|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
My search-fu turned up nothing on this topic, but it became an issue at my table tonight and I wanted to get some opinions.
If there are two creatures in squares which would grant them a flanking bonus against a third creature under normal circumstances, but they are instead flying 5' off the ground, are they still considered to be flanking? Likewise, if two creatures on the ground are in a position to flank a third creature, but it is instead flying 5' off the ground, are they still flanking it? Let me know if we need diagrams to answer this.
Gracias.
My search-fu turned up nothing on this topic, but it became an issue at my table tonight and I wanted to get some opinions.
If there are two creatures in squares which would grant them a flanking bonus against a third creature under normal circumstances, but they are instead flying 5' off the ground, are they still considered to be flanking? Likewise, if two creatures on the ground are in a position to flank a third creature, but it is instead flying 5' off the ground, are they still flanking it? Let me know if we need diagrams to answer this.
Gracias.
That's a tricky one. I eagerly await the responders.
|
There's no reason a flying creature has to fly 5' above the ground. It can position itself 2' to 3' above the ground in the relevant square without landing, edit: and this would be the most comfortable and natural position from which to attack an adjacent creature of the same size. However, if the flying creatures are, in fact, positioned in squares (or cubes) one square above the ground, because they choose to be, or because other creatures or obstacles occupy the ground-level squares, the two creatures in each of your scenarios are not on opposite sides of the target and don't flank it.
My search-fu turned up nothing on this topic, but it became an issue at my table tonight and I wanted to get some opinions.
If there are two creatures in squares which would grant them a flanking bonus against a third creature under normal circumstances, but they are instead flying 5' off the ground, are they still considered to be flanking? Likewise, if two creatures on the ground are in a position to flank a third creature, but it is instead flying 5' off the ground, are they still flanking it? Let me know if we need diagrams to answer this.
Gracias.
Interesting question as the game (as far as I know) has no "square up" concept (even if it DOES have a concept of elevation). I don't think the game does have such a thing for the same reason that giants (whose attack could be considered coming from the "next square up") can definitively flank a shorter creature, and vice versa.
Thus in my understanding, a creature can be flanked by two flying opponents, assuming they are still in range of attacking in melee of course.
'findel
My search-fu turned up nothing on this topic, but it became an issue at my table tonight and I wanted to get some opinions.
If there are two creatures in squares which would grant them a flanking bonus against a third creature under normal circumstances, but they are instead flying 5' off the ground, are they still considered to be flanking? Likewise, if two creatures on the ground are in a position to flank a third creature, but it is instead flying 5' off the ground, are they still flanking it? Let me know if we need diagrams to answer this.
Gracias.
I would say yes. If they are in melee range and threatening, then yes they are flanking.
|
|
Interesting question as the game (as far as I know) has no "square up" concept (even if it DOES have a concept of elevation). I don't think the game does have such a thing for the same reason that giants (whose attack could be considered coming from the "next square up") can definitively flank a shorter creature, and vice versa.My search-fu turned up nothing on this topic, but it became an issue at my table tonight and I wanted to get some opinions.
If there are two creatures in squares which would grant them a flanking bonus against a third creature under normal circumstances, but they are instead flying 5' off the ground, are they still considered to be flanking? Likewise, if two creatures on the ground are in a position to flank a third creature, but it is instead flying 5' off the ground, are they still flanking it? Let me know if we need diagrams to answer this.
Gracias.
Giants are OK, because they occupy and (at least for rules purposes) can attack from the ground-level squares.
|
|
How about a cavalier on a horse, then? Can he never be flanked by medium sized enemies on the ground? Sure the horse can be flanked, but can the cavalier not be flanked?
I believe he absolutely can, and not surprisingly I personally feel that flying creatures that are 'one square up' can be flanked by grounded enemies. The responses so far seem to skew to that line of thinking, however there are some legitimate arguments to be made for the other viewpoint as well.
It surely is an intriguing topic.
The question is whether 3D flanking is a logical extension of the 2D rules, or if 3D flanking is a logical extension of the "distracted opponent" explanation of why the opponent's AC is reduced.
The former is more restrictive and would result in fewer flanked situations. The latter could be ruled to be a flank if the 3D creature can threaten any square that a 2D flanker would threaten.
In that situation a flying creature five feet off the ground would flank an opponent if a medium sized ally was opposite the opponent because the flying creature still threatens the same square a 2D flanking opponent would threaten.
That's how I rule on 3D flanking. The result is that flying opponents almost always flank. Which makes sense to me. If you've got a griffon directly overhead, and an orc directly adjacent, I think you're gonna be distracted.
|
|
That's a fair argument, and one that I'll assume has basis in actual rules text (I am the trusting type). The original question, though, really doesn't seem to be addressed in the rules at all that I can tell. The first sentence of "Flanking" is really about the most definitive source, and I'm having trouble interpreting it in this context. Edit: that was meant to be directed at starglim. Quote fail on my part.
