|
These are the alterations I am thinking about making to the Flanking rules. Let me what you know.
Two characters can flank another without being opposite each other but the flanking bonus drops to +1.
There is an additional +1 flanking bonus for each flanker beyond the first two.
i.e. if you are surrounded by 8 attackers, all of them adjacent to you, they all would receive a +8 flank bonus.
or
i.e. if you are confronted by three attackers each adjacent to you but only in front of you not behind, they would each get a +2 flank bonus.
or
i.e. if you are confronted by two attackers one in front of you and the other on your right flank but they are not opposite each other, they each would receive a +1 flank bonus.
I am considering this house rule because I dislike the way the standard rules handle the advantage that multiple attackers have against a single foe. A third or fourth level fighter may be able to readily handle one or two goblins without to much risk to themselves, but six or eight goblins should be a completely different story.
Tam
In 1e/2e play, my house rule was that each attacker beyond the first got a +1 bonus to hit. For 3.5 I have a created a feat called "Team Fighting" that reflects the capabilities of warriors that train together to fight as a team. Basically, their flanking bonuses increase by +2 on their attack rolls and they can fight with reach weapons without other members of their team giving the target a cover bonus.
Basically, they've learned to fight with better timing so that a front rank can engage at 5' reach while the rank behind them can wield 10' reach weapons without penalty, as long as each of them has the team fighting feat.
This is my attempt to keep a meaningful threat among the lower level opponents. I agree that any level character should be alarmed and see a potential deadly threat by a large group of goblins, orcs or any hostile creature. I don't like the fact that high level adventures seem to feature only high level threats, illustrated by one adventure in Dungeon that features over a hundred CR9 orcs armed with magical weapons.
I don't really care what this does to the CR's, because I think it's a built in metagaming mechanic that makes 15th level fighters jump into a platoon of men-at-arms, knowing that they're virtually immune to attack. I don't like that, so this feat is my attempt at a minor fix to that.
|
|
These are the alterations I am thinking about making to the Flanking rules. Let me what you know.
Two characters can flank another without being opposite each other but the flanking bonus drops to +1.
There is an additional +1 flanking bonus for each flanker beyond the first two.
i.e. if you are surrounded by 8 attackers, all of them adjacent to you, they all would receive a +8 flank bonus.
or
i.e. if you are confronted by three attackers each adjacent to you but only in front of you not behind, they would each get a +2 flank bonus.
or
i.e. if you are confronted by two attackers one in front of you and the other on your right flank but they are not opposite each other, they each would receive a +1 flank bonus.
I am considering this house rule because I dislike the way the standard rules handle the advantage that multiple attackers have against a single foe. A third or fourth level fighter may be able to readily handle one or two goblins without to much risk to themselves, but six or eight goblins should be a completely different story.
Tam
Overall, I understand what you are doing and for the most part, it makes sense.
A few things to think about:
Either my math is a bit faulty, or I am not fully understanding the scenarion where they are surrounded by 8 creatures. If it is +1 for every creature beyond the first two, shouldn't the total be +7? (Not that it makes that much of a difference.)
This could really cause a lot of problems for the typical fighter who consistently may try to take on as many creatures as possible to save the wizard in the back.
Would this count for animals or vermin or other non-intelligent creatures that may not really know how to coordinate attacks?
How would this work with backstab damage? Give a few of the goblins in the above example a few levels in rogue and that will be one hurting fighter. Not just "hit" but possibly dead.
How would this work for the PCs? Especially for larger creatures. If the entire party and a few cohorts/townpeople surround the big dragon, do you really want the PCs to get +10 on all of their to-hit roll?
Just a few random thoughts and a few things to watch out for...
Bill
|
I will have to consider your points. This is how I got the +8. The first two attackers generate a +2. Each attacker after that generates another +1. For a total of +8.
Tam
Not to nit-pick but you stated that 2 attackers generate a +1 for each other then you would add the 6 others for +7 total. Unless you still will use the standard flanking rule of +2 for opposite sides in addition to your own (I would just ditch the +2 to make math easier).
