-
-
-
-
Imagine two Huge enemies standing to either side of you, trying to flank you. At first, it looks like the line from the center of one enemy to the center of the other easily goes through your space.
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
But if you consider the 3D space and view the enemies from the side, it seems the line sails above your head completely.
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬛⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
And each enemy can't just choose a square they occupy to take the center of. Center of the creature's space means center of the entire space as demonstrated by this ogre.
Then again, as soon as 3D flanking is introduced, it's recommended that the GM just make a judgement call. And since Foundry doesn't seem to care, I might not care either.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recommend never worrying about this because it will make your life much easier. (Also, in-fiction, it doesn't make much sense.)
(Also, in-fiction, it doesn't make much sense.)
Well, the reason flanking is a threat is because you theoretically can't look at both enemies at once. So if they're so big that you actually can, I guess it could make sense that they wouldn't benefit from flanking.
(Also, in-fiction, it doesn't make much sense.)Well, the reason flanking is a threat is because you theoretically can't look at both enemies at once. So if they're so big that you actually can, I guess it could make sense that they wouldn't benefit from flanking.
Flanking exists more because you can't reliably defend from two opposing positions, which these two huge creatures occupy. Given that there is no "facing" in this game compared to games like Battletech, the argument of "you can't see both enemies reasonably" kind of falls apart.
Just as well, when a Large or larger creature attacks, they choose which of its squares it attacks from, and all of their squares count as a valid space to provide flanking from, since you can also attack any of their occupied spaces.
Extending it further, one of the Huge creatures would have to be Invisible for there to be no flanking. And that is solely because the Medium creature does not know that the creature is in that square; said Medium creature would still be off-guard from the Invisible one, though. It would need to succeed at a Seek check to know it's location, and even then that would make them flanked by being aware of their physical location, making Seek a trap action in this case.
AIUI, Howl of the Wild is going to introduce many tiny playable ancestries, in the form of awakened animals. Be aware that if you go down this logic road, they're all going to be unflankable by medium opponents.Flanking of and by tiny creatures is almost completely undetermined anyway. Can you flank tiny creature in your ally's space with that ally? Can 0 reach tiny creatures flank at all? They can't be in opposite spaces to any creature. How can tiny creatures flank each other?
Tiny creatures cannot provide or benefit from flanking unless they are also wielding a Reach weapon.
Flanking exists more because you can't reliably defend from two opposing positions, which these two huge creatures occupy. Given that there is no "facing" in this game compared to games like Battletech, the argument of "you can't see both enemies reasonably" kind of falls apart.
The point about it not technically depending on sight is fair, but I thought the whole in-universe reason that all-around vision makes you immune to flanking is that you can see in all directions at once rather than having to turn your head constantly in battle.
Just as well, when a Large or larger creature attacks, they choose which of its squares it attacks from, and all of their squares count as a valid space to provide flanking from, since you can also attack any of their occupied spaces.
The flanking rules state that you use the center of your space and the center of the ally's space to determine flanking. Refer to the flanking diagram again. The demonstration makes it clear that only the center of the ogre's entire space matters.
Extending it further, one of the Huge creatures would have to be Invisible for there to be no flanking. And that is solely because the Medium creature does not know that the creature is in that square; said Medium creature would still be off-guard from the Invisible one, though. It would need to succeed at a Seek check to know it's location, and even then that would make them flanked by being aware of their physical location, making Seek a trap action in this case.
I don't think flanking is affected by the target's awareness of the flanking creatures. I guess that can be weird though. If a flanked PC is unaware of the invisible enemy's position as the visible enemy attacked, then I guess the GM would just say "You are off-guard for reasons unknown." Or perhaps they could say "You feel an enemy breathing down your neck. You are actually being flanked!"
Flanking of and by tiny creatures is almost completely undetermined anyway.Right, but OP just proposed a way to determine it, and using that way, they'd be unflankable because the centerpoint of their opponents would be above their heads. So I think my warning is relevant: IF SuperParkourio is going to use 3-D 'height' to assess flanking, be aware that this could create many more 'unflankable' situations than just the odd situation of a medium PC being flanked by two ogres, and it could create a mechanistic way for the players in his home game to select an ancestry which makes their PCs unflankable by most opponents. Which is probably not RAI nor what most GMs would accept.
Would Tiny PCs actually be unflankable?
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
The line between the centers of these two Medium creatures viewed from the side perhaps isn't going through opposite corners, but is it at least going through opposite sides? Or can a line going through a corner not also count as going through the adjacent sides?
