Changing Flanking to a Condition

[Tormsskull]

Hi,

We used to play this way, and I'm wondering if anyone else did/does and has feedback.

Instead of having two characters on opposite sides of an enemy granting flanking bonuses to those two characters, it applies the "Flanked" condition to the target. This means everyone gets the benefits of flanking against that target.

This should boost rogues (easier to get sneak attacks), and make using smart tactics more beneficial.

In addition, we also used "double-flanked", if 4 unique characters are all flanking the same character (2 sets of 2 characters flanking the target), the target gains the "Double-Flanked" condition - granting a +4 to hit that target.

We also used triple and quadruple flank, but those basically never occurred.

Adding in double or higher flanks means that hordes of lesser enemies can increase their chance of hitting a more powerful opponent by getting high bonuses to hit by multiple sets of flanking.

[BloodyManticore]

Does the dimensional agility feat tree allow compounding flanks per each attack?

[Majuba]

I like the 'double-flanked' houserule, interesting tactical choices abound.

The way you worked it as a condition is essentially about the same as the Gang-Up feat.

[Tormsskull]

BloodyManticore wrote:

Does the dimensional agility feat tree allow compounding flanks per each attack?

Spoiler:

Dimensional Savant
You flash into and out of reality so quickly it is impossible to tell exactly where you are at any given time.
Prerequisites: Dimensional Agility, Dimensional Assault, Dimensional Dervish, ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door, base attack bonus +9.
Benefit: While using the Dimensional Dervish feat, you provide flanking from all squares you attack from. Flanking starts from the moment you make an attack until the start of your next turn. You can effectively flank with yourself and with multiple allies when using this feat.

I'm not familiar with the feat, but upon reading it, I don't see why not. That's a large feat investment and a high BAB requirement to be able to get a circumstantial bonus to hit and sneak attack.

[MC Templar]

flanked condition is the way my group used to play, until someone actually read the rules... to this day some of us swear that the present rules were worded differently in 3.0 (or 3.5, whatever predates our mistake)

I kind of liked the condition more... it incentivized someone moving tactically to help everyone else, and made being flanked in a room full of rogues outright terrifying.

[Orich Starkhart]

I also find the idea of a flanked condition appealing.

I think +4 to hit may be about as high as it should go, at least for attackers and defenders of the same size class. That has a satisfying correspondence to the Total Defense action, allowing the character surrounded by 4 enemies to increase its defense to compensate for the advantage the attackers gain by their number and position, at the expense of losing its attacks.

I would probably make this finer grained and give three surrounding allies +3 each against their common foe.

I do see that conditions generally affect the character's Armor Class rather than grant attackers bonuses on their rolls, so consistency with existing rules suggests that having the flanked condition applies -2 to AC, being flanked by 3 a -3, and by 4, -4.

Perhaps weapon reach should play a factor as well - I expect fighting defensively in reality works better for the one with the longer weapon, though perhaps the need for 360 degree maneuverability when flanked in the way the rules require eats up that advantage.

Regarding Gang Up, one difference is that Gang Up works if the allies are all on one side - say, attacking a foe in a hallway.

[LazarX]

Just remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. How happy would you be to see this tactic applied to you?

[DragGon7601]

A Flanking condition makes more sense to me, so long as their is a clause stating that it cant drop AC lower than flat footed AC... How does having someone stand on the other side of a foot thick standard tree (standard as in not a trent or something) poking at it help me hit it? To my knowledge of RAW that works. A Two-Handed Sword swinging knight whos AC is only Base(10)+Full Plate(9) is fighting two rouges, one gets round him and he is now flanked; How does this give a +2 to hit to both Rouges, The armour is still going to get in the way and he is still moving (swinging his sword at one of them) so getting into the joints isn't going to be much if at all easier. Any bonus gained would be due to facing not team work...

[Tormsskull]

LazarX wrote:

Just remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. How happy would you be to see this tactic applied to you?

Nobody likes to get flanked, but if that's the rule, that's the rule. It would definitely make me more focused on not getting flanked whenever possible. Also makes uncanny dodge more valuable.

DragGon7601 wrote:

A Flanking condition makes more sense to me, so long as their is a clause stating that it cant drop AC lower than flat footed AC

I understand the logic of that, but I think it over complicates it. Being flanked makes it more difficult to defend yourself from both sides. I don't like the idea of a flat-footed AC 19 fighter surrounded by 8 opponents not suffering any penalties or granting any benefits to his attackers.

Look at the aid another action. A character can use the aid another action to distract the opponent and grant their ally a +2 bonus to hit. What kind of bonus is this? How does it allow the ally to more easily penetrate the target's armor?

In my mind, its because the target is distracted, thus their defenses are easier to get through.

[Darklord Morius]

Interesting, i like it!

[Simon Legrande]

DragGon7601 wrote:

A Flanking condition makes more sense to me, so long as their is a clause stating that it cant drop AC lower than flat footed AC... How does having someone stand on the other side of a foot thick standard tree (standard as in not a trent or something) poking at it help me hit it? To my knowledge of RAW that works. A Two-Handed Sword swinging knight whos AC is only Base(10)+Full Plate(9) is fighting two rouges, one gets round him and he is now flanked; How does this give a +2 to hit to both Rouges, The armour is still going to get in the way and he is still moving (swinging his sword at one of them) so getting into the joints isn't going to be much if at all easier. Any bonus gained would be due to facing not team work...

