| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my campaign I changed Flanked to a condition that one gets if one has at least two opponents that threaten him, who are opposite each other. The flanked condition gives a -2 ac penalty. The reason I did this is because I found it odd that if two enemies are opposite each other, each of them gains a bonus to strike the enemy, but if someone else joins in the fray, they do not get a similar bonus unless they too have someone opposite them. My reasoning is that once someone has at least two enemies threatening him from opposite sides, he should be just as screwed vs. whomever else joins in the fray. Just an idea that has worked ok in my games.
Interesting idea, and you're probably right logically.
The counter argument is that in this situation:
--C--
A-T-B
A & B flank T, obviously, and T can't watch both at once. But T can watch C constantly, even if just in periferal vision, while trying to keep track of A & B.
However, why isn't T flanked by anyone in this situation?:
--A--
--T--
B--C
T can't watch all of them simultaneously, but technically isn't flanked. This is why Facing rules make a good bit of sense.
They're just a bit ridiculous to implement unfortunately. Fortunately the situations come up often enough, and are consistent enough, that a group can come up with a homebrew solution of their own choosing fairly easily. Yours is a nice one.
|
From the very first time we used flanking way back when, we used this. THough we never called it a Condition, which makes more sense mechaniclly.
We just said that if 2 flank, then if anyone else joins in they get the +2 bonus to hit as well.
Personally I prefer your mechanic as a condition. Same thing really, but yours makes sense by the rules.
:)
I agree that this:
--A--
--T--
B--C
should also be problematic for the defender, and in all reality, the flanked "condition" should really take effect in that situation as well. I just stuck with it requiring opposite attackers for some link to the existing rules and trying not to make it TOO easy to flank/be flanked etc.
|
|
I agree that this:
should also be problematic for the defender, and in all reality, the flanked "condition" should really take effect in that situation as well. I just stuck with it requiring opposite attackers for some link to the existing rules and trying not to make it TOO easy to flank/be flanked etc.
--A--
--T--
B--C
I agree. If it were too easy to flank PCs will die to often. :)
Anytime you are facing multiple opponents at once from any direction (even if they are all coming from the front) you are in a bad spot and will not be as capable of defending yourself. The opponents can time their blows better to take advantage of openings in your defenses as you try and defend yourself from multiple incoming blows.
|
In my campaign I changed Flanked to a condition that one gets if one has at least two opponents that threaten him, who are opposite each other. The flanked condition gives a -2 ac penalty. The reason I did this is because I found it odd that if two enemies are opposite each other, each of them gains a bonus to strike the enemy, but if someone else joins in the fray, they do not get a similar bonus unless they too have someone opposite them. My reasoning is that once someone has at least two enemies threatening him from opposite sides, he should be just as screwed vs. whomever else joins in the fray. Just an idea that has worked ok in my games.
Makes total sense, I will be using this
Assuming the -2AC method though, and nothing more, how does your new Flanking idea fit with Rogues using Sneak Attack? Maybe Rogues then get a base Sneak Attack die amount (2d6 at first lvl) plus an additional +1 damage for each additional combatant. This gives the impression that Rogues will like to wait until the best opportunity to strike, maximizing the surround bonus.
If the target has the Flanked condition he is subject to any rule that normally applies to anyone who is flanked normally.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Note that this really isn't as big of a change as you might think. With intelligent use of 5' steps, 3 people can all get the flanking benefit around one target. It requires a bit of coordination, but is not hard to set up really.
----
Step 1 - B & C flank, A delays until immediately after B&C
- A -
B T C
- - -
Step 2 - B 5' steps after their attack, giving A flanking bonuses
- A -
- T C
- B -
Next round, C delays until after A&B, and you can repeat this indefinately.
|
In my campaign I changed Flanked to a condition that one gets if one has at least two opponents that threaten him, who are opposite each other. The flanked condition gives a -2 ac penalty.
Great idea, both calling it a condition and saying it applies to everyone after the first two. I do prefer to think of it as +2 to hit rather than -2 to AC.
The idea of cumulative bonuses is appealing, but might me too much. +2 to hit for the first two, +3 if there are 3, +4 if there are 4, etc.; could go as high as +8 (or +16 if there were folks with reach weapons in the second row). But, heck, if it's you vs. 8 people, them having a +8 chance of hitting you seems about right.
