How Can 5 Ogres Surround a Human?

[GX.Sigma]

Turn to page 4 in the DM packet. The table at the bottom: "Creature Size."

Initially, I thought I understood what the point of this was: to provide rules that make things work in gridless play like they do on the grid. That way, there are no weird issues that occur when switching from one to the other--8 medium creatures can surround one medium creature, period.

Only, what's this? Large fills 1.5? That means that 5 ogres can surround one human. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I can't find a way for 5 large minis to be adjacent to one medium mini. Two colossal and one huge can surround a medium? On the grid, it doesn't matter how big the creatures are, a medium creature can be surrounded by a minimum of 4 creatures at once.

So what's the point of this table? It just puts an arbitrary restriction on surrounding in gridless play, which doesn't match the mechanics of the grid. Thus, weird issues can occur when switching from one to the other.

Thoughts?

 

[Lanefan]

How can 5 Ogres surround a Human?

Probably any way they want to.

In game terms, they stand at their reach limit and whale away with their clubs. Ignoring silly mini base sizes, you could probably get 6 Ogres around a Human in a roughly hexagonal fashion given enough space; it would obviously then be a good tactic for the Human to pick one and get inside its reach so the rest all get tangled trying to hit her...

Lanefan

 

[slobo777]

The rules are conflating "adjacent" and "reach" to arrive at "surround".

Although I don't think the number 5 was arrived at by considering a grid view.

I fully expect the tactical/grid play and TotM play to be inconsistent on these kind of issues. It should only be a problem for a group that wants to mix and match in the same adventure, and where one or more players dislikes the inconsistency. Given that the grid, and turn-based movement are both very simplified abstractions, that enable combat to be played on a board at all, I for one will quite happily ignore the differences.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

In a gridless system, it makes sense to put a limit on how many things can surround a given other thing - though their maths is a little odd.

I would suggest that a medium creature can be surrounded by 6 medium creatures, 5 large creatures, and so on - no clever placement of miniatures, just some common sense about how much creatures' attacks would get in the way of each other. If you want to think about it with miniatures, imagine the bases are round: radius 1 for a medium creature, 2 for a large, 3 for a huge etc. If you arrange six of any size creature around a medium base then they will only all be able to 'reach' that base (and attack) if their reach grows at the same rate as their size does (geometry!). A rule that diminishes the number of attackers as they grow larger is basically a rule that says reach doesn't grow linearly with creature size.

 

[Yora]

Ogres have 10 foot reach. On a grid, 8 ogres can surround one human. If they are all represented as circles, you might even be able to squeeze a 9th ogre in.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Ogres have 10 foot reach. On a grid, 8 ogres can surround one human. If they are all represented as circles, you might even be able to squeeze a 9th ogre in.

Ok, let's work this out geometrically without a grid. If creatures are circles, let's say a human is a circle with diameter 1, an ogre with diameter 2. Using the reach rules from grid combat, the distance between the edge of a human circle and the edge of a circle it is attacking must be 0 - they must touch. Ogres have 10' reach, so they can have a 5' gap between the edge of their circle and an enemy circle - which in this system is length 1. So we have a circle diameter 2, a gap of 1 and a circle of diameter 1 - the distance D between the centre of the ogre and the centre of the human is 1 + 1 + 1/2 = 2.5. Let's cram another ogre in right next to the first, so that its centre is also 2.5 away from the human and it can attack the human. The distance between the centres of the two ogres is 1 + 1 = 2. This sets up an isoceles triangle with side lengths 2.5, 2.5 and 2. Using some trigonometry, the angle between the lines connecting the human centre with the two ogre centres is 47.2 degrees - and thus, in a complete circle only 7 ogres could attack the human - not 8, definitely not 9.

 

[slobo777]

Ok, let's work this out geometrically without a grid. If creatures are circles, let's say a human is a circle with diameter 1, an ogre with diameter 2. Using the reach rules from grid combat, the distance between the edge of a human circle and the edge of a circle it is attacking must be 0 - they must touch. Ogres have 10' reach, so they can have a 5' gap between the edge of their circle and an enemy circle - which in this system is length 1. So we have a circle diameter 2, a gap of 1 and a circle of diameter 1 - the distance D between the centre of the ogre and the centre of the human is 1 + 1 + 1/2 = 2.5. Let's cram another ogre in right next to the first, so that its centre is also 2.5 away from the human and it can attack the human. The distance between the centres of the two ogres is 1 + 1 = 2. This sets up an isoceles triangle with side lengths 2.5, 2.5 and 2. Using some trigonometry, the angle between the lines connecting the human centre with the two ogre centres is 47.2 degrees - and thus, in a complete circle only 7 ogres could attack the human - not 8, definitely not 9.

Geometry is low down the list of concerns for TotM (probably just after physics). And it only comes up in grid play because it *has to*, thanks to a grid being a geometric construct.

Starting the combat rules based on imagining static posed fighting will lead on to further rules and rulings that also encourage that same imagining. Whether or not you play TotM or on a grid, whether or not combat is a big part of the play style, surely a fight should be a dynamic concern - a lot of the rules that slow down grid play are about encouraging/simulating those dynamics.

So starting a scenario imagining a medium human, surrounded by ogres . . . they probably aren't all going to spread out into a circle, they are going to bunch up and get in each others' way. Some will get an attack in, some won't. There is no reason why they should all keep a certain distance from each other (that's an artifact of grid spacing with "adjacent" and "occupying" rules from grid-based skirmish systems, and not the way pitched battles are fought)

The number "5" however, is pretty arbitrary.

But imagine a bunch of people trying to stomp a dangerous insect - how many would you allow to "have a go" in a turn-based game of that? I'd probably rule "2" . . . which points me to the number of allowed surrounds going down for large creatures surrounding smaller ones.

