# Need suggestions for Flanking house rule



## Malif (Sep 3, 2009)

I've always had a problem with Flanking and the rogue's Sneak Attack, and I'm looking for opinions. Here's a hypothetical situation exaggerated to highlight the absurdity of the situation:

A 19th level rogue and 19th level fighter square off for a fight. Now, let's say the fighter charges the rogue and they start duking it out in Round 1. There's no surprise, no loss of Dex bonus, no Sneak Attack for the rogue. On the second round, the rogue's first-level follower rushes in behind the 19th level fighter and gives the 19th level rogue flanking. Now, the follower is a first-level NPC armed with a dagger. The 19th level fighter has seen this guy hanging around before. He knows the follower is pathetic. His chance to get through the fighter's +4 Full Plate is small and his damage is pathetic even if he gets lucky and hits. There's no way the 19th level fighter has anything to worry about from this guy. So, why does that justify the 19th level rogue gaining three primary and one off-hand attacks (he's fighting two-handed) each with full Sneak Attack damage (up to 40d6 extra damage depending on how many attacks hit), when in the first round, he didn't have the possibility of doing all that extra damage? 

My view is that the fighter should just be able to say, "I totally ignore the 19th level rogue's flanker." If I allow such a thing, though, what "to hit" bonus should I give to the first-level follower who is flanking? I'm assuming it should be big, but not quite as big as if the 19th level fighter were "helpless", since he is still a moving target. I’m curious. What specifically do you think?

-- Malif


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 3, 2009)

For what you want to do, I'd say the flanker that's being ignored would be able to attack the fighter as if the fighter was flat footed.  As long as the fighter "ignores" the flanker, the rogue isn't able to apply any backstabs.  But, anytime the fighter makes an attack against the flanker, the rogue can backstab for the duration of 1 round (that way, if the rogue goes first in a round, the fighter can't decide to attack the flanker on his turn and still enjoy the benefit of no backstabs from the rogue).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 3, 2009)

If the Fighter is truly ignoring the follower.  Enough to not have to worry about flanking, the follower can do a coup de grace every round on the Fighter.  To completely let your guard down, that seems fair.  And anything less than that just makes it too easy in less extreme examples for monsters to deny a rogue flanking.

So...take literally ONE attack to kill/knock out the pesky follower, then devote all your other attacks in that full attack to the rogue for one measy stinking round...or risk a 5% chance of instant-death from a really lucky dagger prick every round.  Your call.


----------



## Kerrick (Sep 3, 2009)

You can't be serious. A coup de grace? Against an active, not-dying foe? Come on.

I'd either go with "he's flat-footed" or just give the follower a +4 bonus.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 3, 2009)

I'd say, keep the rules as they are. Rogues are deviously clever, when it comes to exploiting even the least distraction. A flanker - _any_ flanker - qualifies, in 3e.


----------



## Dross (Sep 3, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> If the Fighter is truly ignoring the follower.  Enough to not have to worry about flanking, the follower can do a coup de grace every round on the Fighter.  To completely let your guard down, that seems fair.  And anything less than that just makes it too easy in less extreme examples for monsters to deny a rogue flanking.
> 
> So...take literally ONE attack to kill/knock out the pesky follower, then devote all your other attacks in that full attack to the rogue for one measy stinking round...or risk a 5% chance of instant-death from a really lucky dagger prick every round.  Your call.




Doesn't CDG provoke Attacks of opportunity (unless totally ignoring the L1 guy precludes threatening him)? As an aside, grapple the L20?

If I was to allow ignoring one attacker, the penalty would need to be huge (there really isn't an "ignore" rule other than not attacking) flat footed, plus +4 to hit would be minimum.

But, how does someone determine the threat level of a flanker?


----------



## Malif (Sep 3, 2009)

Just wanted to thank everyone who took time to reply so far. This is a tough one for me. It's one of those, "Yeah, it might not fit reality, but what does changing it do to game balance?" kind of quandaries.

I found another thread here on invisible opponents flanking a target that, unfortunately, just makes it even more complicated:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-3rd-edition-rules/253648-can-you-flanked-invisible-opponents.html

A couple people point out that the rules only require you to threaten the opponent's square to be considered a potential flanker, and that means invisible opponents can be flankers. That pretty much throws out the whole, "I get a bonus to hit you because you're having to worry about the guy behind you hitting you too" thing.  

That sort of leaves me thinking that either:

a) flanking is just some sort of quasi-mystical combat skill that can't be explained by any real-world circumstance, or 

b) you can't be flanked if you don't know you're being flanked or if you choose to ignore your flanker

I think if I go with "b", I should take a clue from the whole "guy is surrounded by 8 thieves who all have Improved Invisibility" scenario from the other discussion and say that if you choose to ignore a flanker, the flanker is essentially "invisible" and gains whatever advantage an invisible attacker would have if they decided to just open up on you while you stood next to them.

But then again, maybe "a" is better for the game.

Thanks again, guys!

-- Malif


----------



## Nebten (Sep 3, 2009)

It doesn't matter if attacker "knows" he's being flanked or not, its just that he is and the bonuses apply accordingly. 

On the other end of the spectrum, an Illusion (figment) of a dragon on opposite side the rogue doesn't provide a flanking bonus since isn't not "threatening" with a weapon (natural or otherwise). But I'm sure that fighter will not ignore the dragon. Just play with it as a mechanic and have fun. Much like how evasion allows you to ignore 100% damage from a fireball that fills up a 5' wide corridor. 

