|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Feb 21, 2013 16:24:18 GMT -5
I'm curious about gridless play, so I want to ask the community how you would judge flanking in this layout:
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Feb 21, 2013 17:11:33 GMT -5
I'd say F is flanking with all of them except E. A is Flanking with D, E, and F.
This supposes that B and E have reach weapons. If they did not, I would say that Gridless should follow Warhammer 40K's rule of Base Contact for Melee.
Another really easy way to figure it out is to take the movement sticks and run it from the base of one mini to the base of one you want to check flanking for. If the stick crosses over the base of the enemy miniature in a CLEAR, UNDISPUTED WAY (No one could argue that it is only "sorta" crossing the base, such as if you ran a line from the front of B and E and claimed that the line crosses over the base...clearly not the case) then you have flanking. If not, then no flanking. DM has last call (But be sure to be fair).
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Feb 22, 2013 3:08:53 GMT -5
Thanks, Onethatwas. Here's the pic. Does everyone agree with Onethatwas, or are there other interpretations or methods of deciding? Attachments:
|
|
zonto
Cardboard Collector
Posts: 21
|
Post by zonto on Feb 22, 2013 9:55:44 GMT -5
Assuming they're all counted as in melee range, my vote is:
F is flanking with everyone except E.
I don't think A and D/E are flanking because if you draw a line between their centers, it does not cross the monster.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Feb 22, 2013 10:49:00 GMT -5
interesting, thanks. So far we have these bases: - If the stick crosses over the base of the enemy miniature in a CLEAR, UNDISPUTED WAY [...] then you have flanking.
- if you draw a line between their centers, it [should] cross the monster
|
|
|
Post by dm1scotty on Feb 22, 2013 12:00:12 GMT -5
interesting, thanks. So far we have these bases: - If the stick crosses over the base of the enemy miniature in a CLEAR, UNDISPUTED WAY [...] then you have flanking.
- if you draw a line between their centers, it [should] cross the monster
As a DM I would call B & E not flanking. B is not flanking because it is not touching the enemy. (I allow PCs to shift a lil in combat if someone wants to squeeze in, part of the beauty of not using grids is that you can make allowances for fun and not a strict adherence to a gameboard like style of play). E is not flanking because of the reasons stated above.
|
|
|
Post by dm1scotty on Feb 22, 2013 12:01:53 GMT -5
...of course you can rule that reach weapons can still be flanking even if not touching....DM's call but be consistent.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Feb 22, 2013 14:50:40 GMT -5
...of course you can rule that reach weapons can still be flanking even if not touching....DM's call but be consistent. That's what I think as well. As in Warhammer 40K, Base Contact is required for Melee. D&D has special rules for reach weapons, however, so you have to take that into consideration. If the PC has a whip and isn't in base contact, but an inch away (Maximum) then they qualify for Flanking. That's a clear cut way of doing it. As for A being in a flanking position with D and E, the situation would seem to call for it, because, as you may have noticed, the actual markers placed in that diagram are set up as if a grid is in existence. The lines are removed, but otherwise they conform to a gridded assembly. That being said, if you redraw the lines, the characters in position D and E would flank with the character in position A based on gridded rules (Assuming that E qualifies due to a Reach Weapon). Drawing a line from the bottom "corner" of A to the furthest contact "corner" of both D and E, the character qualifies. That being said, I think it's silly to allow for a flanking bonus with the same set up in gridded rules, but disallow in gridless play. Of course I will grant that in regards to D I may be dead wrong, because that one is a bit iffy. But E (Again assuming he qualifies due to reach) should definitely qualify, because the lines draw from bottom corner of A to far corner of E cross a significant amount of the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Feb 22, 2013 15:02:23 GMT -5
...remember that playing with miniatures, the character's space is *assumed* (according to the rules) to take up a 5 foot square. Stand up and tell me if your physical, vertical body takes up 5 feet of space. It doesn't. The reason that it's assumed that you take up 5 feet is to allow your character maneuverability in combat. Your character is assumed to set himself in the most advantageous position possible within that 5 foot frame: duck, weave, bob, parry, dodge, and flourish in the way that makes the most sense, because your character is a battle hardened, trained adventurer. Well, at least trained. Taking 1 level in a class other than Commoner and Expert represents this (according to 3.X rules anyway. No idea how it translates in 4e).
