[4e] Extended Flanking

[Yakk]

Your target is in the square marked T.

You have an ally in the square marked X.

You can flank if you are in any of the positions marked F:

.FF
.TF
X..

FFF
.T.
.X.

Thoughts? Complaints?

This can be summed up with the rule "if any corner-to-corner line between your square and any allied square passes through two opposing sides of your target, you have the target flanked".

[Viruzzo]

I don't see the need to increase flanking possibilities... With that system and a pinch of tactical movement you would get flanking for everyone around the enemy.

[AKA_Bait]

Funny, that's how I already used flanking. Never caused any problems.

[Saph]

Hmm. Makes flanking much easier, to the point where probably the majority of melee attacks will have combat advantage one way or the other (as long as there are allies around).

Gives a significant boost to Rogues (they're less likely to need to draw AoO's) and a small boost to minions/skirmishers (they should pretty much all be able to gain flanking.

What's the objective of the rule?

- Saph

[Yakk]

Generally, the flanking rules are pretty gamey. There are multiple particular examples that generate bad results. This is one of the worst ones:

A.B
.T.
.C.

.A.
BT.
..C

None of the attackers (ABC) in the above case are in flanking positions, despite it being (in a non-gamist sense) the ideal way to surround the target T.

Currently, flanking is very gamist -- each opponent of a medium or smaller target opens up exactly 1 flanking spot. You move exactly there, or gain no advantage. And this means that only an even number of players can flank a given target -- someone nearly completely surrounded:

XXX
XTX
XX.

actually has someone who isn't flanking them!

With the above system, so long as both of you are on "opposed" sides of your target, you are flanking.

Let's look at the typical "wall of defense" cases

xxXxxxXxx
XF.f.f.FX
.........

xxXxxxXxx
.f.FXF.f.
.........

XxxxXxxxX
.FXF.FXF.
.........

XxXxXxXxX
XfXFXFXFX
.........

xxXXXxXXx
.f.F.f.F.
...X....X

Those involved the the flank are capitalized, those lower case are not. I don't see an objectionable case...

About the only really questionable case is:

.X.
.F.
..X

which, honestly, isn't that bad. I'd hate to be F with people at a 270 degree angle to me attacking me...

[Viruzzo]

If you are implying that your system is more realistic (as opposed to gamist), it's a poor justification in D&D, which is not realistic to begin with. Still, I don't see why the normal system seems so much gamist: the enemy doesn't have a "facing" direction, and is supposed to move around to defend himself. He is unable to do so only with opponents that are in opposite directions, else anytime he is attacked, he doesn't necessarily expose his back and as such is not flanked.

[Tengu_temp]

I thought that flanking works like this proposed rule for a fairly long while... anyway, I think this is unnecessary. With tactical movement characters who want to flank enemies will do so anyway, and this houserule gives a very big advantage to minions and other enemies that attack in large numbers.

[Yakk]

I was checking it against realism, not saying realism says it should happen.

The problem with the gamist matter is that it it a reasonably important thing that hits you over the head again and again during a fight. There is one specific spot that is open to flank given a single ally attacking a target.

I found that, in the last combat I engaged in, this "one spot" effect lead to creatures that didn't move around to get advantage as much as one might hope. Pushing/pulling a creature out of the "sweet spot" becomes extremely questionable.

If you look at the "dotted defensive line" in my previous post, you'll note that with extended flanking the "more flanking" you have, the more creatures in the front-line can flank a target. 1 can flank if you are on a side, 2 if you are angle-behind, and 3 if you are directly behind. This is a nice tactical boost to being "more behind" the enemy line.

In essence, this encourages moving around, gives more flexibility to the push-pull powers setting up flanks, and increases rogue choice (rogues are already supposed to have CA nearly every round -- this just means that the Rogue doesn't have a single magic square it has to move into, but rather a set of squares on the opposite side of the critter).

[Viruzzo]

I see your reasons, but still it makes most IMO too easy to flank... Maybe it can be restricted to Rogues and/or to a talent? Improved Flanking...

As for straining the "suspension of not making sense", it's a game. One that focuses on balance more than on realism, and that is the thing to take into account before modifying any rule.

[Yakk]

Balance effects:

All melee monsters and characters tend to get combat advantage more often (worth +2 to hit, and activates sneak attack for Rogues).

This places melee monsters and characters in danger more often, as they are also flanked more often.

Rogues, which almost always get sneak attack, get it slightly more often.

Is that a serious balance concern? Rogues are not in danger of being overpowered under most analysis of 4e, and the impact should be minimal as they are presumed to have it almost all of the time.

Possibly it would push the Brutal Scoundrel over the Charismatic Trickster Rogue?

[Viruzzo]

Quoting (more or less) the 3.x DMG (somewhere, I think is in the box for variant rules for crits): any change in the rules that increases risk is more dangerous for the players, since monsters are supposed to die.
Also since many times monsters will be in greater numbers, especially with minions and for melee monsters, they would get more advantage from this. You run the risk of having level 1 Kobold Skirmishers that have sneak attack doing serious harm to PCs.

Another thing: giving CA much more often to melee classes is unfair, as they get +10% to hit and probably other benefits, while the ranged guys will not. This is not really offset by them giving CA more often to enemies, since that would probably just mean they will need more healing thus aggravating the leaders' role as healbots. If it's only for the Rogues (maybe via a feat) it's not as bad of course.

And finally: any houserule that converts a situational modifier into a semi-constant one is bad per-se. If it's supposed to be almost always avalaible, it should be incorporated as a constat bonus with maluses applied for the rarer cases.