Modified rules to qualify for a flank?

[RumpinRufus]

Maybe it's just me, but sometimes the flanking rules seem quite strange. For example, in the following situation:

__1
2E_
__3

where 1, 2, and 3 are allies, and E is the enemy, NONE of the characters are flanking the enemy, despite the fact that they have him surrounded on three sides.

Does anyone use modified flanking rules? How are they working out for you?

[DocShock]

I agree that the rules are a little silly. It's especially frustrating if your GM is intentionally stepping out of flank with a 5-foot step. By RAW there's no way both originally-flanking characters can then step back into flank and take full round attacks. At least one of them is getting shorted.

Ratfolk have the swarming trait, which I personally think is awesome, and from what I understand the newer editions of DnD let rogues sneak attack whenever at least 2 people are threatening the same target.

My personal suggestion would be to just make it so that 1-and-2 and 2-and-3 ARE flanking in your diagram above. I don't have enough experience to say whether or not that imbalances anything.

On another note, our rules for cover are that we eyeball it and decide whether something has cover or not. If there's a disagreement we resort to RAW. In the diagram from the PRD, the fact that the Ogre has cover from the Rogue, but not the other way around is silly to all of us.

[Arrius]

Kirthfinder has an alternate take on this: Flanking is achieved by performing the Aid Another action to attack. Whenever one receives an Aid Another to attack, they do not gain a flat +2 to attack, but they are counted as if flanking (which grants the above bonus, all the while denying any Dexterity bonuses). To aid in this, Aid Another is instead an action of opportunity.

[Kazaan]

I've played with the idea that if someone is threatened by 3 or more opponents and you have a "crossing line" from at least 2 pairs, even if it doesn't pass through opposite sides, it would count as flanking.