 

[KidSnide]

Ok, let's work this out geometrically without a grid. If creatures are circles, let's say a human is a circle with diameter 1, an ogre with diameter 2. Using the reach rules from grid combat, the distance between the edge of a human circle and the edge of a circle it is attacking must be 0 - they must touch. Ogres have 10' reach, so they can have a 5' gap between the edge of their circle and an enemy circle - which in this system is length 1. So we have a circle diameter 2, a gap of 1 and a circle of diameter 1 - the distance D between the centre of the ogre and the centre of the human is 1 + 1 + 1/2 = 2.5. Let's cram another ogre in right next to the first, so that its centre is also 2.5 away from the human and it can attack the human. The distance between the centres of the two ogres is 1 + 1 = 2. This sets up an isoceles triangle with side lengths 2.5, 2.5 and 2. Using some trigonometry, the angle between the lines connecting the human centre with the two ogre centres is 47.2 degrees - and thus, in a complete circle only 7 ogres could attack the human - not 8, definitely not 9.

If we're going to try applying grid geometry to "real life", we shouldn't ignore diagonals. On a grid, the center of an ogre will only be 2.5 squares from the center of a human if the ogre is positioned between squares with its center exactly three squares below the center of the human. In comparison, an ogre trying to strike a human from two squares away diagonally has a "longer reach." You can multiple the distance between the ogre and the human by the square root of 2. The same trigonometry results in an angle of 32.9 degrees. If you squish ogres into that circle you get 10.95 ogres. That rounds to 11 by my analysis but might be 10 if you're being strict.

Maybe 5 is wrong? (Or maybe 5 assumes no reach?) But even this analysis produces a range of 7 to 11 ogres, depending on your assumptions on how to translate the grid. I think this reveals the limits of this type of analysis, but YMMV.

-KS

 

[Yora]

Here is proof:

[sblock]

[/sblock]
On the left side there is a human and an ogre on a grid with the human in a square that the ogre can attack. And I believe that by the rules the human could even be move one square to the right and still be in the ogres threatened area.
In the example, the distance from the center of the ogre circle to the center of the human circle is about 146 pixels.

On the right side is a situation in which the characters are not confined to a grid, it's just a visual aid in this case. The ogres above, below, and to the side of the human are 150 pixels away when measured from the center of all circles. The ogres on the diagonals are even closer at 142 pixels. And in this configuration, you could move the orges above, below, and to the sides even much closer to the human without getting stuck between the ogres on the diagonals.

10 feet reach on a square grid does not equal 10 feet reach in free space.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Geometry is low down the list of concerns for TotM (probably just after physics). And it only comes up in grid play because it *has to*, thanks to a grid being a geometric construct.<snip>

The number "5" however, is pretty arbitrary.

But imagine a bunch of people trying to stomp a dangerous insect - how many would you allow to "have a go" in a turn-based game of that? I'd probably rule "2" . . . which points me to the number of allowed surrounds going down for large creatures surrounding smaller ones.

The point I was trying to make, I guess, was that depending on how reach scales with creature size, you can end up with 5 ogres as the correct answer, and taken to a limit - as you have intuitively noticed, only two creatures can attack something significantly smaller than them.

If we're going to try applying grid geometry to "real life", we shouldn't ignore diagonals. On a grid, the center of an ogre will only be 2.5 squares from the center of a human if the ogre is positioned between squares with its center exactly three squares below the center of the human. In comparison, an ogre trying to strike a human from two squares away diagonally has a "longer reach." You can multiple the distance between the ogre and the human by the square root of 2. The same trigonometry results in an angle of 32.9 degrees. If you squish ogres into that circle you get 10.95 ogres. That rounds to 11 by my analysis but might be 10 if you're being strict.

Maybe 5 is wrong? (Or maybe 5 assumes no reach?) But even this analysis produces a range of 7 to 11 ogres, depending on your assumptions on how to translate the grid. I think this reveals the limits of this type of analysis, but YMMV.

-KS

If you want to use non-Euclidean geometry for a hypothetical non-grid situation then you are quite, quite insane. Welcome to R'lyeh!

Here is proof:

On the left side there is a human and an ogre on a grid with the human in a square that the ogre can attack. And I believe that by the rules the human could even be move one square to the right and still be in the ogres threatened area.
In the example, the distance from the center of the ogre circle to the center of the human circle is about 146 pixels.

On the right side is a situation in which the characters are not confined to a grid, it's just a visual aid in this case. The ogres above, below, and to the side of the human are 150 pixels away when measured from the center of all circles. The ogres on the diagonals are even closer at 142 pixels. And in this configuration, you could move the orges above, below, and to the sides even much closer to the human without getting stuck between the ogres on the diagonals.

10 feet reach on a square grid does not equal 10 feet reach in free space.

Well, no, because a square grid is non-Euclidean. If you wanted you could have extended your left ogre's reach to the entire diagonal and then use that as the centre-to-centre distance off-grid. I was trying to be reasonable. If you wanted a non-grid miniatures system you would have to define reach as the distance between centres (or the distance between bases) in which case my analysis is correct, and you can pick an arbitrary reach per size increase that will give you a descending number of creatures able to attack as they grow larger. Hence 5 ogres.

You will never be able to rectify the difference between grid combat (be it 3E or 4E diagonals) and an attempt at real representation. I prefer a hex grid anyway. I also really dislike that you can arrange four enormous creatures around a single small target and expect them not to get in the way of each other.

If the default assumption is theatre of the mind combat, with a serious tactical grid option as a module, then make the tactical grid rules complex enough to account for silly things like this.