3 Character Flanking

[unobserved]

By the rules, two characters must be completely opposite of an medium or small enemy to flank them which makes sense for two characters flanking, but in the case of three characters a setup of the following:

_C
_M
C C

results in none of the (C)haracters flanking the (M)onster, despite the fact that it would be impossible for the monster to face any of them without leaving themselves exposed to at least one other (probably two) characters.

Similarly in the following:

C
MC
C

only the characters at the top and the bottom would be considered to be flanking the opponent. If the monster chooses to face the PC on the right, you could make the argument that he is then only showing his vulnerable "sides" and not his "back" to the other two PC's. But how is that different from the monster facing sideways when flanked by only two PC's (top and bottom), or even facing one PC head-on when flanked by only two PC's (this only showing his back to one PC).

Is anyone else considering to house-rule some of these seemingly "odd" interpretations of the flanking? Would the additional +2 to hit really be unbalancing in these situations?

Why can't 3 characters flank a medium sized creature? Why can only two flank them and one of them just attack him like normal? I suppose the desired effect could be achieved if all of the characters constantly spent their move action to shift so that at the start of your turn you would either attack with flanking and then shift to allow someone else to start their turn with flanking or vice versa, but it just seems like a lot of extra shifting for not that great a reason.

 

[Mort_Q]

Sauce for the goose!

If you make it too easy to flank others, then it's also too easy to flank you!

Seriously... it comes down to having one set of rules that's easy to remember and sticking with it.

It's not meant to be realistic, but functional.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The idea is that you can likely keep in your view any (approximately) 240 degree arc at any time.

You are assumed to face each opponent directly for a short while each round. The only square you can't see when you face an opponent is the one directly behind you. They are flanking during that moment you can't see them.

In the first example, no matter who you are facing, you can see the other two in your peripheral vision. In the second example, you can see all 3 of them fine when looking at the "right" C, but if you face either the top or bottom C directly, you can't see the other one.

 

[Aegir]

Your first example is fairly close to how it can work with large+ creatures:

__@_
_LL_
_LL_
_@@_

Even tho' each side takes up two squares, its still considered one side, so in that example, all three would be getting flanking.

At least... thats how it was in 3.x, and I've yet to see anything in 4E rules that would say otherwise... but I could be wrong.

 

[unobserved]

Seriously... it comes down to having one set of rules that's easy to remember and sticking with it.

It's not meant to be realistic, but functional.

Understandable, I just figure if two characters are legitimately (by the rules) flanking a creature (or vice versa) a third man in should get the bonus as well as there is certainly no way for the person being flanked to defend himself any better now than they were doing before.

Likewise, in situations where 3 characters spread-out evenly around a monster but none are "legitimately" flanking them, it should probably count as well.

 

[unobserved]

You are assumed to face each opponent directly for a short while each round. The only square you can't see when you face an opponent is the one directly behind you. They are flanking during that moment you can't see them.

That sort of makes sense when it's two opponents, but when you add a third opponent in there you just cut down by 50% the amount of face-time you get with each. So really, that's a 50% increase in time they have to stab the snot out of you cause you can't really pay attention to them.

In the first example, no matter who you are facing, you can see the other two in your peripheral vision.

I don't know about you, but my peripheral vision doesn't let me see people standing just off of center immediately behind me unless i'm turning my head. I can see people standing *beside* me (as in, if I was facing "right" in the second example), but not behind and beside as in if i was facing "up" in the first example.

 

[Fundin Strongarm]

Having the 3 characters attack/shift or shift/attack will give them combat advantage while keeping the flanking rules reasonably simple. However, the idea that granting combat advantage to all melee attacks as long as any two are flanking isn't that bad.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That sort of makes sense when it's two opponents, but when you add a third opponent in there you just cut down by 50% the amount of face-time you get with each. So really, that's a 50% increase in time they have to stab the snot out of you cause you can't really pay attention to them.

True, but in theory, you can look in such a way to see to multiple enemies at once, so you are always looking at each one most of the time.

I don't know about you, but my peripheral vision doesn't let me see people standing just off of center immediately behind me unless i'm turning my head. I can see people standing *beside* me (as in, if I was facing "right" in the second example), but not behind and beside as in if i was facing "up" in the first example.

Well, you can see slightly behind you in both directions since we have more than a 180 degree sight arc. With moving your head slightly(which you can do pretty quickly), I'd say those squares could at least be seen fairly easily.

I believe the rule comes down to wanting to sneak up "behind" people without having to figure out which direction you are facing each round and the problems that come with that. The easiest way to figure out if you back is facing that direction at any time is to figure the whole "I am likely to face every creature in melee with me for at least some time. My back will be the opposite direction."

 

[Zephyrus]

I suppose if you wanted to expand flanking a little, it might be possible if you account for reach based affects. If you use the concept of drawing a line from the center of the two proposed flankers, if the line drawn goes through opposite sides of the square the target is in, they could be considered flanked. Thus with reach of 10ft. being a square back and one to the side could still create a flanking benefits because the 'attack' is coming from opposite sides of the square the target is in. This would primarily be useful for standard sized creatures with reach as larger creatures would have their 'center' subsequently moved over as well and would require larger reach to get the proper angle.

 

[Terwox]

In this example:

C
FC
C

It's pretty silly that the guy on the side doesn't get CA as well.

Heck, in this case:

C
F C
C

The guy should have combat advantage from the ranged position as well.

In my opinion. "Realistically" it would make sense to just give a bonus to hit based directly on the number of surrounding attackers, but that breaks the game quickly... and the bonus wouldn't necessarily be linear, and blah blah.