If you want to make the rules more complicated as they are try this: ignoring other combants makes you flat footed, +4 bonus to hit and you no longer have a threat zone with your weapon. I would make it all or nothing, not just picking which one or 2 combants you wish to ignore that round.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 3, 2009)

Dross said:


> Doesn't CDG provoke Attacks of opportunity (unless totally ignoring the L1 guy precludes threatening him)? As an aside, grapple the L20?




The Fighter can't take the AoO, and in fact doesn't threaten the L1 guy, by virtue of the fact he's IGNORING him completely. 

And yes, Kerrick, I'm serious.  To totally disregard a foe threatening you is a grevious laxitude.  If you really want to get technical about the whole "what if the guy has no chance at all of harming me?" scenario, he's still at least a nuissance.  If someone kept jabbing me in the spine with a plastic knife, it wouldn't really hurt, but I wouldn't be able to just ignore it for long without turning around and strangling the little bastard.

And from a game balance perspective, it's important to make sure the rogue gets his flanking benefit in melee.  Even with it, he generally gets pulverized by an equal level fighter in a full attack exchange.  And there could be many situations where mathematically if the penalties were minor, it would be very much worthwhile to ignore the rogue's flanking buddy.

And again, this is all not taking into account the point another poster made (I forgot to, glad he did): awareness has nothing to do with getting flanked.  Invisible attackers can flank you, even if you don't realize one of them is there.  Flanking in 3E is some weird mish-mash of abstracted facing rules + coordinated teamwork + other stuff all rolled into one simple condition.

Back to the coup de grace thing.  I think if the fighter truly were ignoring the L1 guy completely and not caring to leave his defenses wide open, it makes perfect sense for the L1 to line up a coup de grace.  What the OP is talking about goes beyond "not seeing" the weak ally.  The fighter is actively choosing to not even try to defend himself.


----------



## Ilja (Sep 3, 2009)

I'd say as some others have already said: Consider him flatfooted, and the ignored character gets flanking bonus.

And I'd like to add: Once the ignored flanker has inflicted at least 1 point of damage or ANY other sort of negative effect on the fighter, he can't be ignored anymore.

I don't agree with coup de grace though. Even if you invisible, inside a Silence spell, and sneak up to someone without sense of smell from behind when he's eating dinner, you don't get coup de grace as he's not per the rules helpless (as I see them in the PHB at least). He'll still be a moving target in full plate, and automatically hitting him is weird. Actually, it's pretty much impossible to hit someone wearing full plate with a dagger from behind. I mean, THIS stuff is hard to get through.

Something that the ignored guy CAN do with great success though, and a thing that was used IRL to combat warriors in full plate, is simply tripping him.

Consider the fighter (Level 19 Fighter Str 20, Dex 13, Con 16, +4 full plate, some magic giving +3 AC thus 10+12+1+3=26 AC, 14 Touch AC, 25 FFAC) and the follower (Level 1 Rogue, Str 11, Dex 13, Con 10).
If the rogue attempts to trip the fighter, he must make an touch attack roll against the flat-footed fighter.
He gets 1d20 + 2 (for flanking) versus an AC of 13 (neither armor nor dexterity counting). He's got 50% chance of succeeding at this. After that, he has to roll
1d20 and beat 1d20+5. He's got a 30% chance of succeeding at this (120/400).
I'd of course rule that if you can't take an attack of opportunity, you can't respond to the trip attempt by trying to trip the attacker. This I'd do regardless of the situation.
This means he's got a 15% chance of succeeding to trip the fighter. In a prolonged fight, it's DEFINATELY in the fighters best interest to get rid of the flanker ASAP. Should he fall prone, not only will the rogue get sneak attack bonus - the fighter would also gain -4 on AC and if trying to stand up, provoke an AoO.

Still, I don't have a problem with a 19-th level warrior with almost superhuman strength and magic protection and full plate being able to ignore the threat of a 1-st level rogue for a couple of turns. On the other hand, if there's three of the first-level rogues, you're in for a problem. They can simply push you to the ground and do their work in whatever time they wish, two people grappling and one removing the helmet. Past that, I feel sorry for the fighter (except that dealing 1d6+1d4 damage to a grappled fighter means it will take an average of 28 turns for him to hit "dying", not including criticals.)

tl;dr
If you've got a full plate, the guys dagger is seriously NO threat at all. The risk consists of him throwing all his weight on you.


----------



## El Mahdi (Sep 3, 2009)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> ... If someone kept jabbing me in the spine with a plastic knife, it wouldn't really hurt, but I wouldn't be able to just ignore it for long without turning around and strangling the little bastard. ...




LOL!  I loved this part.

If it was me, I'd just poke him in the eye ... but strangling works too.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 3, 2009)

This isn't the first time the question has come up.

Generally speaking, I side with those that say deliberately choosing to not defend yourself is the same as being helpless, and as such someone you've deliberately chosen to ignore can attempt a coup de grace.

I should point out that in the extreme case of a 20th level fighter facing a 20th level thief with a 1st level ally that is providing flanking, the 20th level fighter probably has less to fear from the 1st level attackers coup de grace than he does from the 20th level rogue's sneak attacks.

If I would make any concession to the 'you are just flat footed' crowd, it is that there is one difference between ignoring and being helpless and that is that the attacked character is actually moving (probably vigorously) at the time, albiet not moving to defend himself from the attack.  The situation the character wants isn't actually described by the rules, so it should be surprising that the resolution isn't described by the rules either.  I think it's reasonable to suggest that ignoring an attacker completely is somewhere between being flatfooted and helpless in terms of the vulnerability involved.  So, eligible for a 'coup de grace', but perhaps a coup de grace that does not automatically hit because you've no time to 'line it up' and so must roll to hit as a normal attack on a 'helpless' target.


