Possible flanking house rule.

[Tambryn]

These are the alterations I am thinking about making to the Flanking rules. Let me what you know.

Two characters can flank another without being opposite each other but the flanking bonus drops to +1.

There is an additional +1 flanking bonus for each flanker beyond the first two.

i.e. if you are surrounded by 8 attackers, all of them adjacent to you, they all would receive a +8 flank bonus.

or

i.e. if you are confronted by three attackers each adjacent to you but only in front of you not behind, they would each get a +2 flank bonus.

or

i.e. if you are confronted by two attackers one in front of you and the other on your right flank but they are not opposite each other, they each would receive a +1 flank bonus.

I am considering this house rule because I dislike the way the standard rules handle the advantage that multiple attackers have against a single foe. A third or fourth level fighter may be able to readily handle one or two goblins without to much risk to themselves, but six or eight goblins should be a completely different story.

Tam

[joshuha]

They end result of this I like. It makes multiple foes normally fodder at mid-high levels more dangerous in numbers. The reverse of that is though does it increase multiple equal level foes lethality too much? I highly doubt it but the rule sounds good. More of a benefit to the DM than players but I believe that is the point correct?

[Ram Tyr]

Tambryn,

It sounds like you want the "facing" rules in Unearthed Arcana. Check them out. They allow "flanking" by single opponent. Since you can flank without a "dance partner" any additional opponents can also get a bonus.

This does require that you and your players begin tracking each tokens "direction faced". You'll see in UA that each token has three zones when using facing. Forward, flank, and rear.

It is not as powerful a deterrent to being surrounded as what you describe, but it is more incentive to not being surrounded than the core rules. (I think that your suggested system is overkill.) In any event, just in case you hadn't considered it, check it out! :)

Later.
Ramza

[richvalle]

You could add some of the same effect if you have some of the 8 goblins 'aid' each other. If one 'hits' ac 10 another goblin will get a +2 to their attack. So 4 goblins could attack at +6 (including the +2 for flanking) or 2 could attack at +8.

It gives them an advantage without having to deal with facing.

Just an idea.

rv

[Daeghrefn]

I've honestly thought about this kind of setup myself. I think all of these ideas are good. One thing I miss from 2nd ed. is that you used to get a bonus to hit when in the rear arc. I've been tempted to implement something like that, exempting, of course, creatures immune to flanking (and perhaps critical hits).

I'd love to see what you come up with, and the following discussion.

[kalmarjan]

At 4th level, a fighter should have around 4000 GP altogether in items...

so pitting a creature (Or several) against this fighter would be a moot point. LOL. A goblin is a CR 1/3 creature. 8 of them would make a CR 3 encounter. This is not really supposed to be hard for him. :)

If you figure in a goblins BAB, (+1), even with your rule, they would get +9 to hit. Something like this would play havok with game balance. Imagine now that it is 8 troglodytes surrounding the fighter at 6th level. The trog has the multiattack feat; now the creature gets 3 attacks at +9,+7 and +7. This does not seem like much, as the fighter would have armor right? Think about having 8 attack with this rule now. Just by taking the average of a roll of 10, unless your fighter has a great armor class, that is 8 hits, for a potential of 1-6 damage per trog. That is a potential for 48 damage in one round!

I think that is why the aid another was brought in. Now you can have four groups of two aiding each other, or all 7 aiding 1, to give one of the trogs +14 to hit with all three attacks.

I think your heart is in the right place, don't get me wrong. OTOH, for a fourth level fighter, a goblin is really supposed to be a speed bump to the real encounter... or something to draw a sneak attack from the rogue commander of the goblins.

If all else fails, and you are finding that the goblins are just too easy, and you must have them in this encounter, consider adding some class levels to the goblins for a fresh challenge.

anyway, hope this helps you out.

sandeman

Note: I do not even want to think what this would end up like in the hands of your players.... it would be like handing them a +8 weapon that stacks with their weapons they already own.

Think of a greater raging level 12 barbarian who lands a power attacked critical using a +3 battle axe, listening to the 12th level bard inspiring courage. Oh, he is also using the battle axe 2 handed, and surrounding the creature with his 7 other party members.....

[Griogre]

Note: I do not even want to think what this would end up like in the hands of your players.... it would be like handing them a +8 weapon that stacks with their weapons they already own.

