate) the flanker, you disregard the flanker by default, and you provoke the attack of opportunity. You must make the decision to disregard a flanker as soon as the foe moves into a flanking position. You can change your decision as a free action on your turn. (You still must disregard a flanker you can't see.) Well, I'm glad this is cleared up. According to this, the ability of Rogues, Assassins, and several other classes to never be flanked is now completely worthless now, if going by this rule. Ridiculous. We need to discuss this.
NestroEmichae 03-12-04, 12:18 AM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=197744 Summary of arguement: One side believes Skippy wouldn't know a proper ruling if it walked up and rolled a nat-20 crit with a vorpal greatsword and the other worships him as a god.
Slagger the Chuul 03-12-04, 02:00 AM	Originally posted by Jaimas Well, I'm glad this is cleared up. According to this, the ability of Rogues, Assassins, and several other classes to never be flanked is now completely worthless now, if going by this rule. The rogue (and any other class with Improved Uncanny Dodge) isn't useless since they don't have to choose whether or not to leave themselves vulnerable; they're never going to choose to disregard unless they know the opponent has 4+ more rogue levels and no attacks of opportunity left (which is giving the rogue an extra benefit in that circumstance). Note that you lose your Dexterity bonus to any attack by the potential flanker, not just attacks of opportunity. Disregarding a flanker you can't see means that everyone is avoiding the +2 flanking bonus (not just the rogue), but if you can't see them the chances are that you're not getting your Dexterity bonus anyway. The rule is "Totally Unofficial", so you aren't forced to use it.
DM Zoc 03-12-04, 02:59 AM	This is more like a variant rule on facing. I mean, logically, if you have a rogue to your left and a barbarian to your right, you should be able to focus your attention on one of them to stop that one from getting any bonus against you (the other one would have bonii coming out the wazoo).
Nagol 03-12-04, 08:12 AM	The only type of character which can effectively take advantage of this "rule" is someone heavily encased in armour who does not rely on DEX for AC. The benefit only applies when he is fighting opponents who have a difficult time hitting him and need the flanking bonus or he is fighting a rogue/non-rogue pair and he decides to ignore the non-rogue. The rule would be "more realistic" if the defender also lost all shield bonuses against the ignored defender and the ignored defender was provided a circumstance bonus to hit you similar to the +2 invisible foes get. It would also make the defender take pause against automatically ignoring a fighter since the fighter could take advantage of power attack. I don't really see the point of putting facing back into the game after it was ripped out, however. Facing didn't make sense in a 1 minute round, but it was in the game then. It does make more sense in a 6 second round, but it was taken out.
Heron_Marked_Blade 03-12-04, 09:21 AM	There's one (obvious) sentence in that quote that people seem to be missing: A Totally Unofficial Rule for Dealing with Foes Trying to Flank You This is an example of a houserule your DM might make if he wants to add some "realism" to combat and flanking. Getting upset at Skip and Jonathan about this is tantamount to blaming an individual for thinking something that's not in the core rules. IT'S NOT A SAGE RULING. It's an option, even less of a "rule" than variant Core rules such as open-ended rolling, power components, or scalable death from massive damage. Originally posted by Jaimas According to this, the ability of Rogues, Assassins, and several other classes to never be flanked is now completely worthless now, if going by this rule. Huh? Where do you get this from? This has nothing to do with negating Uncanny Dodge. None of the flanking attackers would get a bonus against rogues. That hasn't changed. With this optional rule, flankers wouldn't get flanking bonuses against the fighter, but one would get an AoO every round he's ignored and any sneak attack damage (if he has any) still applies to the target. In no way does this make Uncanny Dodge obsolete. If you don't like it, don't use it. No one's twisting your arm, and Skip himself said this is an Unofficial rule. Doesn't get much more evident than that.
mythandra 03-12-04, 11:43 AM	Originally posted by Jaimas Now, from the main page, specifically an article on Sneak Attacks: <snip> Well, I'm glad this is cleared up. According to this, the ability of Rogues, Assassins, and several other classes to never be flanked is now completely worthless now, if going by this rule. Ridiculous. We need to discuss this. Yes, we do. As for me and my house... If you are flanked by two opponents and you totally ignore one, you voluntarily make yourself blind to the ignored opponent only. A Blind creature cannot be flanked, but a blind creature does, among other things, lose its dex bonus to ac (if any). This means that a creature that ignores it's opponent, voluntarily sacrifices it's dex bonus to ac (necessarily as a condition of ignoring the opponent), thus opening the creature up to sneak attack from the ignored opponent only. When ignoring an opponent (and voluntarily taking on all the penalties of blindness with respect to the ignored opponent only) you provoke an immediate attack of opportunity from the ignored opponent. The opponent that you focus on loses any benefit of flanking. The opponent that you ignore becomes immune to attacks of opportunity from you as you no longer threaten his square. This is *NOT* an official ruling. I'm interested in seeing if anyone can point out any contradictions within my assessment of the situation or with other sections in the core rulebooks.
Garan 03-12-04, 02:37 PM	Ignorer should get no shield AC...?
spasheridan 03-12-04, 06:21 PM	I tend to see this as a poor choice to avoid sneak attacks. Generally speaking a person being flanked by a sneak attacker is in one of a few specific cases: 1) Flanked by 2 sneak attackers. 2) Flanked by 1 sneak attacker and 1 powerful opponent 3) Flanked by 1 sneak attacker and 1 weak opponent When someonce chooses to ignore an opponent A to avoid the sneak attacks from opponent B they are opening themselves up to lots of damage from Opponent A. In case 1, by avoiding sneak attacks from B they give sneak attacker A additional sneak attack hits. Not much of a perk here. In case 2 the powerful opponent can inflict massive damage if ignored, and given additional attacks. A very bad decision here. In case 3, it would make more sense just to kill the weak opponent. I guess it's fine though since the weak opponent can't really hurt you. All in all, this seems like a poor tacticaly decision. Only when one of the opponents is NOT a threat (case 3) is it really a sound decision.. otherwise this tactic is just a way to avoid sneak attack damage to take other damage....