----------



## Ilja (Sep 3, 2009)

One should think about what helpless and flat-footed really means in the context.
A typical picture of a helpless fighter is one for example held, sleeping, or bound. To him, the ally could remove his helment (unless he wakes, but that's a whole different issue) and drive his knife through the eye of the fighter. That hurts, a lot.

A flat-footed person is one who isn't immobile, but doesn't defend himself. Examples are when the fighter's facing an invisible backstabber when he is deaf and have a cold, and the backstabber hasn't been noticed in any way. He can't possibly defend from him by actions - the only thing protecting him is his armor, but it can protect him pretty good.

I think ignoring someone is MUCH more like being flat-footed. Even if you're ignoring him, that doesn't mean he can remove your helmet without anything happening. You're not immobile, your constantly moving in your fight with the other person. A coup de grace represents slitting the throat or whatever - and you can't do that on a person engaged in anything, not without first grappling the person. And grappling is a whole different matter. Ignoring someone is "not performing any actions specifically to hinder them", not "laying very still and allowing them to do anything to you".


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 3, 2009)

Stringburka: The basic problem here is the prohibition against coup de grace attacks except when the character is helpless is sacrificing realism for playability.  Realistically speaking, if you are completely unable to detect my presence and I'm in any way compotent with my weapon, I ought to be able to make a killing stroke.  In such a situation, a swung battle axe is no less effective than a .45 caliber pistol placed an inch or two from the back of the head. That one can't do so in the game has nothing to do with what is realistic and everthing to do with keeping down the overall lethality of the game by allowing character to have a reasonable chance of surviving.

The challenge raised by a player unhappy with the fact that any creature that threatens him, regardless of how small the threat, grants the rogue a huge bonus on his attacks is essentially that "It's not realistic."  But, appealing to realism isn't much of a help in this case, and appealing to the rules as if they offered realistic alternatives is missing the point entirely.  The coup de grace rules exist to provide realism that would otherwise be missing, but they are unrealisticly narrowed to the most egregious situation.


----------



## Ilja (Sep 3, 2009)

@Celebrim: Yes, that is a valid point of the invisible attacker. However, even punching someone with a battle axe wouldn't necessarily kill someone if that person had full plate armor. [sblock=Rant from an amateur at medieval history]Full armor gave enough protection to withstand nearly any attack except some missile weapons at short range as well as heavy piercing weapons such as picks and some piercing swords (particulary the estoc), and then it only didn't work some times.

The primary way to kill someone in plate armor wouldn't ever be to try to chop of his head with an axe - it's going for the weak spots with a piercing weapon such as an estoc or a warhammer (which is a piercing weapon, not a blunt one thankyouverymuch D&D designers) or simply denting the armor enough to crush the person below. This was done either with again - a warhammer, or any really heavy weapon. There the battleaxe MIGHT work, however, it wasn't usually "one hit kills" then, but rather bashing the hell out of them when they had been beaten to the ground.[/sblock]

And with a +3 magical armor, I think you could safely say that he's decently protected even at these "weak spots" where a piercing weapon might work.

While a naked person standing like that would indeed be very vulnerable to a battle axe chop, he'll still be staggering back as soon as he gets hit whether he likes it or not, lessening the damage compared to someone held or tied up.

So yes, in general you might be right that there are cases where a coup de grace should be possible when it's currently not, but in this case where we're talking about a guy wearing armor making him almost immune to slashing and light piercing weapons being threatened by some goon with a dagger, I think allowing a coup de grace (even if the goon was invisible) would be at least as wrong as not allowing it when he's naked.


----------



## Ashtagon (Sep 3, 2009)

Seems to me the rules on invisibility would be appropriate. I mean, what's the difference between not being able to see a guy, and simply not looking at him (rhetorical - don't answer that).

In essence, it would mean the ignored critter gets +2 on attack rolls, and treats the PC as flat-footed (no Dex bonus). Unfortunately, adapting the invisibility rules doesn't quite answer the question of flanking.

Coup de race doesn't quite cut (pun intended) it here. there are, after all, several degrees of helplessness.

* knife to the throat - RAW coup de grace fails to work here; this should be an instant kill, albeit one that takes times to prepare in order to expose a weak spot.
* execution - coup de grace; you're standing over a motionless body and swing your weapon down. RAW Coup de grace works ok for this, a grittier variant would be to grant sneak attack damage to all classes (and rogues get to apply SA damage twice).
* flat-footed - he knows you are there, but is too caught by surprise. Reflected in RAW by loss of ability to make attacks of opportunity, and loss of Dexterity bonus.

So, we need something between "execution" and "flat-footed" 

How about the fighter makes his attack roll normally, but can apply sneak attack damage as if he were a rogue (and a rogue would get to apply SA damage twice). Plus of course, he should be treated as invisible (+2 on attack roll), since the hero is intentionally not watching him. I liken this to a crazy axe maniac entering a dance hall and swinging at people who are dancing and carry on dancing despite him - they are moving about, but not in a fashion intended to avoid the attacks.


----------



## Kerrick (Sep 4, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Stringburka: The basic problem here is the prohibition against coup de grace attacks except when the character is helpless is sacrificing realism for playability.  Realistically speaking, if you are completely unable to detect my presence and I'm in any way compotent with my weapon, I ought to be able to make a killing stroke.



That's called a sneak attack. At most, I'd let the attacker get an auto-crit, if he can't SA/DA, but not have the target make a Fort save.

For "flanking" to be effective, the defender must be distracted by something opposite the attacker. The rogue/follower is a good example - the fighter knows the rogue is there and is defending against him. _Whether or not he knows about the follower_, the follower is still flanking him. Therefore, it makes no difference if he's ignoring the follower. Let's say the follower snuck up invisibly - would he get to make a coup de grace just because the fighter doesn't know he's there? The fighter is ignorant of the threat, not completely helpless.

