Ignore Flankers - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Ignore Flankers

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
zombiegleemax
Mar 14, 2004 8:32:48 In the article All About Sneak Attacks Part Four by Skip Williams, there is a clumsy house rule to deny an attacker the flanking bonus (and thus the ability to sneak attack due to flanking). I would like to offer my version as an alternative. My version is based on the fact that the flanking condition is considered at the instant an attack is made, and is not a static state that continues.

House Rule - Flanked status
Each time an opponent attacks you, you may elect to focus on the attacker, or be cautious and prepared for rear attacks.

If you choose the latter, then you are considered flanked, and the attacker gains the bonuses for attacking a flanked target (+2 to attacks and may sneak attack), regardless of whether there actually is anyone in position to rear attack you or not.

If you choose the former, then the attacker does not gain the bonuses for attacking a flanked target. However, you provoke an AoO against anyone directly opposite your current attack, and that rear attack will have a +4 flanking bonus.

Default State
Unless otherwise specified, you will automatically choose the latter (cautious) when there is an obvious rear attacker, and the former (focused) when there is not.
#2
minusinnocence
Mar 18, 2004 9:56:18 It's an interesting option, but I personally would probably never make use of it. The benefits of keeping your options open and being aware of all attacks, even with the standard +2 bonus to attacks against me, outweigh the risk of someone scoring an AoO on me with a bonus twice as high.

Of course, given the choice between a fighter nailing me with an AoO and a Rogue butchering me with a Sneak Attack, I suppose I'd prefer the AoO...
#3
Pauper
Mar 22, 2004 15:59:39 I can't say I'm a fan of the rule itself - being able to negate a class's key ability simply by rule without requiring at least the expenditure of a feat seems inappropriate to me. Not to mention that mechanically, even after the attack bonus is taken into account, the additional attack is almost certainly going to end up doing less average damage than the sneak attack would have done, so there's pretty much never a reason not to use the maneuver if you know your opponent can sneak attack.

If we have to have a rule like this, I prefer this formulation to the one in the sneak attacks article with one caveat: since the reason you're choosing to focus on the attacker is to avoid being flanked, it's confusing to refer to the bonus given to the 'back attacker' as a flanking bonus. I would either make this an untyped bonus, or preferably I'd impose an equivalent condition on the character performing the action - say, "A character directly opposite the attacker you are focusing on gains an attack of opportunity, and resolves the attack as if you were prone."

--
Pauper
#4
Tony_Vargas
Mar 26, 2004 14:12:34 You should also lose your DEX bonus vs the attacker you're 'ignoring,' as well as the benefits of any feats or class abilities you may have that help you deal with unseen or flanking attackers - for that AoO, anyway.
#5
hot_rod
Mar 26, 2004 16:30:06 I think the option/houserule is pure munchkin metagaming in the most derogatory sense of the words. No character should know is someone is out of AoO that round, and choosing to ignore an opponent should leave you helpless against that person. I.E. CdG opportunity for the ignored fighter since you've just put your back right in front of him to 'face' the 'lightly armored opponent' (suspected rogue?).

Flanking is something done to you, not something you allow to happen, nor should it be.

I was glad when 3.0 got rid of facing, UA's clumsy attempt to re-introduce it was a step backward, Skip’s houserule is even worse.
#6
zombiegleemax
Sep 02, 2004 16:20:06 I've done something similar...but made it a bit more difficult.

"Ignoring" an opponent in melee requires a Concentration check (as a free action) equal to 10 + the attacker's BAB. As a free action, you can't do it at first...only until your turn comes 'round.

The "ignored" opponent receives all of the benefits of invisibility with regards to the ignoring defender. However, that individual can no longer be counted as a flanker.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Mar 14, 2004 8:32:48	In the article All About Sneak Attacks Part Four by Skip Williams, there is a clumsy house rule to deny an attacker the flanking bonus (and thus the ability to sneak attack due to flanking). I would like to offer my version as an alternative. My version is based on the fact that the flanking condition is considered at the instant an attack is made, and is not a static state that continues. House Rule - Flanked status Each time an opponent attacks you, you may elect to focus on the attacker, or be cautious and prepared for rear attacks. If you choose the latter, then you are considered flanked, and the attacker gains the bonuses for attacking a flanked target (+2 to attacks and may sneak attack), regardless of whether there actually is anyone in position to rear attack you or not. If you choose the former, then the attacker does not gain the bonuses for attacking a flanked target. However, you provoke an AoO against anyone directly opposite your current attack, and that rear attack will have a +4 flanking bonus. Default State Unless otherwise specified, you will automatically choose the latter (cautious) when there is an obvious rear attacker, and the former (focused) when there is not.
#2 minusinnocence Mar 18, 2004 9:56:18	It's an interesting option, but I personally would probably never make use of it. The benefits of keeping your options open and being aware of all attacks, even with the standard +2 bonus to attacks against me, outweigh the risk of someone scoring an AoO on me with a bonus twice as high. Of course, given the choice between a fighter nailing me with an AoO and a Rogue butchering me with a Sneak Attack, I suppose I'd prefer the AoO...
#3 Pauper Mar 22, 2004 15:59:39	I can't say I'm a fan of the rule itself - being able to negate a class's key ability simply by rule without requiring at least the expenditure of a feat seems inappropriate to me. Not to mention that mechanically, even after the attack bonus is taken into account, the additional attack is almost certainly going to end up doing less average damage than the sneak attack would have done, so there's pretty much never a reason not to use the maneuver if you know your opponent can sneak attack. If we have to have a rule like this, I prefer this formulation to the one in the sneak attacks article with one caveat: since the reason you're choosing to focus on the attacker is to avoid being flanked, it's confusing to refer to the bonus given to the 'back attacker' as a flanking bonus. I would either make this an untyped bonus, or preferably I'd impose an equivalent condition on the character performing the action - say, "A character directly opposite the attacker you are focusing on gains an attack of opportunity, and resolves the attack as if you were prone." -- Pauper
#4 Tony_Vargas Mar 26, 2004 14:12:34	You should also lose your DEX bonus vs the attacker you're 'ignoring,' as well as the benefits of any feats or class abilities you may have that help you deal with unseen or flanking attackers - for that AoO, anyway.
#5 hot_rod Mar 26, 2004 16:30:06	I think the option/houserule is pure munchkin metagaming in the most derogatory sense of the words. No character should know is someone is out of AoO that round, and choosing to ignore an opponent should leave you helpless against that person. I.E. CdG opportunity for the ignored fighter since you've just put your back right in front of him to 'face' the 'lightly armored opponent' (suspected rogue?). Flanking is something done to you, not something you allow to happen, nor should it be. I was glad when 3.0 got rid of facing, UA's clumsy attempt to re-introduce it was a step backward, Skip’s houserule is even worse.
#6 zombiegleemax Sep 02, 2004 16:20:06	I've done something similar...but made it a bit more difficult. "Ignoring" an opponent in melee requires a Concentration check (as a free action) equal to 10 + the attacker's BAB. As a free action, you can't do it at first...only until your turn comes 'round. The "ignored" opponent receives all of the benefits of invisibility with regards to the ignoring defender. However, that individual can no longer be counted as a flanker.