Would Tiny PCs actually be unflankable?
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
The line between the centers of these two Medium creatures viewed from the side perhaps isn't going through opposite corners...There you go. Applying the requirement to your concept, the M-dot is not flankable. In fact a line drawn between each center of four black dots doesn't pass through any part of the M-dot.
But, maybe there is a simpler way to say "don't do this". Per the flanking rules, "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." It says the creatures space. Not cube. Not the centerpoint of the creature itself. Just their space. The rules are telling you to do it 2-D; they are referencing the creatures' map space, not the center of mass of the creature or whatever. So do what the rules say to do, and use the squares on the map to calculate flanking.
Now yes, there are rules for 3-D flanking. Three opponents on a flat surface banging each other with clubs are not what they are intended for; those rules are for flying griffons and the like. Morover, the 3-D rules say "In these cases, it's usually best to have the GM make the call on who's flanking rather than trying to do meticulous measurements in three dimensions." I would note that what you are trying to do here is meticulous measurements in three dimensions - exactly what the rules recommend against.
I agree with your conclusion, but I don't understand what you're saying in your first paragraph. Why isn't the line touching any part of the Tiny creature's cube?
It touches. It runs along the edge. But the rules say "pass through", not "touches." I guess I can retract my first sentence as persnickety, particularly since I'd defend a more abstract, not-solely-geometrical concept of flanking. But on exact 2-D geometry, even eliminating the spacing between the cubes, a straight line drawn between the centers of the black never crosses over the perpendicular faces of the M-cube. They'd instead exactly trace over the parallel edge of it.
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬛⬛⬜⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬛⬛Ⓜ️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️️⬜⬛⬛⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜[edited for brevity]
Why isn't the line touching any part of the Tiny creature's cube?
Come to think of it, doesn't it look exactly like this with a bird's eye view, too? The Medium creatures would have to stand specifically to the southwest and northeast to flank a Tiny creature whose space takes up the southwest portion of its square. Or perhaps the Tiny creature simply treats the entire 5 foot square as it's space?
Flanking exists more because you can't reliably defend from two opposing positions, which these two huge creatures occupy. Given that there is no "facing" in this game compared to games like Battletech, the argument of "you can't see both enemies reasonably" kind of falls apart.The point about it not technically depending on sight is fair, but I thought the whole in-universe reason that all-around vision makes you immune to flanking is that you can see in all directions at once rather than having to turn your head constantly in battle.
Just as well, when a Large or larger creature attacks, they choose which of its squares it attacks from, and all of their squares count as a valid space to provide flanking from, since you can also attack any of their occupied spaces.The flanking rules state that you use the center of your space and the center of the ally's space to determine flanking. Refer to the flanking diagram again. The demonstration makes it clear that only the center of the ogre's entire space matters.
Extending it further, one of the Huge creatures would have to be Invisible for there to be no flanking. And that is solely because the Medium creature does not know that the creature is in that square; said Medium creature would still be off-guard from the Invisible one, though. It would need to succeed at a Seek check to know it's location, and even then that would make them flanked by being aware of their physical location, making Seek a trap action in this case.I don't think flanking is affected by the target's awareness of the flanking creatures. I guess that can be weird though. If a flanked PC is unaware of the invisible enemy's position as the visible enemy attacked, then I guess the GM would just say "You are off-guard for reasons unknown." Or perhaps they could say "You feel...
All-around Vision is basically a strictly mechanical thing, since it's description doesn't add anything special compared to what the mechanics already permit us to do. If you are in an open field of combat, you can see all of the combatants and the actions they are taking; All-around Vision isn't required for this, whereas thematically it should be. An argument could be that you are constantly turning your head/twisting your body, but it likewise falls apart if you are Restrained, Paralyzed, Petrified, etc.
The diagram refers that you are on opposite sides of a large creature and that the line goes through the entire space of the creature; it also doesn't have examples of large creatures flanking with other large creatures, so it's not exactly as conclusive as you make it out to be. I don't have a Core available, and Nethys somehow can't reference Reach/Size rules with a search, so I'll call it a wash at this point.
How is it not? To defend against a threat you have to be aware the threat is there; this is why characters are automatically Off-Guard to Undetected/Unnoticed creatures, and why Invisibility is a common way to constantly have Off-Guard targets, because they don't know where the attacks precisely are coming from.
The only way such a creature could cause flanking or ignore the Off-Guard condition imposed by the Invisible creature is if the Invisible creature is merely Hidden/Concealed by the target, which requires Seek actions or a See the Unseen spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assert that most medium creatures are more than five feet tall. As such, their spaces (which inherently include more physical space than they consume with their physical volume) would actually be two five foot squares stacked on top of one another, and therefore flankable by huge creatures.
