|
Hello everyone, I was noticing today that there are some squares from which, by rules, there is literally no way you can flank an enemy even if there are no obstacles or walls, let me show the example:
.
.
.
B|_|_|
_|X|_|
_|_|_|
_|_|A|
I hope this is clear enough, but if you copy this configuration in an actual grid you'll notice that if the character A is in position with a reach weapon and threatens the square where the enemy X is standing, there is no square for B, which doesn't have reach, to flak X with A. The current position may look like they are flanking, but if you trace a line between A and B from the center of their squares, it doesn't pass through opposite sides or corners of X square.
Another example:
_|B|_|
_|X|_|
_|_|_|
_|_|A|
this way may actually look even worse, but by rules it's actually closer to flank (but still not quite it), because the line between A and B touches one side and one corner of the opposite side.
So, my first question is: is this correct? Is there really no way for B to flank unless A moves? And if the answer is yes: how does it make any sense? I mean, it makes sense by RAW of course, but if you think about it, it doesn't really make sense that the oppisite side of an enemy in an open space does not exist (unless B also has reach) when that enemy is X and the first character is A. Because in the game world it clearly exists, B just has to position 30cm more right ot left, but it can't because that position it's between 2 squares in the grid.
Isn't the greed supposed to be a tool to support the narration, and not to hamper it?
A's attack passes through the bottom edge of X's square. So if B attacks from directly on top, through the top edge, B's flanking.
But yeah, if you read this...
Flanking: "A line drawn between the center of your space and the center of your ally's space must pass through opposite sides or opposite corners of the foe's space."
...rigorously, then it sounds like sides must be opposite sides and corners opposite corners. I agree with Jared (and you it seems, Enoren) it's a problematic implication. Yet if one rereads the rule a bit looser, then a corner opposite a side could flank too. That still would disallow flanking in the first diagram (which I accept), but would allow it in the second one (which I think is necessary).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've attempted to make the diagrams more visually clear for everyone.
Hello everyone! I noticed today that there are some squares from which, by the rules, there is literally no way you can flank an enemy, even if there are no obstacles or walls. Let me show an example of what I mean:
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜⭕⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⚫⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜ = Empty space
⬛ = Solid wall
Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️ = Me
⭕ = NPC
⚫ = AllyI hope this is clear enough, but if you copy this configuration in an actual grid you'll notice that if character ⚫ is in position with a reach weapon and threatens the square where enemy ⭕ is standing, there is no square for Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️, who doesn't have reach, to flank ⭕ with ⚫. The current position may look like they are flanking, but if you trace a line between ⚫ and Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️ from the center of their squares, it doesn't pass through opposite sides or corners of ⭕'s square.
Another example:
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜⭕⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⚫⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛This way may actually look even worse, but by the rules it's actually closer to a flank (but still not quite), because the line between ⚫ and Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️ touches one side and one corner of the opposite side.
So, my first question is: Is this correct? Is there really no way for Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️ to flank unless ⚫ moves? And if the answer is yes: how does that make any sense? I mean, it makes sense by RAW of course, but if you think about it, it doesn't really make sense that the opposite side of an enemy in an open space does not exist (unless Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️ also has reach) when that enemy is ⭕ and the first character is ⚫. Because in the game world it clearly exists, Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️ just has to position 30cm more right to left, but it can't because that position is between 2 squares in the grid.
Isn't the grid supposed to be a tool intended to support the narration, and not to hamper it?
I hope that helps!
Same than Jared, I've always considered that crossing a corner implies crossing both sides simultaneously. Around my tables, your second case provides flanking. And I've seen that ruled all around me (even if I've also seen sometimes GM considering both situations provide flanking).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this would be reasonable. Black circles are all the positions you could Flank with Blue.
.
.
.
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜⭕⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬜⬜⬜⚫⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⚫⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜⭕⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬜⬜⚫⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬜⚫⚫⚫⬜⬛
⬛⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛
⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ravingdork, that helps a lot, thank you!
As for my take: I'm pretty forgiving regarding flanking, and we switch between hexes and squares often anyway. I would have called the first example flanking without a thought, and the second example I would have said "not quite". What's critical is that if Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️ moves up to flank, there must be a valid spot to flank from, RAW be darned. If Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️ is already in place and ⚫ moves in, I might enforce the stricter interpretation because they have the option to follow RAW.
I guess my advice would be to keep it flexible enough to ensure someone moving in can always flank, and the (medium size) enemy can always get out of flank with a single Step.
Lax flanking rules allow shenanigans with whips (that you don't even need proficiency with to provide flanking), but it's fair to specifically allow it for someone who's using a reach option as their main weapon.
Something else to consider: size also screws up with the strict flanking rules sometimes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I count corners as crossing both edges, mostly to prevent this sort of thing, but mathematically you are correct.
Same than Jared, I've always considered that crossing a corner implies crossing both sides simultaneously. Around my tables, your second case provides flanking. And I've seen that ruled all around me (even if I've also seen sometimes GM considering both situations provide flanking).
Mathematically, a side of a square includes the two endpoints of the side, which are adjacent corners of the square. Thus, if a line between the centers of two creatures passes through a side and a corner that is not on that side, the corner would count as part of the opposite side.
Creatures A and B flank creature X in the second diagram.
In real games I also have to determine flanking in three dimensions, since sometimes the PCs are flying or standing on high ground. Then I use the faces of a cube as "sides."
Clearly I am missing something, but what?
That it is person B's turn. They want to provide and benefit from flanking, but person A is not able to move until their turn.
|
|
B|_|_|
_|X|_|
_|_|_|
_|_|A|_|B|_|
_|X|_|
_|_|_|
_|_|A|AFAICT, neither of those are flanking positions, but that does not mean flaking is impossible. A just needs to move 5 ft left for the first case or right for the second and heh presto; flanking. And you specify no walls, so there is nothing preventing their doing that.
Clearly I am missing something, but what?
I said that there is no way for B to flank if A doesn't move, of course if A moves it's possible.
|
|
By the way, in pf1 the rule to flank was 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.
The only difference with pf2 rule is that the thing in brackets "(including corners of those borders)" is not there, but this may mean 2 opposite different things:
-They removed the brackets because it was abvious and redundant
-They removed the brackets because they don't want that case to be flanking anymore
I guess we'll never know