Stream: Your point about the guy poking you with a plastic knife is valid, but it doesn't count as a coup de grace. Sure, the fighter will eventually get annoyed and turn around to bash the guy, giving the rogue a free sneak attack. At best, I'd rule it a distraction, which gives the follower a +4 to hit and the rogue a +2 (since the fighter's full attention is not on the rogue).

In the case of the invisible rogues, I'd say that the direction of the last attack, or the direction in which the target made his last attack (whichever comes last in the round) is where the target would be "facing" - any attacks from the opposite direction are therefore made from a flanking position.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 4, 2009)

Kerrick said:


> That's called a sneak attack.




Are you saying that everyone is a high level rogue?  

The basis of the objection is, "This isn't realistic."  Of course it isn't realistic.  Sneak attacks, coup de grace, and flanking are all unrealistic abstractions.  

If you are going to make the objection, "This isn't realistic", you can't appeal to which of them is less realistic as if one of them somehow captured a realistic standard and one didn't.  They are all abstractions used for ease of play.

The real question not being answered by the people who don't think this is worthy of a coup de grace is, "If you maintain that the penalty for ignoring a flanker is not really that much worse than being flanked to begin with, what's to stop this from becoming in effect, 'Everyone is immune to flanking'."

You better believe every monster you face is now going to 'ignore' the fighter and face the rogue from here on out if you think the only penalty should be 'he's flatfooted with respect to the fighter but not flanked by anyone', because what the fighter can do with the tiny edge involved there is nothing compared to what the monster gains by not taking sneak attack damage.

All the arguments about what is realistic - all these attempts at resolving which is more realistic based on the power of imagination - completely miss the point.  Unless you want to rebuild the rules from the ground up, allowing someone to ignore the rules must carry a hefty penalty or else they'll do it all the time.



> Let's say the follower snuck up invisibly - would he get to make a coup de grace just because the fighter doesn't know he's there?




Realisticly, yes he would.  Being completely ignorant of a threat is realisticly in many if not most cases the same as being helpless.  If Bruce Lee doesn't know that I'm there and can't hear me coming, all his reflexes won't help him because by the time his nerves know about the attack, he's already taken a mortal wound.  That it is not that way in the game is purely to avoid frequently having 'die no save' situations, and not because it is actually realistic to assume that characters somehow defend themselves from attacks they are unaware of at the moment that they are made.

Hense, all the appeals to realism here are pointless.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 4, 2009)

Thanks, Celerium, you stated that much better than I could.  My preference is to just not allow such a houserule.  BUT, if you were determined to realistically portray the ability to completely ignore an opponent as a threat, then I would insist on not only accepting the good parts.  You want to pay no attention to him?  Cool.  Every single round he's lining up a stab to your jugular.

Which makes me want to create a little theater script, enjoy:

Player: Ok, so no way that warrior guy can hurt me much, I want to ignore him and focus completely on the rogue so he can't sneak attack me.  You told me that's acceptable, right?
DM: Alright, if you insist.  It's really not a good idea to do that...
Player: Surely nowhere near as bad as getting sneak attacked constantly. 
DM: As you turn your back to the village guard, he takes careful aim and slits your throat with his short sword.  *rolls crit damage* Fort save to avoid instant death, please.
Player: ....What?!!!
DM: You're letting him attack you at his leisure, what did you expect?  He can do a tiger claw grab to your groin and see what souveniers he can take home, if you prefer.
Player: No....I'd rather choose option c) none of the above...
DM: Ooh!  I know!  He'll grab you, locking both his arms under your armpits, hands on your shoulders, to keep your motion nice and restricted.
Player: If he grapples me, the Rogue can sneak attack anyway!
DM: That is true...
Player: No way!  I fight him off! *rolls grapple check*
DM: *rolls* Yeah, your 38 beats his...7.  You easily manage to throw him off of you.  *rolls* As you do so, the opportunistic Rogue attacks your weak spot for *massive damage*!
Player: Wait, what?  he can't sneak attack me, I'm completely focused on him!
DM: How are you both ignoring the other guy AND throwing him off of you?  The rogue's just taking advantage of your momentary lapse of guard.  That's...what sneak attack IS.
Player: This isn't what I had in mind when I suggested the houserule...
DM: Oh, then what?  You wanted some minor penalty to completely deny the rogue his primary class ability?
Player: It's not _that_ bad...  The rogue can still try to catch me flatfooted.  Granted, that's hard to do and often requires set up rounds after combat's begun, but it's not like I'm completely taking away his main ability.  Besides, he's still high level, with his magic items and skills and such.
DM: You know what...you're absolutely right.  I had my doubts, but you've convinced me it's not as bad as I thought.  I've seen the light, thank you.  You can feel free to ignore the other guy.  He'll be invisible to you, but not like he can do much to you anyway, so whatever.
Player: Halleluyah!
DM: Amen!  Thank you, I never looked at it like that before.  Ok, you've gone.  Rogue's turn.  He 5 ft steps back, pulls out a scroll, and uses his skill with magic items to cast it.
Player: Hmm, what'd he cast?
DM: You don't have spellcraft, you wouldn't know.
Player: Yeah, but I'm just curious.  Can't you tell me?  I wont metagame, I just want to know.
DM: Ok.  It's a spell called "Pen is mightier than the sword."
Player:  ...what's that?
DM: It's a spell i just made up now, inspired by your superior reasoning.
Player:  ....
DM: It's a 20 ft radius emanation from the caster.  Within the emanation, creatures, including the caster, lose access to all of their feats.
Player: That's not fair!  I'm a Fighter!  Feats are my main class feature!
DM: But you're still high level.  You've got a full BAB, and I'd hope a backup ranged weapon, not to mention all your magic gear and hit points.  You're not _completely_ gimped....
Player:  But...but...my power attack!  My weapon suprememacy!  My attacks are almost nothing without them!
DM: Come on now.  You still have a giant sword.  You can always hang back at range and take shots with your bow.  You're about as well off as the Rogue is without reliable sneak attack.  Fear the d4 +2 damage!
Player:  ...Screw it.  I spend the first of my 4 iterative attacks to kill the stupid henchman.  Full power attack.  *rolls* 35 to hit, 46 damage.
DM: He dies!  Congratulations, the Rogue can no longer flank you now!