Would you allow two characters to flank a flying creature that is flying 5' in the air in the space between them?
I think you would, so I don't see a problem as long as the flying creatures can make a melee attack against the target and the one opposite the current attacker is threatening. As with regular flanking.
|
|
Would you allow two characters to flank a flying creature that is flying 5' in the air in the space between them?
I think you would, so I don't see a problem as long as the flying creatures can make a melee attack against the target and the one opposite the current attacker is threatening. As with regular flanking.
Actually, what you mentioned is exactly the situation that popped up tonight. Two grounded PC's were in what is normally flanking position against a flying creature that they both threatened. I was going to let them get the flanking bonus (and the use of a teamwork feat, perhaps more importantly), but two of the other players were pretty adamant that a true flanking scenario would have one creature on the ground, and another one flying 5' above the flying opponent on the opposite side of it.
Personally, I'd allow flanking in both circumstances. But I do see what the dissenting PCs were getting at. It's a decent point.
Personally, I'd allow flanking in both circumstances. But I do see what the dissenting PCs were getting at. It's a decent point.
Yes, but in the absence of a 3D example you can't really argue what is true flanking. Example... character 5' below (say on a hill or otherwise uneven terrain) the enemy is adjacent to your friend on level ground. If you were on level ground you'd flank without any trouble. Would you flank in this situation?
I'd still go with yes. If not, then flanking in any 3D environment is near impossible as your parter would have to be another 5' up as below:
C = Character, E = Enemy, P = Partner, x = Open Space.
3D View = Right Side:
x x P
x E x
C x x
Top Down View:
x x x
C E P
x x x
Would you allow two characters to flank a flying creature that is flying 5' in the air in the space between them?
I think you would, so I don't see a problem as long as the flying creatures can make a melee attack against the target and the one opposite the current attacker is threatening. As with regular flanking.
Actually, what you mentioned is exactly the situation that popped up tonight. Two grounded PC's were in what is normally flanking position against a flying creature that they both threatened. I was going to let them get the flanking bonus (and the use of a teamwork feat, perhaps more importantly), but two of the other players were pretty adamant that a true flanking scenario would have one creature on the ground, and another one flying 5' above the flying opponent on the opposite side of it.
Personally, I'd allow flanking in both circumstances. But I do see what the dissenting PCs were getting at. It's a decent point.
This illustrates what I meant by distinguishing between extending the 2D rules into 3D (which restricts flanking opportunities) and extending the concept of threats distracting the flanked character in a 3D environment.
I would say this qualifies as flanking since the flying creature is having to deal with two separate attackers who threaten opposite sides of the flying creature. Look at it like this, both of the grounded flankers can reach 5' up into the air and stick their swords into opposite sides of the flying creature, just as if they were on the same level as the flying creature. If the two grounded attackers were adjacent to each other, one directly below the flying creature, I would rule they do not flank.
But it is a difficult question and there are likely all sorts of edge conditions that will need to be ruled on.
My main reason for ruling the way I do is because I want to encourage the PCs to fight flying creatures, and taking away all their flanking bonuses just because they can't fly is simply taking too much away from their threat and frankly taking too much away from their fun.
My main reason for ruling the way I do is because I want to encourage the PCs to fight flying creatures, and taking away all their flanking bonuses just because they can't fly is simply taking too much away from their threat and frankly taking too much away from their fun.
I am in agreement with your statement and this part in particular.
I'd not allow the creature to flank or be flanked, it will have to decide which square (or cube) it is in. If the creature wants to flank it will have to hover 3 feet over the ground, if it wants to avoid being flanked hover 6 feet off the ground instead.
It might change allevation with a 5 foot step depending on aerial maneuverability.
I would say no.
x=flankers o=target .=spacer with no meaning
when you have
xox
you have a clear line drawn between them. Now, if the two x's start flying, you can rotate the image mentally and you end up with
x x
.ono clear line.
From a top down view of the battle mat like the pic listed in the PRD, there is a line drawn and it would look like this..
x o x
Now, are you asking for more than one line?
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.
The attackers are both on a border of the 5x5x5 "cube" that the target occupies in the 3D model and both threaten.
IMO the line analogy is to resolve flanking vs creatures on even ground.
|
the line analogy still works, since you can change the plane of the table map to a vertical one instead of a horizontal one.
Both attackers are coming at him from the same square facing. An opposite corner wouldn't be top left and top right. It would be top left and bottom right.
north/south east/west up/down
In two dimensional combat, up/down doesn't come into play much.
Even in this example, depending on how they're facing, we can remove either north/south or east/west, and have two planes left for orientation. They won't be present on one of those two planes with the way they're positioned.
the line analogy still works, since you can change the plane of the table map to a vertical one instead of a horizontal one.
Both attackers are coming at him from the same square facing. An opposite corner wouldn't be top left and top right. It would be top left and bottom right.
