Flanking - 3 Factions

[Thajocoth]

Let's say there are three factions all fighting against one another in the same battle.

:roach::roach::roach::roach::roach:
:roach::thog::elan::redcloak::roach:
:roach::roach::roach::roach::roach:

(Roaches are spacers for empty spaces)

In the above, Elan has an enemy on either side of him, but Redcloak & Thog are also enemies with each other. Is Elan granting them combat advantage? Or would Redcloak & Thog have to be allies for Elan to grant them combat advantage.

[Surrealistik]

Ambiance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip3GBtaIrMk)

http://adreampuppet.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/moses-ten-commandments.jpg


Opposite Sides: To flank an enemy, a creature and at least one of its allies must be adjacent to the enemy and on opposite sides or corners of the enemy's space.

Amen.

[Thajocoth]

So the flanking creatures must be allies...

What about mindless drone-like creatures who might not have a concept of an "ally", like a zombie? Or beasts thinking they're about to get a snack? Too stupid to be able to flank?

[Surrealistik]

Allies is more a mechanical distinction than an IC one. As long as creatures are on the same 'side' then they can flank.

You can rule that creatures are neutral vs each other, like unguided zombies, so they wouldn't flank with each other by the RAW.

[Thajocoth]

Thank you.

[ArcturusV]

Allies is such a vague, dim distinction though. It's not like "I gave you a badge of office and we signed a holy document so we are allies for the day".

... you'd THINK, that they could flank Elan in that example. Here's all that would be required to happen IC to account for it.

"You and me kill this goober bard THEN we'll throw down."

"Alrighty. Thog like squishing bards!"

Then they are allies, committed to the same cause, killing Elan. Doesn't even require any actions taken as talking is a free action that can be done outside initiative.

[Alejandro]

Let's say there are three factions all fighting against one another in the same battle.

:roach::roach::roach::roach::roach:
:roach::thog::elan::redcloak::roach:
:roach::roach::roach::roach::roach:

(Roaches are spacers for empty spaces)

In the above, Elan has an enemy on either side of him, but Redcloak & Thog are also enemies with each other. Is Elan granting them combat advantage? Or would Redcloak & Thog have to be allies for Elan to grant them combat advantage.

This would be more interesting if the roaches were one of the sides involved, because they are flanking in multiple places. :)

[Thajocoth]

Allies is such a vague, dim distinction though. It's not like "I gave you a badge of office and we signed a holy document so we are allies for the day".

... you'd THINK, that they could flank Elan in that example. Here's all that would be required to happen IC to account for it.

"You and me kill this goober bard THEN we'll throw down."

"Alrighty. Thog like squishing bards!"

Then they are allies, committed to the same cause, killing Elan. Doesn't even require any actions taken as talking is a free action that can be done outside initiative.

I was asking because I had an idea for a game inwhich an adventuring party is finding nothing much, and reaches a room mid-battle of another adventuring party fighting the dungeon's monsters, explaining the corpses (which rise up, undead, so there are some light encounters before this) & lack of loot.

The party can help, and while the other party will primarily attack the dungeon's monsters, they will casually attack the player party as well, not caring that they're in their bursts & blasts until the monsters are all dead, then just outright attack the party (unless they're provoked into attacking them outright sooner).

The party that the players stumble upon is of the "murderous hobo" variety, who just wants to kill things & collect loot. They follow no flag or god unless it grants them some bonus. To them, a group of people with loot just walked in, so they simply plan to kill them & take it.

The selfish party would have some decent items, but not be amazing with tactics, as they're not all that great at working together either.

There are, of course, other plot things around all this, like why the corpses the other party killed rise again for this party to kill, the actual plot of the dungeon itself, etc... This is more a "splash of color" encounter than anything else.

I have no campaign right now. I just think of ideas from time to time & store them in my mind for when I do.

[Surrealistik]

So long as you don't make light of 4e Moses and his holy book, it's all good.

[BlckDv]

In one game I play in this has come up many times, as the party is a kind of resistance group, and we have 'Main Enemy' government which many other factions also hate, but many of those factions don't like the resistance either (Splitters!).

Complicating this is that we are ICly very stupid, only one PC (Our Sorcerer) has an Int above ten, and we are upper Paragon. So, our PCs often are bad at remembering who we do and don't like at any time with all the complicated politics.

Our solution to this is ICly the one PC with an Int above 10 has the right to declare "Assigned Friends" and once someone is an assigned friend, we treat them as an ally. Yes, this means when we have PC changes or an NPC tag along with us, one of the scenes we always play out is the Sorcerer telling us all sternly that this is an Assigned Friend and not a practice dummy or sneaky enemy pretending to like us. Oh how I am waiting for the day the DM DOES infiltrate an NPC spy into our ranks.

OOCly the DM allows for you to declare at the start of your turn that you are considering someone an Ally. This lasts until you rescind it which can only be done at the start of another of your turns, or when hit (not targeted) by an attack from them. While they are an Ally, they cannot also be an enemy, so they do not provoke OAs, are not targeted by enemy only powers, etc. The must change on your turn element was added to prevent unintentional power goobing, we rely on the players to avoid intentional cheese, as we all know that IC we are too dumb to be trying to exploit mechanics we don't even really grasp.

[Shatteredtower]

"The enemy of my enemy is my ally," is not incompatible with the RAW. That means if you happen to be fighting a group of troglodytes when a wandering ooze comes by and starts attacking indiscriminately, you're as free to rule that each enemy group can help your party gain flank against the other (and thus can combine to flank you in turn) as you are to say that none of the three factions involved can cooperate thus.

The allies/enemies mechanic works fine as a baseline, but multiple faction interpretations should be based on what is most practical and entertaining. If the game flows more smoothly to keep the factions unallied for all purposes, go for it. If your party thrives on the free-for-all, rule in the opposite direction for multi-faction struggles, but remember your limits before you introduce anything beyond a third group.

The advantage to the sliding ally ruling has to be considered for scenarios such as one featuring a traitor in the party's midst or the doomsday cult and the eldritch abomination they have summoned. In the latter case, there are times it makes sense to have the abomination treat the cultists as enemies even as they continue to treat it as an ally (even after it's devoured half of them).

In the case of the traitor, it's usually easiest to treat said traitor entirely as an ally until the character opts to demonstrate otherwise, but consider a few of the corner cases: opportunity attacks and effects that dominate a creature. The traitor does not have to make an opportunity attack, but should always have that option open against "allies". That will usually reveal the traitor immediately, but the combination of an action point and a Bluff check might be able to overcome that. If your traitor is a rogue who is now dominated, consider that the rules for sneak attack state that it can be used "when you have combat advantage against an enemy", while the rules for a dominated creature state that it does not change who the creature treats as allies or enemies. Whether you rule that the rogue will no longer hold back against "allies" is up to you. (If maintaining the deception is considered a matter of life and death to the traitor, consider a saving throw for the chance to hold back. If it's just perceived as best course of action, let fly.)

Players will try to abuse the flexible interpretation. This is rarely the problem people make it out to be. For example, because "Come and Get It!" pulls enemies to a fighter, some have tried to use it to pull an ally out of a jam by treating them as an enemy. If you're fine with that, great. If you have reservations, consider whether the power would work because the fighter considered a creature to be an enemy or the enemy considered the fighter to be one. (It's probably best to completely avoid circumstances in which a creature the fighter truly considers to be an enemy does not view the fighter as one in kind.)