CA only for the flankers is kinda dumb.

[Ranzear]

Had a 30 minute tirade in my group, rather evenly split, related to flanking and whether a flanked enemy grants combat advantage to everyone or just the two in flanking position. Rules barely suggest the latter, mostly by being vague and poorly worded.

I find this to be lacking from a design and flavor perspective. If someone's defensive attention is divided in two directions, they're gonna have just as much trouble in a third. This also provides much more opportunity to take advantage of the Distant Advantage feat, which lets you earn CA on ranged attack on a flanked enemy without having to hide, which is the context that made me sure that a flanked opponent granted CA to all allies.

What the hell, 4E?

[Ashdate]

Had a 30 minute tirade in my group, rather evenly split, related to flanking and whether a flanked enemy grants combat advantage to everyone or just the two in flanking position. Rules barely suggest the latter, mostly by being vague and poorly worded.

I find this to be lacking from a design and flavor perspective. If someone's defensive attention is divided in two directions, they're gonna have just as much trouble in a third. This also provides much more opportunity to take advantage of the Distant Advantage feat, which lets you earn CA on ranged attack on a flanked enemy without having to hide, which is the context that made me sure that a flanked opponent granted CA to all allies.

What the hell, 4E?

Flanking only occurs if you have an ally on the opposite side of the enemy, and they are able to attack, and only grants it those who are flanking. This is pretty clearly written in the rules, and has been this way since it's introduction in 3rd edition I believe (it has been since at least 3.5, at least according to the d20srd). I don't know what part of the rules you find poorly worded or vague, but would invite discussion on it if you wish.

Also, you are misinterpreting the Distant Advantage feat. If you are hiding and attack an enemy, you gain combat advantage regardless of whether someone is flanking your target or not (you cannot gain combat advantage "twice"). Regardless, even if you assume that flanking grants CA to all melee attacks, it still doesn't make the feat any better or worse (as it doens't care whether you flank with 2 or 3 allies).

If it bothers you, you could house-rule it otherwise I suppose.

[Ranzear]

Yeah the first two parts I'm well aware of, but the third part, only granting CA to the characters doing the flank, only seems to be implied by the phrasing "You have combat advantage against an enemy you flank."

The only other intent I find towards this is PH 280 where it says "It’s possible for a single creature to be adjacent to one enemy that has combat advantage against it and a second enemy that does not." This does tell me well enough of the intent that CA is not granted to all allies on a flanked opponent, but at the same time I just sorta scratch my head at why.

I did misread Distant Advantage (the summary version in the tables will do that to you every time), but then that seems just redundant when, like you said, you can hide for combat advantage with ranged attacks anyway.

Can you see where I'm coming from with this though? If you have a group of three front-line sorts of characters, only two of them can flank at a time (except on large+ targets) and one will always be left in the cold!

As my interpretation was, and how my programmatic houserule might go, a flanked enemy gains a status of 'flanked', which states that they grant combat advantage to all melee attacks directed at them. This followed with my glancing interpretation of Distant Advantage, from the misleading table summary, that such an enemy with that flanked status would also give CA to ranged attacks to the character with that feat.

I just passed it off as silly that only the two on opposite sides got anything out of a flank, which flows nicely into pointing out other silliness this may cause like having an optimal front-line of either 2 or 4 members so flanks can be made and CA gained by all of them, no third or fifth wheel.

So really, as you put it, this seems more like a grandfathered rule from third edition than some properly considered game design. When a Rogue has to tell the Warlord to get the hell out of the way so he can get his sneak attack dice, something is wrong.

Simpler stab at it: You get surrounded by seven attackers. Why would only six of them have a bonus towards hitting you?

[Kurald Galain]

Well, another RPG I used to play simply had an "outnumbered" rule; that is, whenever you're fighting more than one opponent in melee at the same time, you suffer substantial penalties for each additional opponent. That worked out pretty well.

Of course, that was a game without a board and miniatures, but still.

[Philistine]

You know there are more ways to gain CA than just flanking, right? What is the Controller doing during all this?

[BlckDv]

Also bear in mind that a wide variety of feats and powers provide modifications to the base flanking. With minimal effort a PC can:

Give the flanking bonus to allies when he is a flanker.
Flank from one square away when using a reach weapon.
Benefit from flanking when any other ally is adjacent (not opposite) the same enemy.
Gain a +3 instead of +2 from flanking.

