|[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:49:07 +1300, tussock wrote:

> Yep. As far as I can figure, it's slightly easier to both fall into
> and escape from, and covers the tri-flank without an extra rule. In most
> cases the top one there plays the same as an opposites-only flank.

Who needs an extra rule?

If you do not have a minimum of 180 degrees clear of threatening enemies,
you are flanked.

It's basically the ASL encirclement rule.

--
Phoenix
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

Keith Davies wrote:
> tussock wrote:

<Re: Flanking>

>> Could even fold it into a general "distracted" condition with other
>> effects that give Rogues a sneak attack and opponetns a small hit
>> bonus, of which there are rather a lot.
>
> Hmm. Interesting idea. Varying degrees of flanked/distracted?

Possibly, but nothing springs to mind that fits.

> I'm having trouble coming up with them, but I'm really tired right now.
> You don't want to know how many tries it's taken me to type this
> paragraph cleanly.

Writing late at night is fun. Like drugs, only free. Kinda slow at
times though, yes.


>> Zombies are 'z's, 'Z's are Zephyr hounds; what game are you
>> playing?
>
> nethack. 'z' is zruty.

Heathen. 'Tis the big P who's the true enemy of our @s.


>> But yes, tri-flank, too obvious. As a simpler rule, I suggest any two
>> opponents more than 90 degrees sperated provide flanking, a close
>> enough approximation.
>
> so
>
> ..Z
> Z@.
> ...
>
> is a flank, but
>
> .Z.
> Z@.
> ...
>
> isn't?

Yep. As far as I can figure, it's slightly easier to both fall into
and escape from, and covers the tri-flank without an extra rule. In most
cases the top one there plays the same as an opposites-only flank.

>>> 3. you can choose to ignore someone, possibly breaking a flank. The
>>> ignored creature treats you as flatfooted[1], which might be very
>>> bad for you.
>>
>> Gives an oppy to and counts as blinded against, allowing them to
>> try a grapple and deny you your Dex to the big guy another way.
>
> 'oppy'?

I can't use OA, it's a reserved acronym.

> That's a word I'm hoping dies an early death.

The more annoying they are, they better they do. "Oppo" would be the
Autralian version, if you prefer. Perhaps a minimalist grunt and point
would suffice IRL.

> However, provoking AoO to ignored opponents and you're flatfooted
> against ignored opponents until your next turn seems like a pretty good
> start. I'm not sure about bonuses and the like on top of that, but
> blindness (to ignored opponents) isn't an insane option.

You've just got to remember it's common use: to deny flank damage to
a Rogue when he's buddied up with a grunt. A grunt of the same level
needs to gain enough advantage to make it not trivially worthwhile.
Ignoring someone has to *hurt*. Still, if they aren't really a threat
at the best of times, it should be possible.

--
tussock

I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

Seebs wrote:
> tussock wrote:

>> Didn't everyone "fix" flanking?
>
> Fix it how?
>
> I don't think I ever bothered to change the rule.

IIRC, there was some fun debates about why you could be flanked by an
invisible attacker you were unaware of. Officially, the sage said you
couldn't be, which raised the idea of being willfully unaware of wimps,
which spun off into all sorts of ideas.

--
tussock

I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

"tussock" <scrub.TakeThisOut@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:47d3eb23@clear.net.nz...
> Seebs wrote:
>> tussock wrote:
>
>>> Didn't everyone "fix" flanking?
>>
>> Fix it how?
>>
>> I don't think I ever bothered to change the rule.
>
> IIRC, there was some fun debates about why you could be flanked by an
> invisible attacker you were unaware of.

Or by an illusory attacker against which you'd failed your will save to
disbelieve.

--
Mark.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:23:16 -0000, "Mark Blunden" wrote:

>"tussock" <scrub RemoveThis @clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>> IIRC, there was some fun debates about why you could be flanked by an
>> invisible attacker you were unaware of.
>
>Or by an illusory attacker against which you'd failed your will save to
>disbelieve.