There you go. problem solved.
What, small ancestries? Don't be ridiculous. No such thing.
2. A tiny creature using a reach weapon occupies the square next to you. Again, the flanking rules reference squares, not critter dimensions. By RAW, it does not matter if the flanked being is a microbe or a 5x5x5gelatinous cubesemiviscous hexahedron, for both the flanking rules are the same; you draw lines between your square and their square to determine flanking. Do not bother thinking about creature bodily dimensions, by RAW, they don't matter. It's the squares.
I'm talking about a Tiny creature being flanked. Also, you are conflating the words "square" and "space". Your space is everything you occupy. If a Tiny creature's space is its entire square, then there's no problem for Medium creatures trying to flank it. If it's just a quadrant, flanking the Tiny creature just gets weird.
...Flanking exists more because you can't reliably defend from two opposing positions, which these two huge creatures occupy. Given that there is no "facing" in this game compared to games like Battletech, the argument of "you can't see both enemies reasonably" kind of falls apart.The point about it not technically depending on sight is fair, but I thought the whole in-universe reason that all-around vision makes you immune to flanking is that you can see in all directions at once rather than having to turn your head constantly in battle.
Just as well, when a Large or larger creature attacks, they choose which of its squares it attacks from, and all of their squares count as a valid space to provide flanking from, since you can also attack any of their occupied spaces.The flanking rules state that you use the center of your space and the center of the ally's space to determine flanking. Refer to the flanking diagram again. The demonstration makes it clear that only the center of the ogre's entire space matters.
Extending it further, one of the Huge creatures would have to be Invisible for there to be no flanking. And that is solely because the Medium creature does not know that the creature is in that square; said Medium creature would still be off-guard from the Invisible one, though. It would need to succeed at a Seek check to know it's location, and even then that would make them flanked by being aware of their physical location, making Seek a trap action in this case.I don't think flanking is affected by the target's awareness of the flanking creatures. I guess that can be weird though. If a flanked PC is unaware of the invisible enemy's position as the visible enemy attacked, then I guess the GM would just say "You are off-guard for reasons unknown." Or
That bit about all-around vision is what I was trying to say. I was using it as a possible explanation for why two Huge creatures would have their size handicap their attempts to flank. Yes, even creatures without all-around vision can see in all directions.
The flanking rules are consistent with the cover rules in their treatment of the center of your space as the center of all the space you mechanically occupy.
I'm saying in the Invisible flanking example that the creature being flanked wouldn't be immune specifically to the flanking by being blissfully unaware that there is another creature adjacent to them. I don't know whether awareness is the in-universe explanation for flanking, though. It just says it's harder to defend yourself when flanked. Then again, the rule about all-around vision says such a creature is harder to distract, so maybe it is about awareness after all.
I'm talking about a Tiny creature being flanked.The rules don't specifically talk about what two medium opponents can do against a tiny creature in the same space with one of them. Again, I would advise working with your GM to come up with a set of easily applied rules, rather than trying to solve it using geometry. The RAW does specifically say that tiny creatures without reach weapons cannot usually flank: "This makes a Tiny creature unable to flank unless it's able to use a weapon with reach or has a melee unarmed attack with reach greater than 0 feet."
If a Tiny creature's space is its entire square, then there's no problem for Medium creatures trying to flank it. If it's just a quadrant, flanking the Tiny creature just gets weird.AIUI, a tiny creature with a reach weapon is considered to be occupying the entire space. There is nothing in the rules about quadrants or about subdividing combat grid spaces into smaller sections for tiny opponents. Don't take this the wrong way, but I think your idea of doing that makes the flanking determination much harder than it needs to be.
***
This discussion and the upcoming Howl of the Wild opening up the design space to tons of animals has me hoping that Paizo will revisit this subject. The current system is totally fine when tiny opponents and PCs are rare, but maybe not what mechanics-oriented players would find satisfying if the issue is coming up in every combat encounter. But...I'm not holding my breath.
My hypothetical never entailed the Tiny creature having a reach weapon or occupying anyone else's square. I don't know where you got that idea.
Especially given the examples in the book for flanking use a large size Ogre, I'm pretty sure height of the creature is irrelevant
Actually, the examples in the book use exactly one Large ogre. So it's being measured from a point 5 feet above ground to a point 2.5 feet above ground. The resulting line easily passes through a Medium creature's space, even in 3D.