I see your point, but disagree with the outcome :). This makes flanking (in 3D) far too restrictive when we can see that flanking is not meant to be so restricted (especially when it comes to dealing with large or larger creatures).
I agree with you on the written language with the line, but not the intent of the implementation.
I can see both sides, but in the end I think it counts as flanking.
I can see both sides, but in the end I think it counts as flanking.
Same here. I think in terms of RAI, the "middle" creature would be distracted enough to be considered flanked by two flying creatures even if they effectively form a "V" rather than a strait line on the y axis.
'findel
For a moment there, you guys were perfectly emulating my table last night. :-p
I'm somewhat surprised that this doesn't come up more frequently. I'd think it to be a pretty common situation.
If it helps confuse things I don't think it counts as flanking :p
Hello, and welcome to Spirit of the Rules Pedantic Theatre. I am your host, El Crab of Anger. Tonight: Flying creatures: Flank or no Flank?
I think it is a flanking situation. Here's why:
The flanking rules are unclear in a 3D situation. however, they do say this:
When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers' centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent's space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
This is all assuming a 2D space (as the accompanying diagrams show). But with some logic, and some understanding of both the spirit of the rules and of what flanking is intended to represent, we can come to a solid conclusion.
Let's extend the encounter into a 3D space. Now each combatant occupies some combination of cubes. For our purposes, the space occupied by each combatant can be visualized as a rectangular/cubic space consisting of the squares which they occupy, extended logically to the proper height as indicated in the combatant's description (n.b. Storm Giants are 21 feet tall, but their space is 15 feet. Do you use a 15 foot cube, or a rectangular solid with a 15 foot base and a 20 or 25 foot height? Up to the GM. It's a tough call, but I'd err on the side of perfect cubes, for simplicity, and assume that reach takes care of the issue. But this means that a 21 foot Storm Giant loses 6 feet of height when attackers from above try to reach it, a clear advantage for the Giant. We will ignore this annoying bit for the rest of the discussion. Be aware that it is an issue in some cases. For the purpose of the discussion below, we would assume, in the case of the Storm Giant, a 15 foot cube). Each square they have reach into is also projected to a cube. Now, we simply look at the cubes into which an attack can be made. The two flying creatures can reach into the poor groundbound creatures cube, as they presumably have 5' reach. This reach extends into the 5' cube below the flying creature, the cube above, and the diagonal cubes (similar to a 2D model). The trick is not in complicated mathematics or geometry; we can actually use the tools already available. Simply choose the proper faces of the cubes to trace the line. The two flying creatures would choose the bottom face of the cubes they occupy, which are coplanar with the top face of the groundbound combatant's cube. The line drawn shows that the poor fool in the middle is, in fact, being flanked.
The point of the flanking rules is to give an advantage to the attackers because the defender is besieged by multiple combatants who are difficult to keep track of, not to enforce rigid geometrical precision. In an actual combat where one person has to combat two or more opponents, it is difficult to defend even if the attackers don't manage to get completely opposite of each other. The abstraction of flanking is necessary (although feats like Gang Up bring the abstraction closer to reality) but it shouldn't be used as a bludgeon to enforce mathematical orthodoxy. Being flanked is about being distracted, being harried from multiple sides. That certainly seems to be the case here.
While I'm on the subject, the attackers were also attacking from higher ground. If a mounted combatant (whose mount is larger than the defender) gets this bonus, so too should a combatant actually attacking from 5' above. This bonus is less than that of a flanking bonus, but it definitely applies. Why then would someone not be able to flank from higher ground? Would someone who is in a trench being attacked by pikemen from above on both sides say "Oh thank the gods that they're on higher ground, at least the fact that they're on opposite sides from me won't help them now!"? No, that person would say "Blargh!" and die because that what happens when angry pikemen stab someone multiple times, which is what would happen. Both bonuses would come into play. That's why Tippi Hedren fears birds. That's why Xenomorphs crawl on the ceiling. Don't get caught between flying creatures.
Thus ends today's episode of Spirit of the Rules Pedantic Theatre. Tune in next week when we discuss the not at all contentious issue of point-buy vs. rolling. I am your host, El Crab of Anger, and Good Night and Good Luck.
I'd say no because you are now introducing the 3rd dimension to the tactics. A flying creature can only be flanked if they are threatened on opposite sides. On 2D map it would appear that would be correct but technically they threat only one side of the creature. The bottom. Person under a flying creature with person top would be considered flanking.
To not do this would mean a rogue flank in situation like this:
RXF
XEX
XXX
R for rogue, F for fighter, and E for enemy. Because if you flip this from horizontal to vertical that is exactly the situation with flying creature.
Would someone who is in a trench being attacked by pikemen from above on both sides say "Oh thank the gods that they're on higher ground, at least the fact that they're on opposite sides from me won't help them now!"? No, that person would say "Blargh!" and die because that what happens when angry pikemen stab someone multiple times, which is what would happen.
Hilarious. Could not agree more.