I like the Idea and will be stealing it. I like that it gives power back to the low level commoners and such. The commoners in a small hamlet can band together to fend off the [insert large creature here]. I had trouble rationalizing how a hamlet on the edge of wilderness with a maximum class level in town of 3 could survive more then a couple weeks without some large creature stomping it to dust. This could help explain it.
FH
I'd worry that this change would favour the opponents over the PCs, since there are usually only ever four PCs (and only one or two, at most three of them will be in melee) but there can be perhaps twelve of the enemy. It makes flanking much more powerful than perhaps it ought to be - numbers are big in D&D, and +8 to attack is several levels worth of difference - and it's not something the PCs can use because they'd need a five or six person party just to have four melee types to benefit from it.
I'd worry that this change would favour the opponents over the PCs, since there are usually only ever four PCs (and only one or two, at most three of them will be in melee) but there can be perhaps twelve of the enemy.
On the other hand, it certainly makes the rogue significantly more useful, as they no longer have to get behind the target, but merely to somewhere that they can get a relatively unobstructed attack in. That could well add up to several extra full attacks over the course of one session.
It would also make Improved Uncanny Dodge cool again, and Whirlwind Attack would become a risky maneuver -- but also more likely to be used, as swarming a creature (and risking a whirlwind attack) would be a viable tactic.
I think it's a cool idea. Not quite sure on the balance of it yet, in regards to Sneak Attack, but it could be cool. And Tactical Soldiers would now be able to flank at right angles to reality.
|
I think that when he said that he gets a +8 bonus from having eight creatures around something, its because if two of them are directly across from each other they still get a +2 bonus. When he said that if you have two people attacking one creature they only get a +1 he was refering to if they were on sides that weren't opposite each other.
Sneak attack does seem to be the thing that could break this rule change. A rogue, whether PC or mook, could really do a frightening amount of damage with this, and from essentially any posistion around an enemy just because one of their allies happens to be next to him too.
I think this change has some merit, I know there have been some battles where my PC's have cut down the big bad guy and looked around at the weak enemies and asked if they could call the battle won because even in large numbers with the current system weak enemies have little threat by themselves.
Something you might want to consider, to save from players being disgruntled from having their characters cut down by 8 goblin rogues: Make aid another a movement action instead of a standard. This would allow for a creature willing to sacrifice its movement for the round the ability to add to a partners armor or attack bonus in a similar way to flanking, without the overpowering sneak attack bonus.
Or you could limit the max bonus to +4 or +6
Or you could limit the max bonus to +4 or +6
Or, if we're going to get into limiting things, it occurs to me that a solution (or at least a partial solution) to the potentially obscene rogue damage output would be to halve the extra damage from Sneak Attack if there's no one in a "Traditional" flanking position with the rogue.
Or you could reword the Sneak Attack conditions to require that a rogue have someone "directly opposite" the creature they're trying to sneak attack if they want to do it through flanking.
I'd be more inclined to reduce the damage, rather than eliminating it, though. There are so many things that completely negate Sneak Attack (undead, constructs, oozes, fortified armor, uncanny dodge, a light fog...) that increasing the ability to flank without allowing the rogue at least partial use of his primary combat ability seems somewhat silly to me.
Another "great equalizer" that I use is that starting a grapple requires a melee touch attack, not a standard melee attack as stated in the rules.
I think grabbing somebody to start wrestling with them doesn't require you to penetrate their plate armor.
As a side benefit, this has brought the Cleave and Greater Cleave feat into renewed importance in my game, because those feats are especially useful at keeping packs of rabid commoners from pulling you down and punching you silly.
Even if someone with a +3 to grapple is not much of a grapple threat to the high level character, having to fend off six or eight of such attackers can certainly tie up the character's attention (and rightfully so, I don't care if you're Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris--if eight guys try to pull your butt to the ground, you might knock two or three out, but then you're going down.)
I think it all ties back to what might happen in a real battle. If a tribe of orcs encounters an adventuring party that is dropping them like flies in regular melee combat, the orcs aren't just going to continue charging mindlessly until they all get slaughtered. They would change tactics, and the mass grapple bum rush is a valid tactic to attempt to overwhelm an opponent with superior skill using your own superior numbers.