Hmm? But that makes sense, doesn't it? If you failed to disbelieve,
then it's right there distracting you, which is kinda the point of
flanking, isn't it? (At least as far as I understand it, not actually
having my @#$%* 3.5 PH yet to read the $%^# combat rules!)

BP
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

"BP" <reply.TakeThisOut@newsgroup.please> wrote in message
news:ksf9t3lvi7mjamkkd0h9001ciucfrstduf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:23:16 -0000, "Mark Blunden" wrote:
>
>>"tussock" <scrub.TakeThisOut@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>>> IIRC, there was some fun debates about why you could be flanked by an
>>> invisible attacker you were unaware of.
>>
>>Or by an illusory attacker against which you'd failed your will save to
>>disbelieve.
>
>
> Hmm? But that makes sense, doesn't it? If you failed to disbelieve,
> then it's right there distracting you, which is kinda the point of
> flanking, isn't it? (At least as far as I understand it, not actually
> having my @#$%* 3.5 PH yet to read the $%^# combat rules!)

So you would think - but by a strict reading of the rules (and some people
read the rules remarkably strictly), the requirement is to have two allied
opponents on either side of the target. So the real, invisible attacker
provides flanking, whilst the visible but illusory one does not.

Aren't D&D rules debates fun?

--
Mark.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:44:49 -0000, "Mark Blunden"
<markATmarkdbDOTplusDOTcom DeleteThis @addresss.invalid> wrote:

>So you would think - but by a strict reading of the rules (and some people
>read the rules remarkably strictly), the requirement is to have two allied
>opponents on either side of the target. So the real, invisible attacker
>provides flanking, whilst the visible but illusory one does not.

OK, not even having the applicable RAW in front of me yet, I think I
can safely say, "Not IMC."

BP
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

BP wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:44:49 -0000, "Mark Blunden"
> <markATmarkdbDOTplusDOTcom.RemoveThis@addresss.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>So you would think - but by a strict reading of the rules (and some people
>>read the rules remarkably strictly), the requirement is to have two allied
>>opponents on either side of the target. So the real, invisible attacker
>>provides flanking, whilst the visible but illusory one does not.
>
>
> OK, not even having the applicable RAW in front of me yet, I think I
> can safely say, "Not IMC."
>
> BP
>

I think what is important is how the target of the flanking attempt
perceives the threats around him. The target can't perceive an invisible
person as a threat (unless they can see invisible opponents of course).
The illusion however would generate a response. It might only work once,
but once is often enough.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

On Mar 10, 7:38 am, Keith Davies <keith.dav....RemoveThis@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> tussock <sc....RemoveThis@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > Keith Davies wrote:
> >> tussock wrote:
>
> ><Re: Flanking>
>
> >>> Could even fold it into a general "distracted" condition with other
> >>> effects that give Rogues a sneak attack and opponetns a small hit
> >>> bonus, of which there are rather a lot.
>
> >> Hmm. Interesting idea. Varying degrees of flanked/distracted?
>
> > Possibly, but nothing springs to mind that fits.
>
> >> I'm having trouble coming up with them, but I'm really tired right now.
> >> You don't want to know how many tries it's taken me to type this
> >> paragraph cleanly.
>
> > Writing late at night is fun. Like drugs, only free. Kinda slow at
> > times though, yes.
>
> >>> Zombies are 'z's, 'Z's are Zephyr hounds; what game are you
> >>> playing?
>
> >> nethack. 'z' is zruty.
>
> > Heathen. 'Tis the big P who's the true enemy of our @s.
>
> Puddings? Puddings are harmless if you ignore them.
>
> > Yep. As far as I can figure, it's slightly easier to both fall into
> > and escape from, and covers the tri-flank without an extra rule. In most
> > cases the top one there plays the same as an opposites-only flank.
>
> I'll think about it.
>
> >> That's a word I'm hoping dies an early death.
>
> > The more annoying they are, they better they do. "Oppo" would be the
> > Autralian version, if you prefer. Perhaps a minimalist grunt and point
> > would suffice IRL.
>
> 'Oppo' doesn't grate quite as much, for some reason. Less aggro.
>
> >> However, provoking AoO to ignored opponents and you're flatfooted
> >> against ignored opponents until your next turn seems like a pretty good
> >> start. I'm not sure about bonuses and the like on top of that, but
> >> blindness (to ignored opponents) isn't an insane option.
>
> > You've just got to remember it's common use: to deny flank damage to
> > a Rogue when he's buddied up with a grunt. A grunt of the same level
> > needs to gain enough advantage to make it not trivially worthwhile.
> > Ignoring someone has to *hurt*. Still, if they aren't really a threat
> > at the best of times, it should be possible.
>
> I'm at:
>
> . he gets +2