----------



## Ilja (Sep 5, 2009)

Well, grabbing someone for the rogue to sneak attack isn't a coup de grace, it's a grapple. And as said before, slitting someone's throat when that person is wearing full plate, or even a helmet, or is moving to combat someone else, is definately not an auto-success. Sure, if he's lightly armored you CAN, but since he's moving it shouldn't be an automatic success. Also, he can still distract the character via the Aid action, so the rogue gets a higher attack bonus.

You can do a coup de grace against a person who is adjacent to you with a bow, but you don't automatically hit an inanimate objects (you get a +5 to hit bonus, and can still roll natural one). It feels weird to give the ignoring fighter less chance than the wooden door of "avoiding" the attack.

And grappling and all those examples still work. And how are you supposed to slit someones throat if he wears plate armor AND has his back to you?

One simple fix could be to state that when you're flat-footed, you don't get your strength modifier to opposed rolls for the same reason you don't get your dex modifier; you don't have time to brace yourself/dodge. This would, game balance-wise, make someone in full plate ignoring a 1-st level commoner VERY vulnerable to what would probably be the most effective tactic IRL; Throwing yourself at the person, or attempting to hold him still. While a first level commoner can actually be seen as a no-threat-situation to the fighter in full plate, we could use a 1st level warrior with 13 strength as an example instead, as he's much more likely to actually be in the situation (as a town guard or whatever). He has a 35% chance of tripping the fighter on the first try. And, quite frankly, I would see it as slight rule abuse of a 19-th level rogue to carry along a first level fighter as flanker. If he's evil, I might accept it once or twice, but anyone non-evil wouldn't be allowed at all to bring a baby into the mouth of a dragon.

While you can't reach a hundred percent realism, it's pretty good to favor the kind of action that would be the best IRL, at least not since it makes it easier for players to know how to combat a certain situation. 

And about monsters: Yes, it's a bigger problem there, because you can't grapple or trip a Gargantuan dragon. However, I don't really like it either that if the rogue faces of alone vs. the dragon, summoning a fiendish hawk on the other side is enough to give the rogue five times his regular damage.

So, my suggestion is:
When you're flat-footed, you loose your strength bonus to opposing rolls in cases like trip, grapple etc. This is always the case, not only when ignoring flankers.

Ignoring a flanker makes you flat-footed, and of course the ignored combatant gains the flanking bonus as well.
The ignored combatant gets an attack of opportunity each turn against the ignoring each turn.
Once an ignoring combatant has suffered at least 1 point of damage or another negative effect from the ignored combatant, he can't ignore him anymore due to simple survival instinct.

So yes, if you're in a full plate armor and a commoner is threatening you with a knife, you CAN ignore him for a turn or two and focus on the real threat. A dragon CAN ignore the hawk since it probably can't even get through it's scales. However, it can still be disruptive - via the Aid action. Also, once the commoner or hawk has done some harm, you can't ignore it anymore because of the pain.

----------------

If we look at what situations might actually come up that closely resembles this, what we have seen when actually playing and such, the closest I can think of is when our 9th level rogue faced off with a 10th level blackguard, and the rogues 7th level barbarian/fighter cohort flanked. And I can tell you, if the blackguard had ignored the cohort, he'd been on the ground in two seconds.

On the other hand, more than once I've seen a rogue gain his sneak attack versus a huge or larger opponent due to the caster summoning a tiny animal on the other side of the demon/purple worm/whatever.


----------



## Herobizkit (Sep 5, 2009)

The brutal and short answer is to rule that Rogues no longer get sneak attack.  Instead, their main class feature becomes swift strike like the Ninja; essentially, it's sneak attack but can only be used when the opponent is flat-footed. 

To make up for this, I would give the rogue a free "special ability" of choice from their list as a 1st-level "bonus feat".  If I were feeling particularly generous, I might allow the Rogue to gain feats as a Fighter instead (as per the Martial Rogue variant from Unearthed Arcana) and keep the swift strike.


----------



## Kerrick (Sep 5, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Are you saying that everyone is a high level rogue?



No... in the case of someone with no rogue levels, just rule it an auto-crit.



> The basis of the objection is, "This isn't realistic."  Of course it isn't realistic.  Sneak attacks, coup de grace, and flanking are all unrealistic abstractions.



What? I never once mentioned the word "realistic" in my post, nor did I imply it. And no, they're not - they're quite realistic.



> If Bruce Lee doesn't know that I'm there and can't hear me coming, all his reflexes won't help him because by the time his nerves know about the attack, he's already taken a mortal wound.



If Bruce Lee doesn't know you're there, he's flat-footed. That's it. If you're a rogue, you can deal a sneak attack because you've got special training. Some jerkoff with a steak knife _might_ be able to stick that knife somewhere vital, or he might not. He should still roll to hit, since the target might be wearing armor, have special protections, or could simply move at the last moment, but a hit should deal more damage than normal (a crit).



> Hense, all the appeals to realism here are pointless.



Realism and game mechanics are not necessarily mutually exclusive.