Another "great equalizer" that I use is that starting a grapple requires a melee touch attack, not a standard melee attack as stated in the rules.
You'll be pleased to learn that the rules state no such thing.
What has thrown you off, I'm sure, is the second sentence under "Starting a Grapple," which reads: "Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll." If you read on, however, you'll find (under "Step 2: Grab") that the successful melee attack roll they're talking about is a melee touch attack roll.
There are rules for mobs (think lots of people grappling you) in the DMG II. It's kind of like a swarm attack.
Personally, I think that rogues should only be allowed to sneak attack when their opponent is denied its dex bonus to AC. Thus, a rogue could not sneak attack by flanking an opponent. Obviously this would weaken rogues considerably so I have not yet implemented it in my game.
One question regarding touch attacks. Is a melee touch attack bab + str bonus or is it bab + dex? I can't see how str would help you with a touch attack.
One question regarding touch attacks. Is a melee touch attack bab + str bonus or is it bab + dex? I can't see how str would help you with a touch attack.
I have always used your normal attack modifier - so if you are a weapon finesse kinda PC then you use Dex, otherwise Str.
The way I see it is that if you are touching someone you can touch them by making a dextrous grab, i.e. you kind of wait till they come to you or they make a mistake and then you lash out and touch them OR you just muscle your way in and touch them (with your clenched fist or whatever) you're not looking for a good place to touch them you are just slamming them.igi
Personally, I think that rogues should only be allowed to sneak attack when their opponent is denied its dex bonus to AC. Thus, a rogue could not sneak attack by flanking an opponent. Obviously this would weaken rogues considerably so I have not yet implemented it in my game.
One question regarding touch attacks. Is a melee touch attack bab + str bonus or is it bab + dex? I can't see how str would help you with a touch attack.
Easy question first: You make a touch attack (whether melee or ranged) the same way that you make a normal attack. It's the AC you're trying to hit that differs. So for most characters, a melee touch attack is strength based. I think of it as being their ability to get the weapon (or whatever) moving quickly (and, in the case of a creature with deflection bonuses, keep it on target). Because really, if you're wearing heavy armor or wielding a greatsword, you can have a dexterity score of 50, but if you don't have a dang good strength, you're not going anywhere fast.
As for sneak attack... I've played a rogue like that. She's tiny sized, so she's incapable of flanking with the otherwise medium and small party. You get her into combat, and she's pretty much useless. Yeah, she's got an obscene AC, but it's rare if she gets to sneak attack more than once per battle. Her average damage per round at level 1 is approximately 2 HP, assuming that she doesn't have to move, and always hits.
I'll keep playing the character, of course, because I like her. In terms of combat ability, though, I'd be better off playing an inanimate object. At least then I'd have hardness. ;P
Another "great equalizer" that I use is that starting a grapple requires a melee touch attack, not a standard melee attack as stated in the rules.You'll be pleased to learn that the rules state no such thing.
What has thrown you off, I'm sure, is the second sentence under "Starting a Grapple," which reads: "Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll." If you read on, however, you'll find (under "Step 2: Grab") that the successful melee attack roll they're talking about is a melee touch attack roll.
Yep, you're right. Alright, that makes more sense anyway. Thanks!!!
I am considering this house rule because I dislike the way the standard rules handle the advantage that multiple attackers have against a single foe. A third or fourth level fighter may be able to readily handle one or two goblins without to much risk to themselves, but six or eight goblins should be a completely different story.Tam
Why not make better use of the existing rules? If seven of the eight attackers aid the last one, that's a +16 bonus on his attack (7 times +2 from the aid another, and the +2 from flanking). That's better than the +8 bonus each of the attackers would get by your house rule, but they only attack once rather than eight times.
You can mix and max this as you like. For example, you could have 2 attackers aided by 3 others (for a bonus of +8 each), or 4 attacker aided by one other (for a bonus of +4 each)As F2K stated, it would be even better if they just piled on (aka grappled) the oponent. Especially when you consider they can use the aid another option there too.