Extra +2, you are effectively treating him as though you are unaware
of him, equivalent to being invisible which is +4.

> . he gets AoO
> . you are denied Dex against him (lower AC, he can sneak attack)
> . you can't AoO him; if you attack him normally you're flanked normally

Sounds about right. The question is can you really ignore someone in
a fight? I'd think if they are actually hurting you, it'd be
exceptionally difficult, say requiring a feat. If they aren't on the
other hand - like say a commoner with a dagger vs. a demon with DR 5,
it should be pretty easy. I can ignore a 5 year old beating on my leg
pretty easy, but someone slicing me with a pen knife would be pretty
difficult.

Therefore I would add you can only ignore them until you've taken
damage from them, then they provide flanking. It would allow you to
ignore that little fire elemental power in the book of nine swords, or
an illusion, but not a lot else. Very fringe in any case.

- Justisaur
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:44:49 -0000, "Mark Blunden"
<markATmarkdbDOTplusDOTcom RemoveThis @addresss.invalid> wrote:

>"BP" <reply RemoveThis @newsgroup.please> wrote in message
>news:ksf9t3lvi7mjamkkd0h9001ciucfrstduf@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 19:23:16 -0000, "Mark Blunden" wrote:
>>
>>>"tussock" <scrub RemoveThis @clear.net.nz> wrote in message
>>>> IIRC, there was some fun debates about why you could be flanked by an
>>>> invisible attacker you were unaware of.
>>>
>>>Or by an illusory attacker against which you'd failed your will save to
>>>disbelieve.
>>
>>
>> Hmm? But that makes sense, doesn't it? If you failed to disbelieve,
>> then it's right there distracting you, which is kinda the point of
>> flanking, isn't it? (At least as far as I understand it, not actually
>> having my @#$%* 3.5 PH yet to read the $%^# combat rules!)
>
>So you would think - but by a strict reading of the rules (and some people
>read the rules remarkably strictly), the requirement is to have two allied
>opponents on either side of the target. So the real, invisible attacker
>provides flanking, whilst the visible but illusory one does not.
>
>Aren't D&D rules debates fun?
>
>--
>Mark.
>


They do go into this officially a bit more - I think in the FAQ, but I
don't recall the exact source for sure. If you have Mirror Images
they get treated as real for almost all purposes. For example, if a
person has Cleave and "kills" a mirror image he DOES get an extra
attack for doing so. If he has Great Cleave he might easily get
several extra attacks killing several images. So flanking and other
natural results of "treating it as real" should also apply.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

tussock <scrub RemoveThis @clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> tussock wrote:
>
><Re: Flanking>
>
>>> Could even fold it into a general "distracted" condition with other
>>> effects that give Rogues a sneak attack and opponetns a small hit
>>> bonus, of which there are rather a lot.
>>
>> Hmm. Interesting idea. Varying degrees of flanked/distracted?
>
> Possibly, but nothing springs to mind that fits.
>
>> I'm having trouble coming up with them, but I'm really tired right now.
>> You don't want to know how many tries it's taken me to type this
>> paragraph cleanly.
>
> Writing late at night is fun. Like drugs, only free. Kinda slow at
> times though, yes.
>
>
>>> Zombies are 'z's, 'Z's are Zephyr hounds; what game are you
>>> playing?
>>
>> nethack. 'z' is zruty.
>
> Heathen. 'Tis the big P who's the true enemy of our @s.