There are a few a "secret rules" in Pathfinder.
- Don't make things 3D if you don't need to. Repositioning is generally along the ground, measure from where a creature is standing, etc.
- The rules generally assume medium size with a land speed and two hands.
In the multiple huge creatures situation, the line test fails. But, the huge creatures are obviously on opposite sides of the medium creature, so flanking should apply.
I have been avoiding this thread all day.
I finally got bored enough to open it.
I now regret doing so.
Please try to remember that the game rules are only an approximation of reality that we use to tell stories with. Not source code for a reality simulator.
The purpose of having formal game rules is to prevent the escalating randomness of 'pass the narrator baton' style campfire storytelling games. Not to exhaustively limit the story itself.
Whaaaaaat? You want to tell me my characters are NOT exactly 5x5x5 feet tall, wide, and thick respectively?!I have been avoiding this thread all day.
I finally got bored enough to open it.
I now regret doing so.
Please try to remember that the game rules are only an approximation of reality that we use to tell stories with. Not source code for a reality simulator.
The purpose of having formal game rules is to prevent the escalating randomness of 'pass the narrator baton' style campfire storytelling games. Not to exhaustively limit the story itself.
To be fair, mechanically, that would seem to be the case, based on this entry in regards to Size, Space, and Reach.
The Space entry lists how many feet on a side a creature's space is, so a Large creature fills a 10-foot by 10-foot space, or 4 squares on the grid. (If you need to measure in three dimensions, their space is also 10 feet high.)
Extrapolating the parenthetical, a Medium creature filling a 5x5 foot space would likewise be 5x5x5 in a three dimensional grid, should the rules require it. As for the argument of "What about 6-8 foot tall creatures?" I would refer to the "What about 3-4 foot tall creatures?" argument, since it's basically the same thing except in reverse. Keeping it both simple and consistent between creatures of all varying sizes and shapes is probably the best way to go about this kind of thing, since sizes in this game aren't really meant to be that finite. (There is also the whole High Jump/Long Jump issue, but that is for another thread.)
As a GM, I would really only enforce the 5x5x5 rule for Reach purposes in combat, since enforcing it for other purposes is either already done in their own special rules (such as squeezing), or is already in GM FIAT territory anyway, in which case I probably would care less what the GM decides to rule in favor of.
That bit about all-around vision is what I was trying to say. I was using it as a possible explanation for why two Huge creatures would have their size handicap their attempts to flank. Yes, even creatures without all-around vision can see in all directions.
The flanking rules are consistent with the cover rules in their treatment of the center of your space as the center of all the space you mechanically occupy.
I'm saying in the Invisible flanking example that the creature being flanked wouldn't be immune specifically to the flanking by being blissfully unaware that there is another creature adjacent to them. I don't know whether awareness is the in-universe explanation for flanking, though. It just says it's harder to defend yourself when flanked. Then again, the rule about all-around vision says such a creature is harder to distract, so maybe it is about awareness after all.
To me, I don't think the rules intended that to be the case; why should being larger mean you can't threaten a creature properly? It falls under TBTBT. "You are a threat based on your position, but if you grew in size, you would fail to be an opposing threat to the creature even though your position doesn't really change," sounds really, really stupid to me. I could extrapolate this further by arguing that you couldn't flank in a 3D space unless everyone is on the same elevation, which is equally dumb in my opinion, but I can definitely see the RAW supporting this. **EDIT** I also forgot to consider that, since the Huge creatures are 15 feet tall, that means their line would also start at an elevation of 7.5 feet, meaning they could never flank creatures that are more than 1 size smaller than them unless they start at a lower elevation, further enforcing the TBTBT argument.
They are not. Flank rules require that you are on opposite sides of a creature, and that you can draw a line passing through the entire space. (You wouldn't technically need to be directly opposite the creature either, in certain circumstances, as long as the line goes from one edge to the opposite edge.) Cover rules, on the other hand, only require that the attack passes through a given creature's/object's space. Even if only partially, it still counts.
The issue becomes that Flanking requires both conditions; you need to be aware of your attackers, and you need to be threatened by your attackers in melee combat. If there are two invisible creatures that flank me, and I fail to perceive them, they are Unnoticed. Even if I am aware that there are Invisible creatures, but I do not know their spaces, they are Undetected. Because I do not perceive them in either case, I have no reason to protect against them, making me Off-Guard to both. If both entities attack me while flanking, and break their Invisibility, I am now Flanked, because now I perceive the attackers, and they physically threaten me based on their position. Invisibility trumps Flanking by default unless I have an ability/action that lets me see Invisible creatures.
yes, I was obviously joking when I posted it.