The idea of cumulative bonuses is appealing, but might me too much. +2 to hit for the first two, +3 if there are 3, +4 if there are 4, etc.; could go as high as +8 (or +16 if there were folks with reach weapons in the second row). But, heck, if it's you vs. 8 people, them having a +8 chance of hitting you seems about right.
I agree, cumulative bonuses has a certain appeal, but perhaps it would be better as a talent for rogues or certain monster races, and leave flanking as it is for all others.
You could make a Rogue talent that says
"Gang Tactics: Whenever you attack a target that has the flanked condition, you gain an additional +1 to attack for every other attacker."
Sure the wording would have to be cleaned up but you see what I mean. You could also grant certain races (like kobolds or goblins) a special racial feature with the same name and same mechanics, making the little dudes more intimidating. I dunno, just a thought.
|
IMHO, the suggestion by the OP is excellent.
I agree that if a character suffers a -2 penalty to AC when flanked by two opponents, it might also be reasonable to allow a cumulative -1 to AC for each additional opponent who attacks the flanked character (up to a maximum of -6 AC or so). This makes it possible for a group of weaker opponents to bring down a tough character by sheer weight of numbers, especially if they can completely encircle their enemy. It also opens up new tactical possibilities, forcing characters to look at options like keeping their backs to a wall when outnumbered or taking up defensive positions in doorways.
I would also suggest that characters should be prevented from flanking opponents more than two size categories larger than themselves. This eliminates abuses such as invincible pixies and situations where a group of medium-sized humans bring down a dragon by surrounding it.
I've been doing this in meatspace games for a long time.
Also, I think it reflects reality in that attackers surrounding a single fighter will keep moving into blind areas - and I think it's a downer making everyone take five foot steps to reflect this.
I like the OP's qualifications for Flanking. All opponents should receive the bonus once the target is Flanked.
However, I think the Condition should be called 'Vulnerable' (or be given a better name) to become generic. The Vulnerable Condition should be given in different situations that give a -2 AC. I think all these situations give the same -2 AC; Flanked, Charging, Running, Raging, Blinded and Cowering. Maybe others also. Just one Condition that can be used for all the situations where you have to remember that this guy is easy to hit. And you can put a marker on the table to remember it.
The other ideas are also great house rules but should not be mainstream rules. Just too much to keep track of unless your group is into realism.
|
|
In my campaign I changed Flanked to a condition that one gets if one has at least two opponents that threaten him, who are opposite each other. The flanked condition gives a -2 ac penalty. The reason I did this is because I found it odd that if two enemies are opposite each other, each of them gains a bonus to strike the enemy, but if someone else joins in the fray, they do not get a similar bonus unless they too have someone opposite them. My reasoning is that once someone has at least two enemies threatening him from opposite sides, he should be just as screwed vs. whomever else joins in the fray. Just an idea that has worked ok in my games.
That is elegant, and makes sense.
And speeds up play, by doing away with the annoying temptation for everyone to stick their 2cp in to advise the active player where to 5' step.
It is frustrating when an inexperienced player forgets to shift for a flank bonus, but they shouldn't need to. Having a surrounded target be confused and disoriented is something that should just happen, without the need for the attacker to specifically declare they are 'looking for an advantage'. Just as you don't have to declare you're ducking for cover when an area spell goes off.
|
|
"Gang Tactics: Whenever you attack a target that has the flanked condition, you gain an additional +1 to attack for every other attacker."
Sure the wording would have to be cleaned up but you see what I mean. You could also grant certain races (like kobolds or goblins) a special racial feature with the same name and same mechanics, making the little dudes more intimidating. I dunno, just a thought.
Oh, yes.
There are feats that grant similar bonuses (I got given some henchmen once with a phalanx fighting style from some 3rd-party source), but it would be nice if you didn't need a feat to do something so basic that it should be a standard combat rule. Maybe the text above could be the standard, and the feat could raise the bonus further?
Then again, I think that about most combat feats.
Power Attack, Disarm, Trip, Parry, etc, were all open to everyone in 2E, as part of a normal Called Shot.