Puddings? Puddings are harmless if you ignore them.

> Yep. As far as I can figure, it's slightly easier to both fall into
> and escape from, and covers the tri-flank without an extra rule. In most
> cases the top one there plays the same as an opposites-only flank.

I'll think about it.

>> That's a word I'm hoping dies an early death.
>
> The more annoying they are, they better they do. "Oppo" would be the
> Autralian version, if you prefer. Perhaps a minimalist grunt and point
> would suffice IRL.

'Oppo' doesn't grate quite as much, for some reason. Less aggro.

>> However, provoking AoO to ignored opponents and you're flatfooted
>> against ignored opponents until your next turn seems like a pretty good
>> start. I'm not sure about bonuses and the like on top of that, but
>> blindness (to ignored opponents) isn't an insane option.
>
> You've just got to remember it's common use: to deny flank damage to
> a Rogue when he's buddied up with a grunt. A grunt of the same level
> needs to gain enough advantage to make it not trivially worthwhile.
> Ignoring someone has to *hurt*. Still, if they aren't really a threat
> at the best of times, it should be possible.

I'm at:

.. he gets +2
.. he gets AoO
.. you are denied Dex against him (lower AC, he can sneak attack)
.. you can't AoO him; if you attack him normally you're flanked normally


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies RemoveThis @kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies RemoveThis @gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

Justisaur <justisaur RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 7:38 am, Keith Davies <keith.dav... RemoveThis @kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'm at:
>>
>> . he gets +2
>
> Extra +2, you are effectively treating him as though you are unaware
> of him, equivalent to being invisible which is +4.

I may have misread RSRD. Under 'Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions',
an invisible attacker gets +2 to melee and ranged attacks, and the
defender loses Dex to AC (with all that implies). A blinded defender
gets -2 to AC against melee and ranged attacks, but I don't see how
these could reasonably stack -- both model 'defender can't see
attacker'.

>> . he gets AoO
>> . you are denied Dex against him (lower AC, he can sneak attack)
>> . you can't AoO him; if you attack him normally you're flanked normally
>
> Sounds about right. The question is can you really ignore someone in
> a fight? I'd think if they are actually hurting you, it'd be
> exceptionally difficult, say requiring a feat. If they aren't on the
> other hand - like say a commoner with a dagger vs. a demon with DR 5,
> it should be pretty easy. I can ignore a 5 year old beating on my leg
> pretty easy, but someone slicing me with a pen knife would be pretty
> difficult.

This is more a matter of "I know he's there, but I'm going to focus on
the guy in front of me so *he* doesn't have an advantage" than "I'm
going to pretend that one's not there".

> Therefore I would add you can only ignore them until you've taken
> damage from them, then they provide flanking. It would allow you to
> ignore that little fire elemental power in the book of nine swords, or
> an illusion, but not a lot else. Very fringe in any case.

Fair enough. I'm prepared to drop the idea altogether. You're right,
even if you want to focus on the guy in front of you, that's kind of
difficult when the guy behind you jams a knife into your kidneys. While
you're trying to focus in front, you've got a damned good distraction
from behind. I think you might have a reasonable compromise.


Keith
--
Keith Davies below you, right now: radioactive magma
keith.davies RemoveThis @kjdavies.org above you, right now: hard vacuum
keith.davies RemoveThis @gmail.com probably somewhere near you: a product with
http://www.kjdavies.org/ label warning you it is unsafe if misused
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse 

Mark Blunden wrote:

> Aren't D&D rules debates fun?

Don't make me bring up invisible doors.

--
tussock
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] Interview with Andy Collins and Scott Rouse