RIP - The Rogue Improvement Project

[Kerrick]

Rogues also get sneak attack when flanking... An odd oversight considering that, in my experience, 90% of all sneak attacks are a result of flanking (as opposed to catching them flat-footed, being invisible, or otherwise denying the target its AC).

The rogues you know must be extremely frustrated if they're not getting sneak attacks from flanking.

I don't DM.

EDIT: And as a quick rule of thumb, at my table the rule is, "You can flank anything with a face."

Do you use facing rules? Or do you mean a physical face?

I don't agree with this, because:

I'm with you on this one.

I do agree however that the flanking rules are too limited in their scope. So, I've done this:

I'd really like to see a flanking rule that doesn't require a grid (no offense; your rule is pretty good). I have poor spatial perception, so let me see if I'm getting this right:

Flanked:

XXA
XDX
AXX

OR

XAX
XDX
XAX

Encircled:

XXA
ADA
XXA

Surrounded:

AXA
XDX
AXA

OR

XAX
ADA
XAX

Is that about right?

Heaven help you if you get surrounded by a bunch of goblins or kobolds with the 'Teamwork' feat (that doubles your flanking bonus if one of the other flankers also has the 'Teamwork' feat). Oh, and did I mention that wolves get the 'Teamwork' feat as a racial bonus?

Ouch.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Do you use facing rules? Or do you mean a physical face?

Where its face is facing isn't relevant, only that the creature has an obvious front or back orientation that is obvious to an observer.

A creature composed of a homogenous substance (like an ooze or an elemental) ain't got no face.

Although it isn't in traits of the creature type, I think certain plants and fungi should also be immune to flanking.

Unless they have a face.

Anyhow, as a rule of thumb, it works pretty good for us.

 

[Celebrim]

I'd really like to see a flanking rule that doesn't require a grid (no offense; your rule is pretty good).

You just abstract the grid and use some rules of thumb:

#1: If the character can be approached from several sides by enemies, then he'll be flanked, encircled, or surrounded on round 1 depending on the number of enemies.
#2: If the character can't be approached from several sides (all enemies approach from the same direction), then he'll be flanked, etc. on round 2 if sufficient enemies survive adjacent to him (they'll move to surround him).
#3: A character prevents himself by being surrounded by standing adjacent to an ally, column, or other solid obstacle.
#3: A character prevents himself from being surrounded or encircled by standing adjactent to two allies or a wall.
#4: A character in a corner, doorway, or against a wall and adjacent to an ally, or with allies encircling or surrounding him can't be flanked at all.

Although 1st editions flanking rules were a bit different than third edition (because 1e used facing), that was my basic approach to determining whether someone was flanked in 1st edition or when I've decided there is no reason for a grid in 3e.

I have poor spatial perception, so let me see if I'm getting this right:

Got almost all of it. You missed 'Encircled'.

Encircled:

XAX
ADX
XXA

XXA
ADX
XXA

What you showed:

XXA
ADE
XXA

Is encircled as well, but 'E' is an extra attacker who is unnecessary to complete the encirclement. He however qualifies as encircling as well, because he's adjacent to an ally that is encircling, so all four characters recieve a +3 bonus to hit. 'D' can remedy this by killing the 'A' to the 'west', which will make it hard for the remaining three to complete the encirclment in the next round without drawing AoOs. The As would be more dangerous in the following configuration.

XEA
ADX
XXA

Regardless of which A the D kills in this situation, they can encircle him again on the next round with 5' steps. If you are abstracting this without the grid, you just assume that the As have taken up the best possible configuration.

And of course in either situation, if D fails to kill a A, he'll be surrounded on his next turn.

 

[Sammael]

While the advanced flanking rules are certainly nice, detailed, and make sense, they are way, way too fiddly for my taste (in the sense that they require too much micro-management and adjudication). They also practically mandate the use of a grid; my preference is to only use the grid for complex tactical situations (and I don't consider a dozen goblins attacking someone a complex tactical situation).

EDIT: I re-read your second post, and while it is theoretically possible to abstract the advanced flanking rules, I can tell you off hand that there is no way it would work in any of the games I've played. Without a grid, it is next to impossible for the majority of players to remember where they were standing from round to round, much less their exact position in relation to walls and furniture... heck, most of the time, they insist on doing things through a doorway that would break all the laws of physics.

Thus, my comment above was meant to indicate that any time a single defender is assaulted by three or more attackers, he simply should not be able to defend effectively against all of them, hence he is effectively "flanked" (I like the 4E term "grants combat advantage" a whole lot better). Suddenly, goblin rogues got a whole lot more dangerous.