Think of a greater raging level 12 barbarian who lands a power attacked critical using a +3 battle axe, listening to the 12th level bard inspiring courage. Oh, he is also using the battle axe 2 handed, and surrounding the creature with his 7 other party members.....

I think this is overkill. You are making it even easier to kill single monsters like the boss monster that is suppose to be tough, or dragons which are suppose to be hard. Instead you are changing the way the game plays so to make it likely there will be more encounters with multiple opponents. Combat is already slow in 3rd edition, and to make a challeging encounters for the party, your new rule requires multiple opponents, which will make the game play slower. This rule is an advantage for the players, who almost always travel in a group with more than one character.

[kalmarjan]

exactly.

nothing would make a dm cry like having the adult red dragon fall in the first two rounds to a party that won initiative and surrounded the creature, getting attacks, and then attacks of opportunity while the dragon tried to fly out to escape being surrounded. in the case of the barabarian above, that would be 4 attacks in the first round alone.... for a potential damage of 88 hp.

where as now, with the other party members aiding the barbarian, at least it is only one character doing the hitting.

sandeman

[Tambryn]

I hadn't considered the aid another action to accomplish this. This might work fine for what I want to accomplish. I don't have my book with me right now, but can 10 be taken on an aid another action since the character faces no additional threat for failing?

Tam

[richvalle]

I hadn't considered the aid another action to accomplish this. This might work fine for what I want to accomplish. I don't have my book with me right now, but can 10 be taken on an aid another action since the character faces no additional threat for failing?

Tam

I'm 99% sure you can't take 10 for an attack.

rv

[kalmarjan]

rv is right. you would not be able to take 10 because this is an action that could be made in duress. there is someone threatening you there, even if they are not attacking. i am sure that you could try to take 10, but that would provoke an AOO.

besides, you attacking at ac 10 anyway, so what is the point of taking 10?

Sandeman

[richvalle]

besides, you attacking at ac 10 anyway, so what is the point of taking 10?

Sandeman

It would make it an auto success.

rv

[richvalle]

Per SRD:
"Taking 10
When your character is not being threatened or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn’t help. "

[John_Geeshu]

These are the alterations I am thinking about making to the Flanking rules. Let me what you know.

Two characters can flank another without being opposite each other but the flanking bonus drops to +1.

There is an additional +1 flanking bonus for each flanker beyond the first two.

i.e. if you are surrounded by 8 attackers, all of them adjacent to you, they all would receive a +8 flank bonus.

or

i.e. if you are confronted by three attackers each adjacent to you but only in front of you not behind, they would each get a +2 flank bonus.

or

i.e. if you are confronted by two attackers one in front of you and the other on your right flank but they are not opposite each other, they each would receive a +1 flank bonus.

I am considering this house rule because I dislike the way the standard rules handle the advantage that multiple attackers have against a single foe. A third or fourth level fighter may be able to readily handle one or two goblins without to much risk to themselves, but six or eight goblins should be a completely different story.

Tam

I see what you are trying to hit upon here, but as others have already said these flanking rules would really FUBAR combat. Is a high level Fighter taking on six or eight goblins at once and laying the smack down ridiculous? In real life yes. In D&D no. D&D is a heroic rpg where experienced characters can take on half an army and win. If you're trying to create a challenge for your PCs, throwing multitudes of fractional-CR critters at them is the wrong way to go about it.

[richvalle]

If you're trying to create a challenge for your PCs, throwing multitudes of fractional-CR critters at them is the wrong way to go about it.

But would be fun for the fighter. Nothing like flexing your mussles and showing off your skills.

Which is about the only reason why you would want this encounter.

rv

[kalmarjan]

I think that this encounter would be fun; only as a speed bump to the real encounter though.

If I had spent my time to build up a character, to have it fighting goblins at 8th level, I would be dissapointed unless there was some kind of new twist or danger for my character. Otherwise, what is the point?

Sandeman

[richvalle]

Oh sure! Just as a warm up fight. Fight the goblins on the way to the War Trolls. :)

[Griogre]

Sometimes you have encounters like this for role playing reasons. The fight is not the object, the object for the character is to help out someone or a group the character cares about that is actually threatened by the low level (to the character) creatures.