StreamOfTheSky said:


> Player:  ...Screw it.  I spend the first of my 4 iterative attacks to kill the stupid henchman.  Full power attack.  *rolls* 35 to hit, 46 damage.
> DM: He dies!  Congratulations, the Rogue can no longer flank you now!



Which is what any player with half a brain and the ability to do so (i.e., make more than 1 attack/round) would do automatically.



Stringburka said:


> On the other hand, more than once I've seen a rogue gain his sneak attack versus a huge or larger opponent due to the caster summoning a tiny animal on the other side of the demon/purple worm/whatever.



That falls into the realm of "common sense". If a DM actually allowed something that ridiculous, you should smack him upside the head with a DMG. There should be a limit on how much smaller a creature can be, relative to the creature it's flanking, to be effective. Three sizes sounds about right, IMO.


I was thinking about this last night, and I came up with a feat. Let's call it Battlefield Awareness; I was going to call it Eyes in the Back of Your Head, but someone's already done that one. It requires BAB +12; the benefit is that you cannot be flanked by an opponent unless it has concealment relative to you. That is, someone who is invisible, obscured by fog/darkness, or hiding behind a bush can still flank you, because you can't pinpoint their exact location.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Sep 5, 2009)

Stringburka said:


> And as said before, slitting someone's throat when that person is wearing full plate, or even a helmet, or is moving to combat someone else, is definately not an auto-success. Sure, if he's lightly armored you CAN, but since he's moving it shouldn't be an automatic success.




Except that's how it works in abstracted D&D combat.  If I roll a lucky 20 twice in a row with any weapon, I've managed to find a vulnerable point in your armor, or more likely, somewhere it isn't protecting.  If that level 1 nobody flanking with the high level rogue were a level 1 rogue, he could find those vulnerable points just as well as the high level rogue.  He'll have much lower chance to hit, since he's not as well versed in combat.  And he won't do nearly as much damage, because he's yet to learn to truly exploit such an opening like the high level rogue.  But when it comes to the basic principle of daggerring someone in a squishy, tender spot who's wearing full plate, he knows how just as the high level rogue does.

There is no such thing as completely protective armor in D&D.  Or in the real world, I'd argue.  In D&D, that would be represented as total cover.  In the real world, even full plate was weaker at joints (armpits, for example), having less armor there by necessity.  I remember Human Weapon, a program from History channel, talking about Judo and its Samurai origins, and how warriors would throw enemies to the ground, where the weight of their armor would add to the shock of impact and momentarily stun them.  After which, they'd quickly pull out a dagger or short blade, expose the enemy's neck, and slit it.  On another history show on more recently, Warriors, one episode covered Agincourt.  In that battle, the few knights who actually reached the archers were swarmed upon rabidly in melee and pulled from horseback to the ground.  Once there, the relatively unskilled-at-melee archers just stabbed and prodded at any vulnerable points -- armpits, groin, eye slits, whatever.  It worked rather well at killing the walking tanks.

True, in those cases the enemy was at least somewhat incapacitated first.  But the knights also weren't ignoring the threat posed, either.  And really, even if full plate in D&D offered perfect protection (couldn't crit someone in it), which it does not, if you weren't threatening a guy, he could do all sorts of pesky things to mess you up much worse than aid another.  Can't slit your throat?  Cut the straps holding the helmet to your head.  Or twist it around so you can't see.  Take your small hammer, keep the sledge close to the ground, then swing up and smash it into the guy's groin as hard as you can.  Even if the full plate completely protects, the reverberation and utter shock value will definitely leave the high level fighter open for a moment.

And the OP never mentioned full plate, I think this whole thing is a side tangent to what was being discussed.  It's my perception that he would have wanted a dexterous level 20 Fighter in studded leather to also ignore the low level "threat."  Escpecially since if this is some kind of deal with the type of armor worn, it shouldn't matter if the Fighter is level 20 or level 2.  Anything relating to how protected you are with full plate is an armor houserule, not a flanking houserule.



Stringburka said:


> Also, he can still distract the character via the Aid action, so the rogue gets a higher attack bonus.




Are you really so oblivious that you think the major problem with this proposed scenario is the Rogue losing his precious +2 to hit from flanking?




Kerrick said:


> No... in the case of someone with no rogue levels, just rule it an auto-crit.




Yeah, so a coup de grace.  You line up a shot, and automatically hit and crit.  You just want to add an asterisk and say that in this case, no fort save is rolled, because you somehow think it's too powerful, but otherwise agree with my gut assessment of "the other guy can coup de grace"?




Kerrick said:


> What? I never once mentioned the word "realistic" in my post, nor did I imply it. And no, they're not - they're quite realistic.




If realism isn't the reason to need such a houserule...then what is?  It can't be game balance, you're destroying that.  Let's see...not simulationist or gamist, that leaves...narrativist, right?  Is it for storytelling reasons you think a hero should be able to simply ignore an opponent?  If so, has not having such rules actually ruined or restricted your plot in any game thus far?




Kerrick said:


> Realism and game mechanics are not necessarily mutually exclusive.




Of course not.  My coup de grace suggestion is both realistic, and actually seems like a balanced downside to not having to worry about sneak attack from flanking.  Few will ever find it worthwhile, but it might be in certain situations.



Kerrick said:


> Which is what any player with half a brain and the ability to do so (i.e., make more than 1 attack/round) would do automatically.




The OP's example set up that ridiculous situation.  I'm merely saying that it's a false dilemma.  If a foe is that much weaker than you, you could off him in a fraction of a round anyway.  You could even take a -4 for nonlethal if you didn't want to kill him and STILL probably hit on the first try.  So, now that there's agreement that there's no real issue of using low level mooks to fuel flanking for very long...why is there still a problem?




Kerrick said:


> That falls into the realm of "common sense". If a DM actually allowed something that ridiculous, you should smack him upside the head with a DMG. There should be a limit on how much smaller a creature can be, relative to the creature it's flanking, to be effective. Three sizes sounds about right, IMO.




So a Huge dragon can ignore the threat of a level 25 Gnome Fighter just because the dragon's much bigger.  Even if the gnome loaded up on feats, prestige classes, and items to better slay the big folk.  Right....  (And if you meant including up to 3 sizes different, make the dragon Gargantuan, your houserule's still ridiculous)




Kerrick said:


> I was thinking about this last night, and I came up with a feat. Let's call it Battlefield Awareness; I was going to call it Eyes in the Back of Your Head, but someone's already done that one. It requires BAB +12; the benefit is that you cannot be flanked by an opponent unless it has concealment relative to you. That is, someone who is invisible, obscured by fog/darkness, or hiding behind a bush can still flank you, because you can't pinpoint their exact location.




So you want to make a mid level class feature unique to certain archetypes a feat for anyone to take, except...it's actually even better since not even a rogue 4 levels higher than you cna overcome the feat's protection.  Did I understand that right?  I guess the fact that low level magic spells beats it makes everything all better.  I thought most people didn't like it when low level magic overshadowed skills and high level class features, though?


----------



## Ilja (Sep 5, 2009)

First off, there's three parts in this argument I'd say, and there might be a difference in how we prioritize. The three parts I see is:
1. Realism. Even though it's an abstract system, we want some resemblence of realism. That's why a greataxe does more damage than a longspear, and it's why you can't fall fifty feet without taking damage a'la DMC3.
2. Balance/playability. It shouldn't be too easy to avoid the sneak attack, because that makes rogues bad.
3. Continuity (sorry if this is a bad word in the context; English is not my main language). We want the rules to work like the rest of the game as far as possible, so it's easy to remember. Too many extra rolls and exceptions is bad, as is rarely used functions like for example percentile dice.

I think due to the realism argument, which we are both engaging in and which should be addressed, it might be a good idea to lay down the 1-st level commoner vs. 19-th level fighter situation since we can both agree that a 19th level fighter is somewhere between a superhero and a demigod.

Let's say it's a first level warrior with a short sword versus a 5th level fighter in a non-magic fullplate. The warrior would have +2 attack bonus (+1 str, +1 bab) and the fighter AC 19 (+1 dex, +8 full plate. Let's assume he's using a two-handed weapon). The rogue would be a 5-th level rogue, but that's of less importance.

If this assumptions aren't okay with you, we can skip them, but throughout this post I will use them since 5th level is where you usually draw the line between heroes as they COULD be IRL and high-fantasy superheroes.



StreamOfTheSky said:


> Except that's how it works in abstracted D&D combat.  If I roll a lucky 20 twice in a row with any weapon, I've managed to find a vulnerable point in your armor, or more likely, somewhere it isn't protecting.



No, that's not how it works. It doesn't work that way as is because a mobile person is never considered helpless in RAW. You WANT it to work like that, but right now it doesn't. Yes, rolling 20 twice in a row makes it possible - that's a 1/400 chance. With a short sword you'll have a 1/200 chance. Anyway that is irrelevant, because we're not talking about that 1/200 chance, we're talking about converting it into a 1/1 chance.
We're not discussing how it works. It works in the way that you cannot ever ignore a flanker. We're discussing how it should work.

If we look at how "putting down one's guard yet not be completely immobile" is handled in RAW, due to the continuity argument, there's three common effects:
AC penalty (Rage & Charge)
Becoming flat-footed (Invisible opponents & first turn of combat before initiative)
Provoking AoO (Casting a spell & Drinking a potion)



StreamOfTheSky said:


> If that level 1 nobody flanking with the high level rogue were a level 1 rogue, he could find those vulnerable points just as well as the high level rogue.



Even if he knows the heart is vulnerable, it won't help him. He has to actually detect where the weak spots are, and he has to know how to hit those. He has to anticipate where the fighter's going to move, because he's not standing still.

And still, none of these are areas where you could auto-hit, I'd say the easiest place to hit from behind would be the backside of the knee, which was often protected by only leather or padding; if you cut of the knee and placed it on a shelf, someone still couldn't coup de grace it with a ranged weapon (he'd fail on a natural 1). Why should it be easier to hit it when it's on a moving combatant?

This is both a question of continuity and realism.



> There is no such thing as completely protective armor in D&D.  Or in the real world, I'd argue.  In D&D, that would be represented as total cover.



It doesn't have to be total cover to fully hinder someone to coup de grace you.



> I remember Human Weapon, a program from History channel, talking about Judo and its Samurai origins, and how warriors would throw enemies to the ground, where the weight of their armor would add to the shock of impact and momentarily stun them.  After which, they'd quickly pull out a dagger or short blade, expose the enemy's neck, and slit it.



I don't know if you read that post, but that was EXACTLY the strategy I was suggesting. Trip or grapple the opponent, and either let the rogue do his work or simply hit him with a stick until he passes out. Then coup de grace would be easy. As I said, in terms of realism and balance, this is a great tactic. Considering the situation above, he'd have a pretty good chance of downing the fighter in the first turn. By the end of the second, it would be almost sure. 



> Once there, the relatively unskilled-at-melee archers just stabbed and prodded at any vulnerable points -- armpits, groin, eye slits, whatever.  It worked rather well at killing the walking tanks.



The difference there would be that there are 10 or so half-skilled combatants (1st level warriors or the like in D&D) beating on one prone target. Yes, he would die pretty quick, regardless of armor. But there's a difference between ten warriors beating on a prone guy and some random guy trying to stab a standing, moving target with a knife. If there's ten flankers being ignored, the fighter IS going down quick. 



> And really, even if full plate in D&D offered perfect protection (couldn't crit someone in it), which it does not, if you weren't threatening a guy, he could do all sorts of pesky things to mess you up much worse than aid another.  Can't slit your throat?  Cut the straps holding the helmet to your head.  Or twist it around so you can't see.



This isn't very easy to do against someone who's moving. Really, it isn't. Sure, you can, and that's nothing I object to. But it's already there, via aid another, trip, grapple, and while there's no rules about cutting the straps holding a helmet, in case it was an open helmet I'd consider that a dex-based sunder attempt. For a closed one, I'd rule you can't, because it's nearly impossible IRL. Anyways it's hard, especially as his head will be away from you. And why wouldn't this be consider "aid another"? That kind of thing is what I've always thought about when thinking of the aid action.

The main problem I have with the CDG suggestion is the auto-hit part. You should never autohit on a moving target, even if it's completely oblivious to your existance.

I'm not proposing heavy armor should make you invulnerable, I'm saying that you shouldn't be able to auto-hit a moving target in heavy armor. That's just common sense.



> Take your small hammer, keep the sledge close to the ground, then swing up and smash it into the guy's groin as hard as you can.  Even if the full plate completely protects, the reverberation and utter shock value will definitely leave the high level fighter open for a moment.



Again, he's not standing still, so you shouldn't auto-succeed. But sure, it should be fairly easy to hit; he's denied his dex bonus and you get +2 from flanking. Taking the characters from above, that would give the warrior a 35% chance of doing real damage. I agree that this chance is too small, but that problem stems from a whole different matter: D&D's view of armor as all-or-nothing protection rather than damage reduction. But that problem applies to all fighting in D&D (which is part of the reason I use GnGR as much as I do), so I don't think it's really relevant to the problem at hand.



> And the OP never mentioned full plate, I think this whole thing is a side tangent to what was being discussed.



Well, he did, quote:
"The 19th level fighter has seen this guy hanging around before. He knows the follower is pathetic. His chance to get through the fighter's +4 Full Plate is small and his damage is pathetic even if he gets lucky and hits. "



> It's my perception that he would have wanted a dexterous level 20 Fighter in studded leather to also ignore the low level "threat."  Escpecially since if this is some kind of deal with the type of armor worn, it shouldn't matter if the Fighter is level 20 or level 2. Anything relating to how protected you are with full plate is an armor houserule, not a flanking houserule.



That's a very fair point though, but I think it's a non-issue, because even if you're naked:
Realistically, someone doesn't have a 100% chance to hit you if you're actively moving, even if you're not caring what he does. There's always a risk of failing when doing stressful actions, like combat, especially if you aren't a veteran at the task.
Balance-wise: If we assume that the fighter IS naked, his AC would be a pitiful 10 against the warriors 1d20+4 when attacking, and if we also gave him an AoO as I suggested he'd hit an average of 1.5 times per round, dealing an average of 7.25 (including crits) damage per round. That'd down him in less than half a minute, supposing he's unhurt, and no crits are inflicted, and the rogue doesn't hit him anything either.




> Are you really so oblivious that you think the major problem with this proposed scenario is the Rogue losing his precious +2 to hit from flanking?



No, of course not. I see that the problem is the sneak attacks, but I still think it's unneeded to give free CdG's to anyone ignored. In some situations it might be worth to ignore the low threat, but is that really a problem? I mean, it's not a serious nerf to the rogue, it's rational and realistic, and it adds a little depth to the combat without introducing any new mechanics.

Yeah, so a coup de grace.  You line up a shot, and automatically hit and crit.  You just want to add an asterisk and say that in this case, no fort save is rolled, because you somehow think it's too powerful, but otherwise agree with my gut assessment of "the other guy can coup de grace"?
No, I don't see why. You can't coup de grace in any other situation where the person is mobile yet unable (or unwilling) to protect himself. You don't even get a coup de grace if the person is dominated by your friend.

I wouldn't have much agaist, for example, "autocrit if you hit but you still gotta hit" because it makes at least some sense, but it would be a partly new mechanic.



> If realism isn't the reason to need such a houserule...then what is?  It can't be game balance, you're destroying that.



To me, the change would be if my players wanted to do that, because I feel it might be rational and realistic. At least far more realistic than the options.
But anyway, I don't think it destroys game balance, since it's not going to be used often unless you usually carry around your henchman as flanker to be eaten (something I'd strongly oppose if the party was good or neutral).



> Let's see...not simulationist or gamist, that leaves...narrativist, right?  Is it for storytelling reasons you think a hero should be able to simply ignore an opponent?  If so, has not having such rules actually ruined or restricted your plot in any game thus far?



Well, I haven't actually used any hard-written rules about it yet except that I ruled that a badger couldn't flank a purple worm, so it's purely hypothetical yet.



> Of course not.  My coup de grace suggestion is both realistic, and actually seems like a balanced downside to not having to worry about sneak attack from flanking.  Few will ever find it worthwhile, but it might be in certain situations.



I think we have different opinions on what is realistic and not. While I am not, and I assume you are not either, professionally educated in medieval combat, I think we could leave that argument. I find auto-successes unrealistic in nearly every situation, you do not. 
I partly understand your reasoning about the game balance point, but I think it doesn't have to be taken that far, so there's where I let continuity rule. I think it's enough to do what's being done in most similiar situations: Flat-footedness and AoO (though it's not common to cause both). Also, it promotes using realistic tactics: Tripping and grappling the opponent.


----------