Those are just a few of the ways flanking can be modified, and the first or third options would easily solve the "odd man" issue you were worried over.

Remember that flanking is opposite side, not opposite square, so on a Huge (3x3) monster, you could have a Defender on one side, and three strikers on the other side all with flanking.

[Ashdate]

The only other intent I find towards this is PH 280 where it says "It’s possible for a single creature to be adjacent to one enemy that has combat advantage against it and a second enemy that does not." This does tell me well enough of the intent that CA is not granted to all allies on a flanked opponent, but at the same time I just sorta scratch my head at why.

I can only speculate, but a few thing come to mind.

1) That's how flanking worked in 3.5, and there was (to my knowledge) never a real problem with that. Switching from 3.5 to 4e has enough pain and groans a it is (such as diagonal movement); unless there was a pressing need to change how flanking worked, why would they?

2) Combat advantage occurs while flanking (fluff wise) because creatures don't tend to have 360 degree vision (notice that many monsters that do cannot be flanked). Your reasoning is that in a scenario that looks like this:

**B

A*X*C

If "A" and "C" should get a flanking bonus, then "B" should too. Remembering that these are five foot increments, the theory would therefore be that "B" doesn't get combat advantage for flanking because when B is attacking, you can keep an eye on both A and C, to ensure that they don't sneak a stray hit in. Similarly, a creature could keep an eye on "B" when be attacked from "A" or "C" (as they could remain in their field of vision), but focusing on "A" drops "C" from their sight.

Is it a perfect system? No, but it's trying to approximate a situation in combat with a clean and elegant rule. There must be some trade-off between realism and quick functionality. Also, please keep in mind that flanking is more than just a simple +2 to hit; it's also an effective way of keeping an enemy in one spot, a disengaging becomes very difficult without suffering multiple attacks of opportunity (i.e. you can't shift and then move to avoid them if you're flanked).

3) Combat Advantage is a VERY easy condition to get in 4th edition. If not from flanking, you can get it from the enemy being afflicted by numerous conditions (dazed, prone, restrained, stunned), numerous powers that grant it outright (too many to list), and feats (such as Wintertouched and Distant Advantage). Adding yet another way to obtain it may diminish the worth of many abilities.


I did misread Distant Advantage (the summary version in the tables will do that to you every time), but then that seems just redundant when, like you said, you can hide for combat advantage with ranged attacks anyway.

No, Distant Advantage does have a purpose; I'm not sure whether you read the feat properly or not, so here is how it works, spoiled for space:

I believe I misread your issue with it (I thought you were under the impression that hiding was somehow a requirement for a ranged attacker to gain CA, although it certainly is one of the way they can do so). Normally ranged attacks cannot benefit from "flanking", as being in melee range would provoke an attack of opportunity from the flankee (you would still get a +2 to hit, but that might not be worth an axe to the face). Distant Advantage allows you to gain combat advantage with a ranged attack if the enemy you're targeting is being flanked by your allies, even if you're a safe distance away from the enemy.


Simpler stab at it: You get surrounded by seven attackers. Why would only six of them have a bonus towards hitting you?

Let me posit that if an enemy is surrounded by seven attackers, complaining that one of your allies isn't getting a CA is kind of whining at that point (not to mention some minor shifting would allow all 7 attackers to gain CA). Unless that enemy is Orcus in disguise, you've probably won. Save the rule whining and take your victory.

[obryn]

I absolutely see where you're coming from. The best way to think about it, IMO, is that there are no facing rules in 3.5 or 4e D&D. (Technically, 3.0 didn't have them either, but there was some weird implied facing with irregularly-sized minis for horses and the like.)

Flanking is just a way to incorporate facing rules without all the technical tracking of which way a PC or monster is actually facing at any given time. It's assumed you line up so (1) you are facing an enemy, and (2) nobody's directly at your back if that's at all possible; when you're flanked, this makes it impossible. Given this, if you have 7 people surrounding you, which one do you face? Well, whichever will leave you with nobody at your rear. So that one doesn't get the CA.

It's arbitrary and abstract, but welcome to D&D. (Please meet flanking's arbitrary and abstract friends Mr. Initiative and Mrs. Hitpoint!)

