PDA

View Full Version : An interesting houserule I'll probably use in my games


Origen
12-29-2006, 08:34 PM
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a

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.)

Designer's Notes: This rule gives certain creatures the option to ignore flankers when they don't pose any real danger to them. Lycanthropes facing foes that aren't armed with silver weapons, as well as characters with very high Armor Classes facing much weaker foes, can soften the effects of being surrounded. Many other creatures can use the rule to limit sneak attacks against them, but at the risk of extra attacks of opportunity from other foes. This rule also means that you often cannot provide a flanking bonus to your allies if you're out of attacks of opportunity (though foes may have a hard time determining exactly when that situation occurs).

Whimsical
12-29-2006, 11:09 PM
Yep. I came up with that on my own. Naturally, I think it's a good idea. Although I didn't come up with provoking an AoO when you ignore a flanker.

Valdier
12-30-2006, 04:07 AM
I don't know... I think it is just one more nail in the coffin of rogues...

undead, constructs, fortification, uncanny dodge, oozes, etc... now you can't flank either?

SD Anderson
12-30-2006, 04:28 AM
The penalties seem too light. If you opt to ignore a foe like that he should get the benefits of surpize and backstabbing against an unopposing foe.

The guy he is facing and not ignoring should lose the +2 to hit and not get flank bonuses. Basically you ignore the fighter wihose bonuses for flanking aren't that great and clobber the rogue who can anihilate you otherwise.

hidufel
12-30-2006, 12:46 PM
this wouldnt be the death knell for rogues... a rogue who is flanking, and so is being ignored... loses the +2 to hit... but still gets his sneak attach... becasue the target has lost his dex bonus to ac... becasue of that the rogue can still use his sneak damage...

whats the benefirt of this really? denying flanking to your oppenents ally? at the cost of a free shot, i dont know... doesnt seem like a usefull rule... i guess id have to think about it whn im in combat and think how that would change the situation...

Parzival
12-30-2006, 02:05 PM
It's not so much the rogue losing the +2 to hit. (Although every little bit helps if you don't have a fighter BAB progression.)
It's the expectation that the rogue will be the primary target, and the fighter the one ignored. The rogue has a worse AC, worse HP, worse BAB, and would be denied sneak attack by such a decision.
Rogue go splat very quickly. While doing next to nothing in return.

Giving the fighter a free AoO might offset the raw damage, but the rogue himself would be relatively worthless in combat. And would die very quickly. To have any chance at all, the rogue would need to sink two feats into mobility, or at least lots of skill points into tumble, and focus on hitting targets already engaged, then retreating. Even then, the enhanced movment of other classes would make him secondary at the role.
This would be a *huge* nerf for the class.

Starhawk
12-30-2006, 04:52 PM
I've done something similar to this -- although without the AoO for designating someone as "ignored."

StarkDaddy
12-30-2006, 11:31 PM
I can see what they're saying when it comes to creatures that really can't be affected by opponents so they just ignore them, but it would seem to me that 'ignoring' a rogue would open you up for auto Sneaks. That part really doesn't make sense.