 

[Celebrim]

Without a grid, it is next to impossible for the majority of players to remember where they were standing from round to round, much less their exact position in relation to walls and furniture...

That's not their job. It's the DM's job. If the player can't remember where there character is in relation to the environment, they need only ask.

If the situation is complex enough to warrant the use of a grid, then I may break one out, but I've got pretty good spatial skills and it was pretty much never necessary in 1e (granted, part of that was I used simplier maps back then) which, to begin with, never used an official grid anyway and which in theory tracked things down to the foot.

Thus, my comment above was meant to indicate that any time a single defender is assaulted by three or more attackers, he simply should not be able to defend effectively against all of them, hence he is effectively "flanked" (I like the 4E term "grants combat advantage" a whole lot better).

Well, that's basically what my rules of thumb say in a nutshell. They also just point out that there are alot of situations that the players can put themselves in to defend against being overwhelmed like that. It was pretty standard tactics in 1e, because generally you had such a high AC that most common monsters needed a 20 to hit you, but if you let yourself get surrounded you'd lose your shield bonus, or expose your back to attack, and then things could suddenly get bad.

 

[Runestar]

Alternatively, you could simply remove immunity to sneak attack, and reduce the rate at which a rogue's SA improves (though this will probably require revising just about every class/prc granting sneak attack/skirmish/sudden strike).

Halving it might be a good place to start.

 

[Kerrick]

Where its face is facing isn't relevant, only that the creature has an obvious front or back orientation that is obvious to an observer.

A creature composed of a homogenous substance (like an ooze or an elemental) ain't got no face.

Although it isn't in traits of the creature type, I think certain plants and fungi should also be immune to flanking.

That works.

Although 1st editions flanking rules were a bit different than third edition (because 1e used facing), that was my basic approach to determining whether someone was flanked in 1st edition or when I've decided there is no reason for a grid in 3e.

I'll have to dig out my 1E DMG and take a look through it.

Got almost all of it. You missed 'Encircled'.

Okay... you only need three attackers to encircle.

'D' can remedy this by killing the 'A' to the 'west', which will make it hard for the remaining three to complete the encirclment in the next round without drawing AoOs. The As would be more dangerous in the following configuration.

Not really... as long as the person moving remains in the threatened area, he won't provoke an AoO. The guy at the NE corner, frex, could take a half move to the NW corner:

AXX
XDA
XXA

And still get an attack. With the addition of the combat stride (the new 5-foot-step), it's even easier for fast characters/creatures to flank someone without a loss of actions.

Thus, my comment above was meant to indicate that any time a single defender is assaulted by three or more attackers, he simply should not be able to defend effectively against all of them, hence he is effectively "flanked" (I like the 4E term "grants combat advantage" a whole lot better). Suddenly, goblin rogues got a whole lot more dangerous.

Now that makes a lot of sense. I like that.

Alternatively, you could simply remove immunity to sneak attack, and reduce the rate at which a rogue's SA improves (though this will probably require revising just about every class/prc granting sneak attack/skirmish/sudden strike).

Halving it might be a good place to start.

I've already altered sneak attack immunities. I thought I had a summary of that rule somewhere, but it appears I don't, so here it is:

I divided immunity to sneaks/crits into three levels of resistance: Lesser, moderate, and greater. This rule assumes that a "critical hit" is simply a hit that does more damage than normal, not a hit that penetrates to a vital area. Cutting off someone's arm, for instance, is a critical hit that doesn't touch a vital area.

Lesser reduces critical hits by 1 step (a x3 crit becomes x2) and sneak attack damage by 1/3 (calculate after damage is rolled). Constructs and plants have lesser resistance.

Moderate reduces critical hits by 2 steps (a x3 crit becomes x1) and sneak attack damage by 1/2. Undead have moderate resistance.

Greater reduces critical hits by 3 steps and sneak attack damage by 2/3. Most creatures with greater resistance to crits are completely immune to sneak attacks due to homogenous structure (elementals) or lack of any real organs (oozes). Elementals and oozes fall into this category.

Thus, we can retain the original rules with only minor changes, while making rogues a good deal more effective at all levels. I can't claim all the credit for this idea; I think I got it originally from either Monte Cook or Pathfinder and tweaked it to my own ends.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Cutting off someone's arm, for instance, is a critical hit that doesn't touch a vital area.

Excepting various veins and arteries, of course. People have survived the sudden severing of those, just not many and generally not without immediate medical attention of some kind.

Interesting fortification effect. I don't think I actually like it but it is certainly interesting (and more playable that binary immunity).