The +2 to hit for the flankers represents the target having to divide his attention between two opponents that aren't next to each other. Sure he still has armor and is flailing about with his weapon, that's why it's only a +2 bonus. As far as rogues getting sneak attack: he can't be watching them both with his full attention at all times, that gives them a chance to place a strike more precisely. It's a rogue thing, why would you need to take that away?

[Bunnyboy]

How this sounds?

When character have more than one enemy in 5-feet range, his Dex bonus to AC drops -1/enemy on 5 feet range.

[Remco Sommeling]

Summon 1d4+1 eagles as a 3rd lvl spell, that would give everyone engaging a massive bonus. It would likely be 1d4+2 with this rule.

Say one rogue and a fighter is in melee with a BBEG, eagles are summoned and everyone gets +4 to +8 to hit, including the eagles. Meaning you either can't miss or can't hit without them. It's too much..

[Tormsskull]

Remco Sommeling wrote:

Say one rogue and a fighter is in melee with a BBEG, eagles are summoned and everyone gets +4 to +8 to hit, including the eagles. Meaning you either can't miss or can't hit without them. It's too much..

In practice, double-flank was the most we usually saw. More than double-flank was very rare. You could limit it to double-flank if you're worried about getting beyond +4.

That being said, I imagine any BBEG worth the title will have an easy way to deal with a flock of (s)eagles.

[Bunnyboy]

If target has low dex, it won't drop that much as minimum dex bonus is -5.
And if he has high dex, he shouldn't allow getting himself surrounded.

[Orich Starkhart]

DragGon7601 wrote:

A Two-Handed Sword swinging knight whos AC is only Base(10)+Full Plate(9) is fighting two rouges, one gets round him and he is now flanked; How does this give a +2 to hit to both Rouges, The armour is still going to get in the way and he is still moving (swinging his sword at one of them) so getting into the joints isn't going to be much if at all easier. Any bonus gained would be due to facing not team work...

The flanking bonus in the rules gives 10% advantage to each flanker, rather than 20% to one as in the old (e.g. AD&D 1e) backstab rules. It's an abstraction. Certainly if the knight is essentially ignoring the second assailant, that second assailant has an easier time landing an effective blow on the knight than the first one does (assuming the two rogues have equal Bab). One way to rationalize this is that since the rules don't handle the target deciding to pretend one attacker doesn't exist, the rules divide the bonus among the attackers equally.

Tormsskull wrote:

DragGon7601 wrote:

A Flanking condition makes more sense to me, so long as their is a clause stating that it cant drop AC lower than flat footed AC

I understand the logic of that, but I think it over complicates it. Being flanked makes it more difficult to defend yourself from both sides. I don't like the idea of a flat-footed AC 19 fighter surrounded by 8 opponents not suffering any penalties or granting any benefits to his attackers.

I agree with Tormsskull however that's partly because I think flat-footed RAW doesn't disadvantage defenders consistently enough. Flat-footed says the target cannot react normally, but for an average dexterity character, per RAW that effectively means only that such character cannot make AoO, while the high dex character also becomes significantly easier to hit. I think the flat-footed target should be easier to damage than the same target without flat-footed, independent of whether the target normally has a dexterity bonus. I'm thinking maybe -2 AC and halve the dexterity bonus (round down) to AC, better implementing the condition's affect of making the target unable to "react normally" - reflecting that "normally" for the 17 dexterity defender is different and more effective than normally for the 10 dexterity character, and assuming that the flat-footed character is able to react somewhat.

If one takes flat-footed as total surprise, inability to react meaningfully - something worse than PF's flat-footed, the AC penalty should be larger: -4 or more along with losing dexterity bonus, or maybe even reducing dex to 0 (-5 penalty to AC and of course no dexterity or dodge bonus), and I would agree with DragGon7601 that flanking attackers regardless of number shouldn't reduce AC further than this, under the logic that the bonus for flanking is about the defender dividing attention and thus reaction, which are by this definition already negligible.

[Orich Starkhart]

Tormsskull wrote:

Remco Sommeling wrote:

Say one rogue and a fighter is in melee with a BBEG, eagles are summoned and everyone gets +4 to +8 to hit, including the eagles. Meaning you either can't miss or can't hit without them. It's too much..

In practice, double-flank was the most we usually saw. More than double-flank was very rare. You could limit it to double-flank if you're worried about getting beyond +4.

I think Remco Sommeling was responding to Bunnyboy's alternative, reducing dexterity modifier to AC by 1 for each opponent beyond the first within 5 foot range - or, I would say, each opponent threatening, so as to account for reach. This isn't really akin to flanking, but would reflect a notion that facing multiple foes at once, even when they don't surround you, is more dangerous than a single foe of the same calibre.

So, if you face 2 opponents, your AC is reduced by 1 toward each of them. Three opponents - even if all adjacent to each other and no pair meeting the requirement of PF flanking, your AC is reduced by 2 toward each of them.

I think proposals like these must account for practical limitations as well - how many attackers can realistically engage a given defender in a combat round? Does some law of diminishing returns apply as well? (so adding two attackers to the first lowers effective AC more than adding two more attackers to those three)

[rainzax]

i think i like the simple core idea.

if people are flanking you, you are considered 'flanked' and all foes threatening you get the +2 bonus to strike.

this helps the rogue. this helps swarms of lower level creatures pose a greater threat to the PCs. this helps the PCs when they outnumber their higher power foes.

[Tormsskull]

rainzax wrote:

this helps the rogue. this helps swarms of lower level creatures pose a greater threat to the PCs. this helps the PCs when they outnumber their higher power foes.

Yeah, that is the goal. Looks like we will be adopting this in my current game, will be interesting to see how it changes things (I'm sure the ranged rogue in the group with become much more effective.)