Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Flanking
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6403151" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>Actually, that's why I've gotten away from the mini game on the table. I'll use minis as a visual aid, but not a combat resolution system. Using minis essentially eliminates the constant motion of combat, where TotM lets you describe a combat in real terms, with lots of motion.</p><p></p><p>Just because everybody was moving around doesn't mean that they were never able to flank him. The game uses the term flank, and specified that you had to be on opposite sides of the target, but the reality is that multiple trained opponents targeting the same opponent can work together and set up opportunities that give them an advantage. And I think it would be very difficult (at least by observing one fight) to determine if any of them found it easier to hit him because there were more of them. To hit one person requires him to turn his focus, however quickly, to that opponent. In that moment an opponent on the other side has an opportunity that would not be there if it was a one-on-one fight. That's why two or more against one is usually viewed as an unfair fight. </p><p></p><p>D&D isn't the best combat simulation to account for all of the variables. So why try to include one of those variables? Well, we include cover, because it's easy to determine and has a measurable effect. I think that flanking is another tactic that fits that description. And since it's already described for rogues, and any creature with pack tactics, it also has precedence in this version of the rules.</p><p></p><p>So far, my players want a flanking tactic/rule. So that's why I'm trying to accommodate them. The help rule works fine, but we felt it was a bit restrictive in that the helping character couldn't attack at all that round. Which also didn't make a lot of sense, because if you weren't really a threat that round, then they could focus on the other PC. I also don't want to take away the benefit that some creatures have, which is why I added the restriction that you couldn't be near any other hostile creatures. </p><p></p><p>I haven't really run into any real issue with the rule as we've been playing it. But I also enjoy these types of discussions, and since a number of people think it's too powerful it makes me think some more...</p><p></p><p>So here are the questions that I guess I'd like to answer (at least for myself):</p><p></p><p>If everything else is evenly matched, does an attacker have an advantage when they outnumber their opponent in direct melee combat?</p><p></p><p>If so, what's the advantage?</p><p></p><p>Is it easier to hit them?</p><p></p><p>Is it easier to cause more damage?</p><p></p><p>Does it give you more opportunities to attack?</p><p></p><p>Do all of the attackers gain the benefits, or just one?</p><p></p><p>Do you need special training to gain the benefits? Remembering that all PC's are trained in combat, that is they have proficiency, but do you need a special ability like a feat?</p><p></p><p>Here's an interesting article: <a href="http://www.wikihow.com/Fight-off-Multiple-Opponents" target="_blank">http://www.wikihow.com/Fight-off-Multiple-Opponents</a></p><p></p><p>One thing that I find particularly interesting (and may be what you actually saw in the fight) is to keep backing away to prevent them from surrounding you. So one option would be to use the same mechanism as Pack Tactics and/or Martial Advantage (which is basically sneak attack). I could go with a feat that would allow its use, in which case only the character with the feat gains the benefit. I might also add an option to the Mobile feat to avoid being flanked, or perhaps grant a Dex save.</p><p></p><p>That would be the second option, to allow anybody to use the tactic, but that it requires an opposed Dexterity check to gain the benefit. </p><p></p><p>I'm at a stage where if the benefit isn't really worthwhile, then there's not much point in creating the rule. Both Martial Advantage and Pack Tactics make it worthwhile. If the tactic can't provide a similar benefit, then I'll probably just scrap it.</p><p></p><p>Ilbranteloth</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 6403151, member: 6778044"] Actually, that's why I've gotten away from the mini game on the table. I'll use minis as a visual aid, but not a combat resolution system. Using minis essentially eliminates the constant motion of combat, where TotM lets you describe a combat in real terms, with lots of motion. Just because everybody was moving around doesn't mean that they were never able to flank him. The game uses the term flank, and specified that you had to be on opposite sides of the target, but the reality is that multiple trained opponents targeting the same opponent can work together and set up opportunities that give them an advantage. And I think it would be very difficult (at least by observing one fight) to determine if any of them found it easier to hit him because there were more of them. To hit one person requires him to turn his focus, however quickly, to that opponent. In that moment an opponent on the other side has an opportunity that would not be there if it was a one-on-one fight. That's why two or more against one is usually viewed as an unfair fight. D&D isn't the best combat simulation to account for all of the variables. So why try to include one of those variables? Well, we include cover, because it's easy to determine and has a measurable effect. I think that flanking is another tactic that fits that description. And since it's already described for rogues, and any creature with pack tactics, it also has precedence in this version of the rules. So far, my players want a flanking tactic/rule. So that's why I'm trying to accommodate them. The help rule works fine, but we felt it was a bit restrictive in that the helping character couldn't attack at all that round. Which also didn't make a lot of sense, because if you weren't really a threat that round, then they could focus on the other PC. I also don't want to take away the benefit that some creatures have, which is why I added the restriction that you couldn't be near any other hostile creatures. I haven't really run into any real issue with the rule as we've been playing it. But I also enjoy these types of discussions, and since a number of people think it's too powerful it makes me think some more... So here are the questions that I guess I'd like to answer (at least for myself): If everything else is evenly matched, does an attacker have an advantage when they outnumber their opponent in direct melee combat? If so, what's the advantage? Is it easier to hit them? Is it easier to cause more damage? Does it give you more opportunities to attack? Do all of the attackers gain the benefits, or just one? Do you need special training to gain the benefits? Remembering that all PC's are trained in combat, that is they have proficiency, but do you need a special ability like a feat? Here's an interesting article: [url]http://www.wikihow.com/Fight-off-Multiple-Opponents[/url] One thing that I find particularly interesting (and may be what you actually saw in the fight) is to keep backing away to prevent them from surrounding you. So one option would be to use the same mechanism as Pack Tactics and/or Martial Advantage (which is basically sneak attack). I could go with a feat that would allow its use, in which case only the character with the feat gains the benefit. I might also add an option to the Mobile feat to avoid being flanked, or perhaps grant a Dex save. That would be the second option, to allow anybody to use the tactic, but that it requires an opposed Dexterity check to gain the benefit. I'm at a stage where if the benefit isn't really worthwhile, then there's not much point in creating the rule. Both Martial Advantage and Pack Tactics make it worthwhile. If the tactic can't provide a similar benefit, then I'll probably just scrap it. Ilbranteloth [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Flanking
Top