Houseruling Flanking? Help? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Houseruling Flanking? Help?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
katherose
Jun 10, 2008 9:09:39 I've got some players who are unhappy with the flanking rules. At one point during a game, there were three players on a monster, and none of them were flanking. That doesn't make sense to any of us.

I was thinking maybe have the rules be normal for 2 people on a monster, but have it if 3 people are on a monster and none of them would normally be given a flanking bonus, they are all flanking? I don't know how that would work out though.

Help? Any ideas on how to houserule this so flanking makes more sense?
#2
wokste
Jun 10, 2008 9:44:03 Although I don't know the flanking rules in 4E I see the problem you are dealing with. I think the same problem exists in 3.5

However, as you present the rules (If I understand them correctly), It has a bad effect. If normally no people would flank, now everybody flanks. If on the other hand if 2 peope would flank a monster, only two flank. This means one people doesn't get a flanking bonus because a decrement of one person.

I think another rule might be better. It might be something like this: To see opponents clearly, you need to have them all in a 90 degree ray, centered on you. (if you doubt, you can see them all) If you cannot see them all in one view, you must rotate your head to see your opponents all the time. In game terms: you are flanked to all opponents.

You might also say that the DM uses the original rules but also accepts situations which he thinks is logical.
#3
katherose
Jun 10, 2008 12:02:48 I should have explained better. Here's a couple of the situations where no one has flanking that are frustrating us, where 0=monster, and 1=players.
#4
squidyak
Jun 11, 2008 2:44:49 How about a +1 bonus to hit an opponent threatened by another character, with an additional +1 every time the number of threatening characters double.
#5
AaronOfBarbaria
Jun 11, 2008 3:37:12 The easiest house rule to flanking seems to be just leaving off the extrapolation/definition of it and going with the basic wording of the rule

"to flank an enemy, you and an opponent must be on opposite sides of the enemy."

Though you may need a clause saying the monster must actually be between the two characters so that you aren't flanking in this scenario

- - c
- m -
- - c

But would be in these

- - c
- m -
- c -

c - c
- m -
- c - (all Cs are flanking)

c - -
n m -
- c - (N is not flanking)

and so on... or just go with the standard rules and remember to shift.
#6
kuonji
Jun 11, 2008 14:32:12
I should have explained better. Here's a couple of the situations where no one has flanking that are frustrating us, where 0=monster, and 1=players.
#7
veggiesama
Jun 12, 2008 13:55:41
I don't think there's anything wrong with flanking as is. As you pointed out, shifting makes flanking somewhat easier.

I guess my question would be: how often do you find yourselves in situations where you have an enemy surrounded but are not flanking? If it's happening quite often, perhaps it's more of an issue with strategic movement and less an issue with the rules.

Totally agreed. Flanking is fine as-is. To make it an easier would be to defeat a lot of the strategic underpinnings of the game (ex. rogues would sneak attack easier, all of the various powers designed to shift and push would be made less useful, and so on).

Learn to shift!
#8
Neutronium_Dragon
Jun 12, 2008 20:17:17 Shifting is the answer - they shouldn't just stand still in a situation like that, but use Shifts until they're in a flanking position.

I would also point out that your players might regret the idea of "if there are three opponents threatening the target, they're considered to be flanking" as a rule. The PCs are usually facing as many or more enemies as there are PCs, and suddenly all those enemies are going to be flanking *them*...
#9
danrocco
Jun 13, 2008 3:04:56 Shifting mostly fixes flanking for me (I've long had qualms with it), but I do still think that any flanked combatant should grant combat advantage to all enemies, not just the ones flanking it.

12
03
001

Both 1s are flanking, but 2 can't simply shift to be flanking as well. Yet he should realistically have the same advantage as his allies do.
#10
urmar
Jun 13, 2008 7:01:01 Be careful about changing this, as it will actually help the monsters as much or more than the players given the new methodology for encounter creation (with multiple minions, etc.). The easier it is to grant combat advantage, the easier it is for players to faceplant.
#11
samaurijack
Jun 14, 2008 1:12:18 What I have done for this as a DM is half the bonuses for the PC in between the other 2 ("B"):

A x B
x M x
x x C

--or--

x A x
x M B
x C x

A and C get normal flanking bonuses, and B gets +1 to attack and if rogue half their normal sneak attack bonus (I usually give them the same amount of dice, but d3's instead of d6's). The stipulation I put on this is that 2 of the allies have to be in true flanking in order for the 3rd to get the bonus. This adds a little more survivability to the smaller guys (whether they be the PC's or the baddies), as they are typically in greater numbers. Additionally, I also use a theory I like to call "Battlefield Chaos": A flanked character can only get half the normal flanking bonus due to their distraction and only if they have true flanking:

Situation A
x x x M
A x B x
x M x x
x x C x

Situation B
x M x
x A x
x M B
x C x

In situation A: PC "B" gets no bonus, but in situation B: PC's "A" and "B" both get half benefits.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 katherose Jun 10, 2008 9:09:39	I've got some players who are unhappy with the flanking rules. At one point during a game, there were three players on a monster, and none of them were flanking. That doesn't make sense to any of us. I was thinking maybe have the rules be normal for 2 people on a monster, but have it if 3 people are on a monster and none of them would normally be given a flanking bonus, they are all flanking? I don't know how that would work out though. Help? Any ideas on how to houserule this so flanking makes more sense?
#2 wokste Jun 10, 2008 9:44:03	Although I don't know the flanking rules in 4E I see the problem you are dealing with. I think the same problem exists in 3.5 However, as you present the rules (If I understand them correctly), It has a bad effect. If normally no people would flank, now everybody flanks. If on the other hand if 2 peope would flank a monster, only two flank. This means one people doesn't get a flanking bonus because a decrement of one person. I think another rule might be better. It might be something like this: To see opponents clearly, you need to have them all in a 90 degree ray, centered on you. (if you doubt, you can see them all) If you cannot see them all in one view, you must rotate your head to see your opponents all the time. In game terms: you are flanked to all opponents. You might also say that the DM uses the original rules but also accepts situations which he thinks is logical.
#3 katherose Jun 10, 2008 12:02:48	I should have explained better. Here's a couple of the situations where no one has flanking that are frustrating us, where 0=monster, and 1=players.
#4 squidyak Jun 11, 2008 2:44:49	How about a +1 bonus to hit an opponent threatened by another character, with an additional +1 every time the number of threatening characters double.
#5 AaronOfBarbaria Jun 11, 2008 3:37:12	The easiest house rule to flanking seems to be just leaving off the extrapolation/definition of it and going with the basic wording of the rule "to flank an enemy, you and an opponent must be on opposite sides of the enemy." Though you may need a clause saying the monster must actually be between the two characters so that you aren't flanking in this scenario - - c - m - - - c But would be in these - - c - m - - c - c - c - m - - c - (all Cs are flanking) c - - n m - - c - (N is not flanking) and so on... or just go with the standard rules and remember to shift.
#6 kuonji Jun 11, 2008 14:32:12	I should have explained better. Here's a couple of the situations where no one has flanking that are frustrating us, where 0=monster, and 1=players.
#7 veggiesama Jun 12, 2008 13:55:41	I don't think there's anything wrong with flanking as is. As you pointed out, shifting makes flanking somewhat easier. I guess my question would be: how often do you find yourselves in situations where you have an enemy surrounded but are not flanking? If it's happening quite often, perhaps it's more of an issue with strategic movement and less an issue with the rules. Totally agreed. Flanking is fine as-is. To make it an easier would be to defeat a lot of the strategic underpinnings of the game (ex. rogues would sneak attack easier, all of the various powers designed to shift and push would be made less useful, and so on). Learn to shift!
#8 Neutronium_Dragon Jun 12, 2008 20:17:17	Shifting is the answer - they shouldn't just stand still in a situation like that, but use Shifts until they're in a flanking position. I would also point out that your players might regret the idea of "if there are three opponents threatening the target, they're considered to be flanking" as a rule. The PCs are usually facing as many or more enemies as there are PCs, and suddenly all those enemies are going to be flanking them...
#9 danrocco Jun 13, 2008 3:04:56	Shifting mostly fixes flanking for me (I've long had qualms with it), but I do still think that any flanked combatant should grant combat advantage to all enemies, not just the ones flanking it. 12 03 001 Both 1s are flanking, but 2 can't simply shift to be flanking as well. Yet he should realistically have the same advantage as his allies do.
#10 urmar Jun 13, 2008 7:01:01	Be careful about changing this, as it will actually help the monsters as much or more than the players given the new methodology for encounter creation (with multiple minions, etc.). The easier it is to grant combat advantage, the easier it is for players to faceplant.
#11 samaurijack Jun 14, 2008 1:12:18	What I have done for this as a DM is half the bonuses for the PC in between the other 2 ("B"): A x B x M x x x C --or-- x A x x M B x C x A and C get normal flanking bonuses, and B gets +1 to attack and if rogue half their normal sneak attack bonus (I usually give them the same amount of dice, but d3's instead of d6's). The stipulation I put on this is that 2 of the allies have to be in true flanking in order for the 3rd to get the bonus. This adds a little more survivability to the smaller guys (whether they be the PC's or the baddies), as they are typically in greater numbers. Additionally, I also use a theory I like to call "Battlefield Chaos": A flanked character can only get half the normal flanking bonus due to their distraction and only if they have true flanking: Situation A x x x M A x B x x M x x x x C x Situation B x M x x A x x M B x C x In situation A: PC "B" gets no bonus, but in situation B: PC's "A" and "B" both get half benefits.