...if we want to go strict RAW, it never mentions "cubes" it only mentions "squares", so you shouldn't worry about the 3rd dimension at all.
That's fair. But to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody did try to make that argument, even if on the basis that they wrote down a value other than 5' on their character sheet for their height, and it works both ways, whether it's "I'm 8 feet tall, I should be able to reach creatures 10-15 feet in the air," or "I'm 3 feet tall, they can only reach me when they're 5 feet in the air (or hovering on the ground)."
Although this last part is somewhat reducto ad absurdum, the issue becomes that the game does point out that there may be instances where you would need to function in a three dimensional space. Otherwise, the rules wouldn't need to include a parenthetical about measuring in three dimensions if the concept is three dimensions was never meant to come up in the game. (And this isn't the only place where it discusses what to do when such a situation comes up.)
Take as an example a huge, or even worse, a gargantuan, dragon, on the ground, the Barbarian charges in, and the GM goes "well yes... but! you can only hit the dragon's ankle, since you don't reach anything else."
What's wrong with hitting the dragon's ankle? The dragon doesn't have particular body parts with different effects when targeted.
To me, I don't think the rules intended that to be the case; why should being larger mean you can't threaten a creature properly? It falls under TBTBT. "You are a threat based on your position, but if you grew in size, you would fail to be an opposing threat to the creature even though your position doesn't really change," sounds really, really stupid to me. I could extrapolate this further by arguing that you couldn't flank in a 3D space unless everyone is on the same elevation, which is equally dumb in my opinion, but I can definitely see the RAW supporting this. **EDIT** I also forgot to consider that, since the Huge creatures are 15 feet tall, that means their line would also start at an elevation of 7.5 feet, meaning they could never flank creatures that are more than 1 size smaller than them unless they start at a lower elevation, further enforcing the TBTBT argument.
Not gonna argue with this. It probably shouldn't take being able to Fly hundreds of feet in the air to get flanked by two Godzillas.
They are not. Flank rules require that you are on opposite sides of a creature, and that you can draw a line passing through the entire space. (You wouldn't technically need to be directly opposite the creature either, in certain circumstances, as long as the line goes from one edge to the opposite edge.) Cover rules, on the other hand, only require that the attack passes through a given creature's/object's space. Even if only partially, it still counts.
That's not the part of the cover rules I'm talking about. To determine cover (when precision is necessary), a line is drawn from the center of your space to the center of the target's space. To determine flanking, a line is drawn from the center of your space to the center of the ally's space. These lines are not used in the same way, but they are drawn in the same way. What matters is the center of your space, not the center of one square you occupy (unless you occupy only one square).
The issue becomes that Flanking requires both conditions; you need to be aware of your attackers, and you need to be threatened by your attackers in melee combat. If there are two invisible creatures that flank me, and I fail to perceive them, they are Unnoticed. Even if I am aware that there are Invisible creatures, but I do not know their spaces, they are Undetected. Because I do not perceive them in either case, I have no reason to protect against them, making me Off-Guard to both. If both entities attack me while flanking, and break their Invisibility, I am now Flanked, because now I perceive the attackers, and they physically threaten me based on their position. Invisibility trumps Flanking by default unless I have an ability/action that lets me see Invisible creatures.
What are you taking issue with? Should flanking function regardless of the undetected condition so that an observed creature doesn't miss out if their ally is undetected? Because flanking technically does not include awareness or sense as a requirement. Or do you want flanking to only function if neither you nor your ally are undetected?
Similarly, to how you swing against squares and not ankles, you use squares, and not height, to find stuff like off guard for the same exact reasons. Being sandwitched between two huge creatures is not less life threatening just because the center of the cube is higher.
Ok, sure. Maybe the 3D flanking rules aren't meant for when all combatants are standing at the same elevation. But it's still the center of the entire space (2D or 3D) that is used to determine flanking. If two Huge creatures were standing opposite 3 Medium creatures, only the middle Medium creature should be flanked at most.
Conceding that a bird's eye view is all we need to determine flanking in cases that don't require a 3D perspective, I should still make clear that the flanking rules explicitly say to use the center of your space. Not just one 5x5 square, the entire space. Even if we don't care how high the center is, we still don't pick and choose individual squares within the space to determine flanking. Only the very center of the space matters.
See Size, Space, and Reach for more elaboration on the difference between a creature's space and the squares that comprise it.