I got your back....no wait....

[Larcen]

You see this all the time in movies: Two hard-pressed heros standing back to back while fending off attacks from all directions.

Well, since 3E doesn't use facing rules and since you can flank someone just by getting on both sides of them, the classic back-to-back tactic doesn't seem as effective as it should be.

In the diagram below, A and B stated they are back to back, but each is still easily flanked by 1,2,3 and 4.

1A2
3B4

Does anyone have a problem with this? Or does this all seem logical somehow? In fact, it seems more logical if they WEREN'T back-to-back because then they can positon themselves to flank the opponents!

 

[Felon]

I can't say that I have a problem with that. They're each being pincered between two opponents, and aren't able to watch their own backs much less each other's.

Going back-to-back has its advantages. A & B can ready an action to move to block a potential flanker. And they can easily take 5 foot steps during their round to outmaneuver their attackers' flank attempts. If they get swarmed though, they may wind up with more opponents than they can handle.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Also, the only flanking positions on either of them leave at least one of the flankers open to attacks by both of the defenders. That's not bad.

 

[Vinyafod]

With "only" four enemies like you have given the example it would maybe be even better not to stand back to back. Just like you said, to get into flanking positions themselves.

But.. imagine a larger number of foes. Back to back may save you from being ganged up and there is a huge difference between a few enemies getting a +2 flanking bonus and a whole bunch of enemies getting +4 ganging up bonus.

 

[Henry]

Keep in mind that what you just described is not "back to back" - in order to be back to back, you have to be in the same square, which is by current rules impossible in combat.

You would have to make a house rule - such as, say, each person takes a -2 penalty but it gives them the benefits of the first level of uncanny dodge, so they don't get flanked, but a high enough level rogue could do it.

 

[Number47]

The benefit of standing "back to back" or in D&D adjacent, is that it is much harder for enemies to get around you, especially if they don't want to attract an AoO. This doesn't mean much if you are fighting in a big open area with enemies in every direction, but in that case it shouldn't. In most circumstances enemies are coming from pretty much one direction. I certainly don't think a new rule or a new feat is warranted for such a limited-use scenario.

 

[Larcen]

To make matters worse, here is the same scenario where EIGHT mooks are all flanking the hapless duo!

1 2
3A4
5B6
7 8

In the diagram above, if 6 is helping 5 flank B, can he also help 1 flank A at the same time??

 

[Felon]

To make matters worse, here is the same scenario where EIGHT mooks are all flanking the hapless duo!

1 2
3A4
5B6
7 8

In the diagram above, if 6 is helping 5 flank B, can he also help 1 flank A at the same time??

Yep. Pretty much every bad guy in this scenario is giving and receiving flank bonuses. Feats like Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack would really help our heroes get each other out of this jam.

 

[kreynolds]

Does anyone have a problem with this?

Not really. Here's why...

7X8
1A2
3B4
5X6

Say they're completely surrounded. See those two X's? They can't get flank there, so apprarently back to back works to some degree. I'll admit that there's still a lot of flanking going on there though. However, I don't think it would be out of the question to make a Back-To-Back feat or something. Maybe give a +1 or +2 bonus to AC if both characters have the feat, or something like that.

 

[green slime]

Not only that, if they WEREN'T back to back, and they were facing more than 8 attackers, they would definitely be flanked by all their attackers!

123
4A5
678

and

9ab
cBd
efg

so

123
4A5
6B7
89a

with attackers b,c,d,e,f, and g out of the action is a far, far better position, IMO.