-O

[CarpeGuitarrem]

...I can't believe I never made the connect between flanking and facing before.

[Snowbody]

Can you see where I'm coming from with this though? If you have a group of three front-line sorts of characters, only two of them can flank at a time (except on large+ targets) and one will always be left in the cold!

Nope. All three get CA from flanking -- just not on the same turn.

P1, P2, and P3 are surrounding E, on the edges (not the corners), with P1 and P3 currently flanking on opposite sides. P1 attacks with CA, then shifts to break the flank with P3 and establish a flank with P2. P2 attacks with CA, then shifts to break the flank with P1 and establish a flank with P3. P3 attacks with CA, then shifts to establish a flank with P1.

{table]|P1|
P2|E|
|P3|[/table]

{table]||
P2|E|P1
|p3|[/table]

{table]|P2|
|E|P1
|P3|[/table]


It very successfully captures the feel of three attackers hounding an enemy, circling it and keeping it off balance by always attacking from a direction where it's not looking.

[Ranzear]

Didn't really think of shifting to change flank arrangement, which is plenty flavorful to put the rules in a favorable light to me and is something they did to take down my boss anyway. Thanks a bunch guys!


What brought this up at any rate was when a Hobgoblin Commander used Tactical Deployment to move two Goblin Skullcleavers into flanking positions in the 'Tee' shape exactly as above (Commander in a proper position). Both Skullcleavers were bloodied and so were in 'dumb' mode and wouldn't shift to flank otherwise, plus the north square was blocked by terrain. Ranger they jumped was knocked flat anyway, I think the proper-rules not-flanking cleaver might have missed anyway.

So with that, it does sorta go the other way: Someone with their back to a wall is gonna have no trouble with the person in front of them, but the ones to either side might have an advantage.

[HalfGrammarGeek]

So with that, it does sorta go the other way: Someone with their back to a wall is gonna have no trouble with the person in front of them, but the ones to either side might have an advantage.
Right. On the other hand, I share your fundamental misgivings. While the necessity to play musical squares around an enemy in order to grant all three attackers CA can be explained as "hounding and circling" as Snowbody mentioned, well...those things are already assumed to be happening. Remember that combat is abstract, so everyone is already assumed to be dodging, darting and generally being all shifty. I suppose there are degrees of shiftiness, but it's still bizarre that as soon as three attackers become four, nobody has to play musical squares to get CA...until a fifth attacker enters the scene.

Personally I house rule flanking, in part for this very reason. So long as an attacker has an ally separated by more than 90 degrees around their target, they get CA. In this way, there's no third-, fifth-, or seventh-man out of a flankgank.

[Akodo Makama]

Don't forget the worst flanking rule offender, the completely surrounded, yet completely 'safe' enemy:
{table]|P2|
|E|
P1||P3[/table]

Now, when I look at this, I first think "Damn, no one has CA". Then I think "But, any sane GM will let someone have it".

And I think the rule is written this way to allow the GM to 'play the good guy' and give the players something the rules don't. If they wrote the rules more permissive, they might accidentally let the players get CA in places where they, logically, shouldn't, and force the GM to 'play the bad guy' and say "No, not this time".

As a GM, I'd rather have a rule that lets me give the players extras from time to time than one that forces me to take stuff away.

[Ashdate]

Now, when I look at this, I first think "Damn, no one has CA". Then I think "But, any sane GM will let someone have it".

I'll be honest, with how easy it is to get flanking in 4e without drawing attacks of opportunity (thanks to diagonal movement being 1 square, always, and lots of easy short-range teleportation), in the situation you describe I totally would not give players a flanking bonus. Why should I? If they want it so badly, they can just go out and get it. If they choose not to flank in that situation, 9/10 it's their own damn fault (and the other 1/10 times it's not worth having a specific rule for).

[obryn]

I totally would not give players a flanking bonus.
Me either. No way. If they want CA from flanking, they should work for it.

-O

[Epinephrine]

Simpler stab at it: You get surrounded by seven attackers. Why would only six of them have a bonus towards hitting you?

You won't, at least one will attack and shift, giving another a chance to shift then attack.

Heck, both my players and their enemies generally do things like move into position, then ready to attack when their ally (who acts next) moves into position, so that both get CA on setting up the flank. They then generally move about to ensure that everyone gains CA.