New Flanking Rules

[SylverFlame]

Okay, here's what I was thinking. Flanking rules as they stand don't make a lot of sense and this can be a problem. Also, all the house rules I've seen have been fairly complicated, or just got so out of hand that it drives me nuts. So, here's the system I've thought up. Please, constructive critacism is appreciated, but troll-ing is just plain mean, it makes me cry... *sniff*

____________________________________________
FLANKING

To flank someone, at least two people must be present and must have at least one five foot square between them.

eg:
* * A (This is acceptable where A=Attacker, and D=Defender)
* D *
* * A

* * A (This is NOT acceptable as the Defender can )
* D A (adequetely defend against both attackers.)
* * *

Next, the attackers gain a flanking bonus equal to the total number of attackers, minus the number of attacks per round the defender has (based on BAB, AoO's do NOT count in this number), minus one (this cannot be less than zero). Even if a flanking bonus is zero, the character is still considered flanked (this affects a situation below).

eg: A 20th level fighter has four attacks per round (+20/+15/+10/+5). This means that if eight people are attacking, those eight people each recieve +3 to their attacks due to flanking (8 attackers - 4 fighter attacks per round - 1= 3).

Finally, a person may not recieve a flanking bonus, or be counted for determining flanking bonuses if they themselves are flanked.

eg: In the 8 attacker example above, one of those attackers is flanked by a comrade of the figher.

A A A R (A=Attacker, F=Fighter, R=Fighter's Friend, B=Flanked )
A F B * (Attaker)
A A A R

In the above diagram, since the flanked attacker is flanked by the fighter's two friends (the fighter is not an eligable flanker as he is flanked himself) that attacker cannot flank the fighter, so the bonus to every other attacker is +2.
___________________________________________

The idea here is to add a little realism to flanking and to add a level to tactical combat that the system can sometimes lack. Obviously, fighter-type characters benefit the most from this, but hey, they should because combat is their world.

The problem I have is keeping the realism at the level this system gives (ie. if you're flanked, you're more worried about not getting hit than hitting the guy you're flanking), but keeping it simple. The last part is a little complicated and essentially needs miniatures.

So what do people think? Suggestions?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Why does the BAB of the defender decrease the bonus, but the BAB of the attackers not? That is, if a first level character is surrounded with other first level charcters, they get +6... but if everyone's a 20th level fighter, the attackers get half that?

Or, to put it another way -- why do 1st level fighters surrounding a 20th level fighter get the same bonus as 20th level fighters?

 

[msisden]

A A A R (A=Attacker, F=Fighter, R=Fighter's Friend, B=Flanked )
A F B * (Attaker)
A A A R

Wouldn't the above diagram actually be:

A A B R
A F B *
A A B R

Those two extra Bs do have two opponents seperated by at least 5 feet in position to attack them

 

[SylverFlame]

First, the easy question:

msisden, the two people you marked as flanked cannot be flanked in the example as the fighter in the centre of melee is not an elligable flanker (he himself is flanked).

Now then, CRGreathouse, this is definitely a problem. Off-hand, eight first-level characters will be trounced by a 20th level fighter, but if those 1st levels were 15th... yeah, that is a problem... hmm, I'll think of possible fixes, can you think of any?

 

[msisden]

Ah, but this is where it gets complicated, since those two flankers are in turn technically flanked, they aren't considered eligible for flanking, but because the guy in the center isn't eligible to flank, they aren't considered flanked? I don't think it really makes sense. You might argue the guy in the middle is too busy looking guarding against the other flankers, but any smart fighter would take on one of the other two, to help his friends take them down so he would have less attackers on himself.

 

[Anubis]

Um, I don't see a problem with the current system. You act as if it's broken or senseless when it is neither. Your solution is far too complex for something so pedantic I think.

 

[SylverFlame]

Considering how things are going here, I think Anubis is right. Ah well, I will turn my mind to other endeavors, maybe school work.

Keep the info coming if anyone thinks of something.

 

[EricNoah]

I *very* briefly fiddled with the issue of flanking, and the issue of facing quite a long time ago. Let's see...

Start with the idea of "threatened area." Instead of a box-shaped threatened area -- 8 squares around you no matter what direction you're facing, you have a U-shaped threatened area -- the three squares in front and one to each side. You do not threaten the squares behind you.

Ok, so then the next thing is "when do you get to change your facing"? I think the base number is once (as a free action) during your turn, and once (as a free reaction) when it's not your turn. A feat like Combat Reflexes or something would probably increase that.

Then, decide what effect getting attacked from the "rear" has. I'd say you lose your Dex bonus to AC, which makes it prime sneak attack territory.

So, you get jumped in an alley, no one is flatfooted but you are at the bottom of the initiative. Thug one approaches you from behind and you're aware of him, so you can turn to face him as a free reaction. He attacks you and gets no special bonuses. Thug two approaches, you've already changed facing once out of turn, so you can't avoid getting sneak attacked.

Works a lot like two characters flanking in the core rules; you get that sneak attack in. But now the defender gets to choose which attacker is more dangerous and can keep turning to face that person as needed. You could also get more attackers in on it and have multiple people in that "rear" area to do more attacks.

Now, what this does for that +2 flanking bonus, I'm not sure; nor am I sure what to do about odd numbers of flankers. I think I want to say ... if you've got one attacker in the rear position, then all attackers in the squares adjacent to the defender get that +2 bonus, no matter where they are. Given 5' steps and such, the defender is going to have trouble keeping a 2nd attacker out of those rear squares. The defender could, however, back up against a wall ... hmmm, not sure what to do about that...

 

[Plane Sailing]

Back in 1e I introduced a basic rule to make facing large numbers of foes more dangerous.

Simply stated, if several people gang up on one person, then they all get a bonus to hit of n-1, where n is the number of people.

For any two people attacking a single target, they both get +1. If three people attack a single target they all get +2. if eight kobolds with spears surround you they all get +7.

If I was to play D&D without miniatures I would probably reintroduce something like that rather than worry about whether anyone was on the opposite side to anyone else.

The only thing missing from this situation is an equivalent mechanism for allowing of sneak attacks, and I'd probably say that if the attackers are getting a +2 or better bonus (i.e. outnumbered by 3:1 or more) then you are subject to sneak attacks.

Hmmm. I think that would stand up quite well today as a mechanism for making mobs of foes more dangerous without having to do lots of calculations (and without needing figures either - woo hoo!)

Cheers

 

[Drawmack]

I have two concerns about this system:

1) It seems it would be a bit much overhead in battle.

2) People are flanked more often in this system then under the core rules.


Possibly instead of replacing the flanking mechanic with this, since flanking means one or either side, you could add this on.