Still nothing on flanking?

We can Coup de Grace, Disarm, Disengage, Dodge, Grapple, Hustle, Knock Down, Push etc.. but why nothing about flanking?
Because this game doesn't have a grid. Or facing.
Because this game doesn't have a grid. Or facing.



if it wants to be inclusive it has to support grid play, something that really has to be though to early in the game or it will not work well
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
It supports grid play, it just doesn't make as many of the things you do on the grid meaninful as a lot of people are used to.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.

if it wants to be inclusive it has to support grid play, something that really has to be though to early in the game or it will not work well



Gridded combat will likely be an optional expansion in the advanced rules, according to the devs.

They don't need flanking, but could use a simple "Gang Up " rule.


Gange Up: when three or more combatants are engaged with a single enemy these combatants gain advantage on their melee attacks against that enemy.

Flanking is not a simple issue. They're bound by the Advantage system to not track a condition which can be achieved so easily. It's consistent with what else we know to say that the bonus for flanking is simply too small to bother with (because it's less than Advantage).
The metagame is not the game.

if it wants to be inclusive it has to support grid play, something that really has to be though to early in the game or it will not work well



Gridded combat will likely be an optional expansion in the advanced rules, according to the devs.




the problem is that they should have been testing it already, adding that kind of combat stuff late could easily make it not playable. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
If the DM thinks its appropriate he can give you Advantage. Also the Backstab ability of the Rogue is better than simply flanking.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Who says you need a grid for flanking? In most groups I've played AD&D with the DM would always grant characters who said that they were flanking the same opponent some type of bonus or the person being flanked a penalty like -2 to AC.
If it ain't there, house rule it.

Flanking gives +2 to Attack Roll
Flanking gives you advantage
Flanking makes your target unable to use a reaction against you.

You the DM, you decide how flanking works in your game.  
If it ain't there, house rule it.

Flanking gives +2 to Attack Roll
Flanking gives you advantage
Flanking makes your target unable to use a reaction against you.

You the DM, you decide how flanking works in your game.  



Using the same logic why shouldn't the DM make the call on a Push or Coup de Gras or any of the other options? 


Using the same logic why shouldn't the DM make the call on a Push or Coup de Gras or any of the other options? 



Because they got a ruling for that. 

Not everything is cover in the rules like pushing the enemy up against the wall, pinning his
weapon against him, and head butting him. Doing this all in one action like in the movies. 

I'm glad there's no bonus for flanking.  Combined with OAs, it turned too many combats into conga lines where you had



And every so often, one of the guys on the end would disengage and run to the other end to flank the one unflanked enemy. 

Using the same logic why shouldn't the DM make the call on a Push or Coup de Gras or any of the other options? 



Because they got a ruling for that. 

Not everything is cover in the rules like pushing the enemy up against the wall, pinning his
weapon against him, and head butting him. Doing this all in one action like in the movies. 




I agree that complex movements/actions can't all be covered but flanking is probably the most basic. 
I'm glad there's no bonus for flanking.  Combined with OAs, it turned too many combats into conga lines where you had



And every so often, one of the guys on the end would disengage and run to the other end to flank the one unflanked enemy. 



I can say that I haven't experienced the above, I've seem 2 characters vs. 2/3 npcs in something like it but not what I would call a linear conga line. And although we are talking about a fantasy game, it makes absolute sense to grant some kind of advantage for performing it that should be in the base rules.
I'm glad there's no bonus for flanking.  Combined with OAs, it turned too many combats into conga lines where you had



And every so often, one of the guys on the end would disengage and run to the other end to flank the one unflanked enemy.

Couldn't agree more!

Danny

But in real life, flanking is just brutal. I mean you can't even see what the guy is doing
behind you. You can only can focus so much on one guy.

So in D&D, there got to be some type of bonus for getting into the enemy's blind spot
while  having another buddy distracting him.  
But combat doesn't look like that.  Flanking interferes in the abstract nature of combat because it tries to impose facing rules on a system that lacks it.

I would prefer a "cluster" rule.  You gain advantage if you and two or more allies surround a medium or smaller enemy.  Add two allies for each size category over Medium, and allies who are larger than Medium count as an additional ally for each size category over Medium.)  That results in a general melee where all the melee combatants are in a big cluster granting advantage to everyone else in the cluster.
But combat doesn't look like that.  Flanking interferes in the abstract nature of combat because it tries to impose facing rules on a system that lacks it.

I would prefer a "cluster" rule.  You gain advantage if you and two or more allies surround a medium or smaller enemy.  Add two allies for each size category over Medium, and allies who are larger than Medium count as an additional ally for each size category over Medium.)  That results in a general melee where all the melee combatants are in a big cluster granting advantage to everyone else in the cluster.



Yep, I call that the Gang Up!

I'm also all for removing all +1 and +2 conditional bonuses you would ever need to keep track of to make combat run more smoothly/quickly.
But combat doesn't look like that.  Flanking interferes in the abstract nature of combat because it tries to impose facing rules on a system that lacks it.



Then I'll make one. 

Flanking obviously has to wait for positioning.

A multiple attacker bonus could work.  Or, like Charge, it could be made into a Feat.



- Warlords! Join the 'Officer Country' Group! Join Grognards for 4e, the D&D that changed D&D.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

But combat doesn't look like that.  Flanking interferes in the abstract nature of combat because it tries to impose facing rules on a system that lacks it.



Then I'll make one. 



Good for you.  And in such a system, flanking bonuses make sense.
But combat doesn't look like that.  Flanking interferes in the abstract nature of combat because it tries to impose facing rules on a system that lacks it.



Look, unless combat in NEXT is supposed to be like FF1, with everybody in neat cleans rows waiting for their turn to step forward and swing their sword, the combatants are going to BE somewhere. Even if we concede that using any sort of physical representation for positioning is going to be discouraged, movements are still listed in the game rules, so even if you need to "DM may I?" to do it, you can go around for a flank. It doesn't require facing, since TotM is all about your ImAgInAtIoN anyway, so the DM will just say "Yeah, you flank".

I have to say, as a side note, that I'd expect you of all people to not think that flanking absolutly requires facing rules.

I would prefer a "cluster" rule.  You gain advantage if you and two or more allies surround a medium or smaller enemy.  Add two allies for each size category over Medium, and allies who are larger than Medium count as an additional ally for each size category over Medium.)  That results in a general melee where all the melee combatants are in a big cluster granting advantage to everyone else in the cluster.



This is just flanking but it requires three people. This requires the DM to say "Ok, you are all clustered around them" just as much as saying "Ok, you and the other guy are in a flanking position on that guy" is required for TotM flanking. It makes no sense why we can't also allow DMs to say two people are in such a position that they make it difficult for the opponent to defend.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
I would prefer a "cluster" rule.  You gain advantage if you and two or more allies surround a medium or smaller enemy.  Add two allies for each size category over Medium, and allies who are larger than Medium count as an additional ally for each size category over Medium.)  That results in a general melee where all the melee combatants are in a big cluster granting advantage to everyone else in the cluster.



This is just flanking but it requires three people. This requires the DM to say "Ok, you are all clustered around them" just as much as saying "Ok, you and the other guy are in a flanking position on that guy" is required for TotM flanking. It makes no sense why we can't also allow DMs to say two people are in such a position that they make it difficult for the opponent to defend.

Well the difference is you don't need to worry about position at all for a gang up because as soon as you have three guys able to make melee attacks against a single target they have ganged up. It also has the added benefit of requiring more people which makes it easier to justify ganging up granting advantage. Anything that removes conditional math makes the game better IMHO.


Well the difference is you don't need to worry about position at all for a gang up because as soon as you have three guys able to make melee attacks against a single target they have ganged up. It also has the added benefit of requiring more people which makes it easier to justify ganging up granting advantage. Anything that removes conditional math makes the game better IMHO.




Are we so paranoid against conditional math that common sense goes out the widow?
It doesn't require facing, since TotM is all about your ImAgInAtIoN anyway, so the DM will just say "Yeah, you flank".


in which case it has to be a benefit less valuable than advantage, and the game is trying to do away with fiddly small-bonus benefits.

I have to say, as a side note, that I'd expect you of all people to not think that flanking absolutly requires facing rules.


i have no idea what you mean by this.  In my 4e ToTM rules, there's no flanking.  (Well, I used a cluster rule, but I called it "flanking").

This is just flanking but it requires three people.


Right.  I added the third person because advantage is better than the +2 that flanking provided in prior editions.

It makes no sense why we can't also allow DMs to say two people are in such a position that they make it difficult for the opponent to defend.


Because you get into geometric impossibilities where people are arguing how four people attacking one another are all flanked and flanking.
Are we so paranoid against conditional math that common sense goes out the widow?


No.  We're recognizing the different math of this edition.  This edition is trying to limit situational bonuses to advantage which is worth about a +4.5.  That's more than twice the value of traditional flanking.  So to make this work, we either have to make flanking an exceptiont to advantage, which should be limited, or we have to make lanking difficult enough to warrant the benefit it gives.

Traditional flanking is too easy to achieve to be worth +4.5 on accuracy.  It doesn't make sense to grant someone a flat +2 for flanking in this system because then it stacks with advantage, making it overpowered or it doesn't stack, making it nearly useless.

 
 
Because you get into geometric impossibilities where people are arguing how four people attacking one another are all flanked and flanking.



Actually this makes perfect sense because as an attacker you are focused on your target, but as a defender you have no idea where an attack could be coming from.

There also used to be a bonus for having higher ground....

Not everything that WAS in the game needs to be in this time. 
If the point is to cut down on most small-time bonuses,  then small-time conditions should be cut too
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com

Traditional flanking is too easy to achieve to be worth +4.5 on accuracy.  It doesn't make sense to grant someone a flat +2 for flanking in this system because then it stacks with advantage, making it overpowered or it doesn't stack, making it nearly useless.

 



This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, if I understand what you are saying is, you agree that flanking should give a benefit but because the system can't handle it, then it doesn't exist even though it is one of the most basic of combat movements.
There also used to be a bonus for having higher ground....

Not everything that WAS in the game needs to be in this time. 
If the point is to cut down on most small-time bonuses,  then small-time conditions should be cut too



Flanking isn't something that happens in certain conditions, it happens in most conditions (combats). The reverse is the exception, a combat where no one has an opportunity to flank.

I like the gang up thin with flanking as an ability certain classes have or a feat or something.
Just less book-keeping and it's just too stupid easy to flank from a game perspective. 
A few guidelines for using the internet: 1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart. 2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons. 3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves. 4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health. 5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
I like the gang up thin with flanking as an ability certain classes have or a feat or something.
Just less book-keeping and it's just too stupid easy to flank from a game perspective. 



That's because it is stupid easy in real life especially when outnumbering.

I like the gang up thin with flanking as an ability certain classes have or a feat or something.
Just less book-keeping and it's just too stupid easy to flank from a game perspective. 



That's because it is stupid easy in real life especially when outnumbering.


But it's not flanking. It's swarming or clustering.  In fights people don't tend to get precisely opposite one another.  Combat is chaotic with people shifting about all the time. It's just because D&D combat has static rounds and iterative initiative that it ends up seeming more rigid.
I like the gang up thin with flanking as an ability certain classes have or a feat or something.
Just less book-keeping and it's just too stupid easy to flank from a game perspective. 



That's because it is stupid easy in real life especially when outnumbering.


But it's not flanking. It's swarming or clustering.  In fights people don't tend to get precisely opposite one another.  Combat is chaotic with people shifting about all the time. It's just because D&D combat has static rounds and iterative initiative that it ends up seeming more rigid.



It is also why Gang-Up makes more sense than Flanking. Remember combat is fluid, but represented abstractly by "The Grid". Combatants arent sitting in one place for 6 seconds at a time. As such, flanking doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Gang-up on the other hand is also abstract so makes it much easier to justify.

But it's not flanking. It's swarming or clustering.  In fights people don't tend to get precisely opposite one another.  Combat is chaotic with people shifting about all the time. It's just because D&D combat has static rounds and iterative initiative that it ends up seeming more rigid.



In the real world it is still considered flanking even if not at a perfect 180 degrees. Look for whatever reasons people want to rename it to "Gang up" or "Pile On" or anything else it is still basically flanking and can be achived by attacking someone with at least 1 other person. This forces the defender to split his attention to multiple possible directions for incoming attacks thus either granting a penalty to the defender's defense or a bonus to the attacker's attacks (in reality it would be both).   

it is still basically flanking and can be achived by attacking someone with at least 1 other person. This forces the defender to split his attention to multiple possible directions for incoming attacks thus either granting a penalty to the defender's defense or a bonus to the attacker's attacks (in reality it would be both).  


Except that's not what flanking has been, traditionally, in D&D.  In tradional D&D it's insufficient to attack with an ally.  That ally has to be on the opposite side of the enemy, which requires a greater degree of precision.  That's why I would replace it with the requirement that you attack with two other allies (or a Large ally).
That what's missing. Flanking and bonus for attacking from higher ground. 

Also, I don't think Sunder is in the rules? Don't see an improve Sunder feat.
Also missing an improve Grapple Feat.  

Except that's not what flanking has been, traditionally, in D&D.  In tradional D&D it's insufficient to attack with an ally.  That ally has to be on the opposite side of the enemy, which requires a greater degree of precision.  That's why I would replace it with the requirement that you attack with two other allies (or a Large ally).



Right but to satify those that want to play using TotM why the need to add another attacker? Why can't we just say a second attacker automatically flanks, again with DM permission (there may be times when a flank is impossible to create) or to establish a flank the DM may require the flanker to suffer an OP to get into position. 


Except that's not what flanking has been, traditionally, in D&D.  In tradional D&D it's insufficient to attack with an ally.  That ally has to be on the opposite side of the enemy, which requires a greater degree of precision.  That's why I would replace it with the requirement that you attack with two other allies (or a Large ally).



Right but to satify those that want to play using TotM why the need to add another attacker? Why can't we just say a second attacker automatically flanks, again with DM permission (there may be times when a flank is impossible to create) or to establish a flank the DM may require the flanker to suffer an OP to get into position. 



Two on one is trivially easy to accomplish. 3 on1 is more difficult. Advantage should not be trivially easy to get, so 3 on 1 makes sense. Also, in actual combat 3 on 1 is significantly more beneficial than 2 on one.