SO, that being stated, the character in position A, in order to harangue and antagonize his foe in the most advantageous way, would try to confuse that ogre-like creature by swiping his blade so that his compatriot in position D and E might benefit. Likewise, they are doing the same. Thus, A attacks from his bottom corner (mark out a 5 foot square somehow and pretend you are a lefty. You can still manage an attack from the bottom corner in this scenario...or from the right side of the 5 foot square) and D attacks from his farthest corner (Now pretend you are a righty. Same thing).
Now, of course this is assuming gridded play. Now remove the grid. Has anything really changed? Well, except you don't feel quite as confined. And Gridless play is supposed to allow more freedom and generally be better. So, I don't see why A and D can't flank. It's much clearer that they cross the base and/or miniature than (for instance) A and C or B and E across from each other.
Not to be argumentative, but I figured I'd explain my reasoning on that scenario, since we're on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by danielc on Feb 22, 2013 16:55:21 GMT -5
...Stand up and tell me if your physical, vertical body takes up 5 feet of space. It doesn't. You clearly did not see how much I put on durring the Holiday Season.... ;D On a more serious note: I think if you elect to go gridless, you also elect to a level of "fudge: when it comes to those few game mechanics designed for grids. Flanking is one of those that you just have to accept some "grey" in the GM call. Some things get better with the gray, some don't. But in the end I believe there is more gained then lost buy going gridless.
|
|
|
Post by madladdesigns on Feb 22, 2013 17:28:59 GMT -5
It could do if you were wearing armour, carrying a backpack, wearing a sheath for your sword, carrying a torch.... and all the other stuff that miraculously seems to 'not get in the way' when playing D&D... lol!
|
|
slurpy
Room Planner
Posts: 283
|
Post by slurpy on Feb 22, 2013 23:23:27 GMT -5
3E rules state that characters are flanking as long as the line connecting the two supposed flankers' centers crosses "opposite sides" of the creature's square. Since we're playing roundish figurines, and no grid, the way I would rule is as long as the line crosses the creature's circle at all, it counts as flanking. My reasoning here would be that if B and E, being the most extreme case with just a sliver of crossover were the only two attacking the monster, he would still have to split his attention between the two.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Feb 23, 2013 0:10:45 GMT -5
in that scenario, the way you mapped it out Slurpy, I would say that F doesn't have flanking because it is, as you said, barely a sliver of cross-over on the base of the bad-guy's space. I would still go with "corner to corner," in a sense at least, because most mini's don't have corners, and there is no grid. Again, my reasoning is that a combating character (Who should have dropped his pack at the first sign of combat, or should be using a pack mule or something) would move into the most advantageous position within his bounds. Assuming the base of the mini is actually representative of a 5 foot diameter circle, the mini would still have alot of room to move about and maneuver. So the character (F) in your diagram could position his attacks to come from the left edge of his 5 foot circle, and the Character across from him (E) could attack with that spear coming from the right OR left edge of his circle. In this case, much more of your line crosses over the enemy, and it makes my suggestion on the rules call valid and possible.
Similarly you could draw a line from A to E from the center, which again makes it barely a sliver of a cross over, OR, if you cross from the bottom edge of A to either the top or bottom edge of E, you get alot more cross over. And considering the assumption of movement in combat (Duck, weave, parry, thrust, etc) this is certainly possible within a 5 foot circle.
