Making "Flanked" a condition: implications?

[Bakkan]

I'm mulling around a possible reworking of how flanking works in my games and wanted to get some input on how it would change the game.

New Rule (Replaces current flanking rules)
If a creature has two enemies threatening him on opposite sides or opposite corners, then he gains the "flanked" condition. Creatures gain a +2 bonus to melee and ranged attack rolls when attacking a flanked creature. Whenever an ability references the creature flanking the target, replace that language with language referring to attacking an enemy with the flanked condition.
Creatures that were immune to flanking or could not be flanked now have "immunity to the flanked condition".

Here are some implications of this rule that I have noticed so far:

When three or more allies are threatening the same creature, as long as two of them are flanking him (in the old sense) then all of them gain the flanking bonus. This means that they don't have to do delays, readied actions, and 5-foot steps to make sure that they get the bonus on all their attacks.
It seems somewhat more "realistic" to me. It seems strange that if a creature is surrounded by 5 enemies, he will have an easier time defending against some of them than others
Rogues, especially ranged rogues, gain a significant power boost. As long as the rogue has two allies flanking the target, he can get ranged sneak attacks reliably.


What are some other implications? Do you think this rule would make the game better or worse?

[Juntao112]

Iron! Heart! Surge!

[Fouredged Sword]

See I prefer to take it a step further and just do "Outnumbered" as a condition. When more than 1 creature threatens your square, you are outnumbered and suffer the penalties.

[Sian]

why not make it easier and make it give the target of the 'flanked' condition a -2 AC instead of those targeting him gaining a +2 ToHit?

[Telonius]

You'd have to re-word Improved Uncanny Dodge. EDIT: Yeah, that wording is going to be really clunky. Something like, "A Rogue of four levels higher than you can bypass your immunity to the flanked condition." Ugh.

Or maybe just make it immunity to flanking, and give Rogue an ability at 12th: Bypass Uncanny Dodge: Your sneak attacks bypass the Uncanny Dodge ability for all characters four levels or more below your Rogue level.

[Psyren]

Iron! Heart! Surge!

*The warblade shields his eyes as both flankers disintegrate in a blinding flash*

[Keneth]

Why would it be more realistic? It might be more practical in game terms, but it's certainly not more realistic. :smallconfused:

[Bakkan]

Iron! Heart! Surge!

Indeed!


See I prefer to take it a step further and just do "Outnumbered" as a condition. When more than 1 creature threatens your square, you are outnumbered and suffer the penalties.

That's certainly the next step. My concern with a rule like that is that it would eliminate almost all tactial movement, which was not my intent. Is this your experince with your games? Also, this would make Island of Blades useless.


why not make it easier and make it give the target of the 'flanked' condition a -2 AC instead of those targeting him gaining a +2 ToHit?

There are subtle differences, msotly in abilities such as Wall of Blades that can completely replace yoru AC. By giving a bonus to the attackers, the flanked condition is still a penalty if one is using an ability like this. Making it modify AC wouldn't make a huge difference, though.


You'd have to re-word Improved Uncanny Dodge. EDIT: Yeah, that wording is going to be really clunky. Something like, "A Rogue of four levels higher than you can bypass your immunity to the flanked condition." Ugh.

Or maybe just make it immunity to flanking, and give Rogue an ability at 12th: Bypass Uncanny Dodge: Your sneak attacks bypass the Uncanny Dodge ability for all characters four levels or more below your Rogue level.

Yeah, the wording for certain abilities like this would have to be reworked. The question would be this: in order for a Rogue to bypass uncanny dodge, would he have to be in a flanking position himself or just have allies in a flanking position?


Why would it be more realistic? It might be more practical in game terms, but it's certainly not more realistic. :smallconfused:

Here's the kind of scenario I'm imagining: A lone swordsman has been hunted and harried by dozens of goblins for hours. They finally trap him, seven goblins with shortswords surrounding him and twenty goblin archers with shortbows and Precise Shot on a ledge 40 feet above him. It is counterintuitive to me that he can more easily defend against one of the goblins in melee than any of the six others, and can defend against all twenty shortbowmen as easily as if he didn't have seven half-pints trying to stab his legs.

[Keneth]

It is counterintuitive to me that he can more easily defend against one of the goblins in melee than any of the six others, and can defend against all twenty shortbowmen as easily as if he didn't have seven half-pints trying to stab his legs.

In a fight, the only really vulnerable spot is your blind spot, and since D&D ignores direction, the blind spot only comes into play whenever you're being flanked (since you can't be facing more than one way). Also, in real life, archers won't shoot into melee, much less be able to do so precisely enough to "sneak attack" anything. :smallbiggrin: