PDA

View Full Version : Backstabing



Aximili
2007-02-27, 09:06 PM
In D&D rules, you suppose the person is looking all around during combat. That's why he is considered to be flanked whenever there are opponents on both sides. However, it seems perfectly acceptable for the person to simply turn his back on one of the opponents and concentrate his atentions on the other. This, however, is not supported by the rules.

Could we create some rules about turning your back to your opponent during combat? Simply being flatfooted against the opponent just isn't enough, otherwise the fullplate fighter would have no reason not to do it.

So, any thoughts or sugestion on how to make this possible?

Orzel
2007-02-27, 09:10 PM
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy.

If you choose to completey ignore someone, you are helpless to them.

starwoof
2007-02-27, 09:34 PM
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy.

If you choose to completey ignore someone, you are helpless to them.
Uh... huh?

I think that the easiest way to incorporate this would be to give everyone a 180 arc of vision in front of them. They can target things in that arc but anything behind them they are unaware of (thus flat footed, generally). All around vision would be about a million times better. Hmm...

crazedloon
2007-02-27, 09:35 PM
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy.

If you choose to completey ignore someone, you are helpless to them.

Wow and every rogue will thank you and kill you in 1 hit :smallwink:

ArmorArmadillo
2007-02-27, 09:38 PM
Facing was thrown out with 2nd Ed because it created a lot of really difficult and unwieldy situations. However, there are variant rules for it in Unearthed Arcana.

Also, flanking is not connected (at least not directly) to vision. It has to do with being difficult to defend yourself on both sides. This is why you could, for example, flank a blind person.

Aximili
2007-02-27, 09:44 PM
Also, flanking is not connected (at least not directly) to vision. It has to do with being difficult to defend yourself on both sides. This is why you could, for example, flank a blind person.
Still, it's no longer dificult to defend on both sides if you simply forget about one of them. Of course, it leaves you extremely vulnerable to whoever you're turning your back to. But I was wondering if it actually made you helpless.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-02-27, 11:15 PM
"You want to backstab him? With a ballista?"

Indon
2007-02-27, 11:15 PM
So basically, your question is:

My character is being flanked. I need to prevent _one_ of the characters flanking me from getting flanking bonus and I couldn't care less if the other one took a chainsaw to my backbone. How could I deny that fellow his flanking bonus?

adanedhel9
2007-02-27, 11:59 PM
I've seen rules for this a while back... might have even been this forum. But it was a long time ago. I think they were roughly:

Whenever you are flanked, you can declare yourself to be focusing on one specific attacker, ignoring any others. Any ignored attacker gains a +4 bonus to his attacks instead of the usual +2 for flanking, and you lose your Dexterity bonus (if any) to Armor Class against any attacks coming from an ignored attacker.

Things I'm not remembering (and I'm too tired to think about):

Is there a limit on when you can turn this on, and how long it lasts?

What happens if the opponent you are focusing on dies?

What happens if an ignored attacker no longer threatens you?

Can you make attacks of opportunity against an ignored attacker?

Aximili
2007-02-27, 11:59 PM
So basically, your question is:

My character is being flanked. I need to prevent _one_ of the characters flanking me from getting flanking bonus and I couldn't care less if the other one took a chainsaw to my backbone. How could I deny that fellow his flanking bonus?
Precisely.
But I ask this as a DM.
If one of my players says: "I face the little guy who's hurting me so much and to hell with that ridding dog that's on my other side." I wanna be able to say something else than: "Sorry, you can't."

Thomar_of_Uointer
2007-02-28, 12:19 AM
Precisely.
But I ask this as a DM.
If one of my players says: "I face the little guy who's hurting me so much and to hell with that ridding dog that's on my other side." I wanna be able to say something else than: "Sorry, you can't."

I would go with the helpless option. Doing something like that is outright dangerous no matter how unskilled the opponent is as long as he's actually trying to kill you, and a coup de grace sounds about right to me. Having six seconds to line up a blow against someone with his back to you is possible even if you're unarmed (well, I could do it unarmed, I've had the training, a commoner with a 2x4 could easily kill someone), you just give them a good whack in the back of the neck or head and hope it's enough to knock them out or break their neck. Of course, if you only deal 2 damage, a DC 12 Fortitude save is peanuts for a mid-level fighter.

ArmorArmadillo
2007-02-28, 12:22 AM
It depends on how you view damage. In one model, all attacks hit but some damage is more deadly than other damage. In this model the problem you encounter seems revelant.

However, I usually handle damage in a modified Vitality/Wounds set up. "Damage" represents losing ground, exhaustion, and ability to defend yourself. Once you drop below 0, you actually start taking blows and suffering bodily damage. In this model, all attacks have potential to hurt you gravely, some are just easier to brush away or defend against. Therefore, in this model, you couldn't just ignore the weaker flanker.

prufock
2007-02-28, 08:11 AM
Either double up, and give the ignored character +4 to hit, or keep it at +2 and consider the opponent flat-footed for the ignored character.

Aximili
2007-02-28, 12:23 PM
I would go with the helpless option. Doing something like that is outright dangerous no matter how unskilled the opponent is as long as he's actually trying to kill you, and a coup de grace sounds about right to me.
I agree that it's dangerous, but making him helpless doesn't strike me as the right way.

If someone is invisible and strikes a deaf person while he peacefully eats his meal sitting on a chair, the deaf person isn't considered helpless.
So why would the guy, who chose to ignore you, be considered helpless while moving and dodging blows. Eventhough it's not your blows he's dodging, he's still moving around and certainly less helpless that the deaf guy in the other situation.

elliott20
2007-02-28, 12:46 PM
you can always say that by taking this option, you deny one side of the benefits of flanking but the other side, seeing as you're completely ignoring them, gains an additional +2 circumstantial AND treat you as if you're flatfooted, not just flanked.

Peregrine
2007-02-28, 12:47 PM
I'm sure I saw a rule for this somewhere. Somewhere semi-official, maybe an article on the WotC site?

But anyway. My support would be for flat-footed, not for helpless. Flat-footed and a +4 bonus to attack seems right-ish to me, in exchange for not being flanked any more.

Matthew
2007-02-28, 07:46 PM
Yes you did see it in the Rules of the Game Article: All About Sneak Attacks (Part Four) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040309a) on the Wizards Web Site.

In my opinion, niether the Unearthed Arcana Facing Rules nor the default D&D Flanking Rules really cut it for modelling increasing numbers of attackers, DM fiat needs to often be used.

Logos7
2007-02-28, 08:04 PM
Wasn't the answer to make the person who is being ignored effectively invisable?

Meaning +4 to hit for the ignored Guy and the defender is flat footed,

Still wouldn't remove the +2 to hit from the other guy, Flanking is not all about making the defender easier to hit , as helping the other guy corridinate.

At worst the other guy stops attacking, and aids another for the +2?

Logos

Caewil
2007-03-01, 02:48 AM
Therefore, in this model, you couldn't just ignore the weaker flanker.
It could work. You'd just say that the flanker you ignore deals WP damage. Ouch.