For some reason I've found that alot of people forget that 5 feet is actually alot of movement. DM Scotty's example of real life gridded play (while accurate in it's silliness) is a bad representation because while he shows stepping from 1 ft. square tile to 1 ft. square tile, it would actually be about two whole steps (of average stride) to cover approximately 5 ft. Truthfully, many people get 3 steps in within 5 ft. So when you look at your mini, imagine the mini capable of being glued in position at all sides of the base, and you may have a better idea of how flanking (And action in combat) may look at any given 6 second segment in time.
...I know, that's alot of picking apart and analysis, but I do in fact think of these things. The best way to counter rules lawyering is to be a rules' lawyer yourself, and to understand why a rule and/or idea was set down into text. Gridless is the better way to go, but it still assumes that movement is in 5 ft increments, and so the 5 ft rules application (and behind the curtain justification) still makes sense in alot of ways that are outside the scope of simple movement. Such as flanking
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Feb 23, 2013 9:52:29 GMT -5
This is a very interesting discussion so far. Here is the gridded version. Note, in gridworld, 'F' only flanks for 'C' and 'D'. I color-shaded the areas that flank together in gridworld. 'A' would only flank with an ally in the opposite blue area. 'B' is at a corner so it would only flank with the opposite corner yellow area. Similarly, 'E' would only flank with the opposite green corner area. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Feb 23, 2013 9:54:51 GMT -5
Most of the experienced gridless DMs that chimed in seem to be using a center line to judge flanking. While I understand that gridless world will see some things differently, I would want to avoid too much inflation of what counts as flanking. Here's a pic with channels instead of center lines (by 'channel' I mean a pair of lines, from each side instead of one center line; think shoulders to shoulders instead of head to head). The blues are flanking by grid rules, and the reds are not. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Feb 23, 2013 9:56:47 GMT -5
With channels, I would want both lines to cross the enemy, or for the whole enemy to be inside the lines (when the enemy is medium). Requiring both lines would eliminate the pairs A-F, A-E, E-F, but allow C-F, D-F and even B-F. I say 'even B-F' because they are not a flanking pair in gridworld, but gridless world should be more open. Attachments:
|
|
argiope
Paint Manipulator
Posts: 138
|
Post by argiope on Feb 23, 2013 11:35:17 GMT -5
Thanks to all of you for taking the time to make these great visual aids in interpreting the flanking rules and writing up your rationale of allowing for flanking in a gridless world.
My players are flanking wh@re$ so all of these alternative interpretations of flanking help me work out the house rules I am going to use.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Feb 23, 2013 18:21:03 GMT -5
If you want really limited flanking, you could base it on a 'clock' interpretation. 12 flanks with 6, 10 flanks with 4, 1 flanks with 7, etc. That would be using center lines (not 'channels'), and that line would have to pass through the exact center of the enemy.
FYI - that's a Hezrou in the middle, from MM1 and Summon Monster IX.
|
|
|
Post by dmbismarck on Apr 6, 2013 8:39:27 GMT -5
Slight necro, appologies..
As a full contact "medieval" style fighter in RL, I can say that the gridded flanking is waaay to strictly interpreted. Anyone caught between F and E is in a world of hurt. Just the act of turning your head back and forth to watch both opponents(especially in a hood or helmet) leaves you vulnerable to attacks....
|
|
|
Post by dm1scotty on Apr 6, 2013 10:07:18 GMT -5
Very true dmbismarck
|
|
|
Post by danielc on Apr 6, 2013 23:13:44 GMT -5
Slight necro, appologies.. As a full contact "medieval" style fighter in RL, I can say that the gridded flanking is waaay to strictly interpreted. Anyone caught between F and E is in a world of hurt. Just the act of turning your head back and forth to watch both opponents(especially in a hood or helmet) leaves you vulnerable to attacks.... Your point is so true. When we play D&D or Pathfinder or any of the other RPGs we have to accept and understand it is an abstraction of combat and is made simple to allow us to "adventure". None of the games should be seen or expected to be a simulation of true combat.
|
|