Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caliburn101" data-source="post: 7165245" data-attributes="member: 6802178">Flanking works fine as is in my opinion, at least mechanically.As for it being 'too easy' to get - that's because most GMs don't have their monsters fight tactically. Ultimately, if you aren't in a shield wall or protecting your flanks you get your ass handed to you. Any number of historical battles show this to be a hard fact.Hell, I've done enough medieval re-enactment and LARP to know that getting flanked gets you dead in short order if you don't respond.The one problem that is caused by use of the rule is when running solo monsters. These get flanked and can do little about it unless they are ultra-fast and can withdraw as part of their movement easily. The already significantly underpowered-encounter CR system is made worse for these types of monsters when they are getting hit more each round - they go down far too fast.So the rule is good, but game balance on solo's is made worse. It's a bit of an issue.To deal with this, I typically run my solo monsters (which are typically large or bigger) as having 'all round defence' and being unflankable by anything within their combat reach which is smaller than they are - their sheer bulk and powerful movements being too disruptive to putting in a precise blow.The fact is, random rabbles of goblins SHOULD get ripped to shreds when they are flanked, but so should reckless adventurers...... and ultimately, if you don't use the flanking rules, then when a horde of monsters surround a party, they don't actually need to go back to back in a ring to defend themselves.That seems counterintuitive to me...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caliburn101, post: 7165245, member: 6802178"] Flanking works fine as is in my opinion, at least mechanically. As for it being 'too easy' to get - that's because most GMs don't have their monsters fight tactically. Ultimately, if you aren't in a shield wall or protecting your flanks you get your ass handed to you. Any number of historical battles show this to be a hard fact. Hell, I've done enough medieval re-enactment and LARP to know that getting flanked gets you dead in short order if you don't respond. The one problem that is caused by use of the rule is when running solo monsters. These get flanked and can do little about it unless they are ultra-fast and can withdraw as part of their movement easily. The already significantly underpowered-encounter CR system is made worse for these types of monsters when they are getting hit more each round - they go down far too fast. So the rule is good, but game balance on solo's is made worse. It's a bit of an issue. To deal with this, I typically run my solo monsters (which are typically large or bigger) as having 'all round defence' and being unflankable by anything within their combat reach which is smaller than they are - their sheer bulk and powerful movements being too disruptive to putting in a precise blow. The fact is, random rabbles of goblins SHOULD get ripped to shreds when they are flanked, but so should reckless adventurers... ... and ultimately, if you don't use the flanking rules, then when a horde of monsters surround a party, they don't actually need to go back to back in a ring to defend themselves. That seems counterintuitive to me... [/QUOTE]

Verification