Possible flanking house rule.

[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.