flanking

ricardo440

Mongoose
No,

However if you are wanting a sneak attack you can do it if the guy is in 30ft and is either unaware (e.g. flatfooted) or pinned
 

Mark Dunder

Mongoose
If you are within 10 feet, you do not suffer a -4 penalty for firing into a melee. But you can also have the Feat Precise Shot, and not suffer the penalty at 30 feet or less when firing into a melee. You also will have the Feat Point Blank Shot (cause it's a prerequisite for Precise Shot), and get a +1 to your base. This is as close to a Flanking bonus of +2 as your gonna get. You also do not get the Multiple Opponent bonuses, unfortunetly.

So I recommend any archer to have Precise Shot, or be within 10 feet of the target. Regardless of all that, you have to be within 30 feet of the target to be really effective.

I would GM and give another +1 for Multiple Opponents, but not any more than that. This would give you a total of +2, which is like a Flanking attack. :)
 

argo

Mongoose
To flank a target you must first threaten the target and you can only threaten with a melee weapon.

This is the same reason why you can't take an AoO with a ranged weapon. You don't threaten any spaces.

Hope that helps.
 

Mark Dunder

Mongoose
Silly rule, I would definitely feel threatened if a bunch of guys with little bows and arrows were pointing them at me!

Oh! I forgot, you can't take anything in these rules literally. Silly me!

Why don't they ever say what they mean and mean what they say. Cut down on the controversy considerably.

Seems to me they are intentionally limiting missile fire. Why? Is there a fear missile fire would dominate the battle? I can't see why, if you are close to a target, you can't get a flank attack. An arrow shot at that range, travels wickedly fast. No prob hitting the person your aiming at. I just don't like arbitrary rules, and I think this is one of them.
 

argo

Mongoose
dunderm said:
Oh! I forgot, you can't take anything in these rules literally. Silly me!
Despite the fact that you intended this as sarcasam your statement contains deep wisdom. You really shouldn't take the rules literally. They are not desigend to be in any way "realistic" they are designed to facilitate fun play.

Why don't they ever say what they mean and mean what they say. Cut down on the controversy considerably.
Unlikely. IME game systems based on "plain language" rules quickly degenerate into endless squables at the game table as no two people can ever agree on what exactly is the correct intrepretation of said "plain language". Instead we have the d20 system which clearly defines a slew of terms and then applies those definitions consistently and logically (well, it follows its own internal logic at least...) All you have to do is learn the definitions...


Seems to me they are intentionally limiting missile fire. Why? Is there a fear missile fire would dominate the battle?
Hit the nail on the head. Ranged fire lets you get off more full attack actions than melee combat and lets you do it from the saftey of a distance. To compensate for these advantages you do not get to threaten (thus no flanking and no AoO) and also you provoke AoO's yourself.

I can't see why, if you are close to a target, you can't get a flank attack. An arrow shot at that range, travels wickedly fast. No prob hitting the person your aiming at. I just don't like arbitrary rules, and I think this is one of them.
Gee and if I wind up and swing for the fences my sword travels wickedly fast too. No prob hitting the person I'm aiming at right? This goes back to my point about trying to instert "realism" into the game ... you just wind up with tirying arguments like these at the game table. This is a game archers get to fire volley after volley of full attacks and melee fighters get to flank. If you base your expectations of play off the rules instead of trying to force the rules to meet your expectations then you can start playing around with how the rules interact with each other and having some fun wich is supposed to be the point in the first place.

Later.
 

Mark Dunder

Mongoose
Poor design. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Fairness makes a good game. Using rules to force people to change how they would think naturally, takes away their critical thinking and tactics. You are forcing people to become rules and tables players. A player has a natural tendency to try and out flank the other player, they're going to try. Except this game takes away this natural thought process, forces the player to look up rules, and that takes the fun away.

I believe it was said of Sherman that he would never go to hell cause he would out flank the Devil himself. But that's way too much realism for a mere game. And that itself is a cop out.

It's too late now to correct this now, and you seem to have accepted this brainwashing.

In reality, why didn't the archer get real close to the enemy, hmm?

You answer that, and you will realize that the arbitrary rules about flanking isn't necessary.
 
dunderm said:
Except this game takes away this natural thought process, forces the player to look up rules, and that takes the fun away.

Our group has been playing 3.5 for over two years now. I have to say that we have not had to look up a combat rule in almost two years. It really is pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

Also, I guess I am a bit confused. Why would an archer want to get near an opponent again? Isn't that why he is an archer? They usually don't fair well versus melee weapons in any game system that I recall.
 

Mark Dunder

Mongoose
Also, I guess I am a bit confused. Why would an archer want to get near an opponent again? Isn't that why he is an archer? They usually don't fair well versus melee weapons in any game system that I recall.

Ah yes, that was the answer I wanted to hear. If you allow the archer a flanking bonus at 30 feet (45 for Hyrkanians) or less, he'll probably get caught up in the melee on the next round or two. So why not give him a flanking bonus right before he's slaughtered? And if the archer is dumb enough to get within 10 feet (where a quick bound will get 'im), give him the Point Blank Shot too. Unless the archer is also a good melee fighter, like Conan, the archer will stay as far back as possible and take pot shots as they are wont to do.

Besides, in this game, arrows do what? 1d8 damage. Might luck out and do a critical. Even with the Feat Ranged Finesse, they're not likely to kill in one shot.

You could just allow flanking at 10 feet or less, but 30 feet seems to be a breaking point in the mechanics of this game. IMO.

Oh, High Lord, I just read your post about grids and stuff. I don't think the grid system is bad at all, I use it in my game (I draw better that way :) ), I just don't make it an issue in my game sessions. I pretty much let the players bounce about, but they have to make movement rolls.

I'm studying this OGL Conan as much as possible, it does have good stuff. Like all RPGs, it has arbitrariness built in. Does it need improvement? What game doesn't? I bet very few GMs actually play exactly by the rules in an RPG session. IMO.
 
I may take your point into consideration for house ruling the flanking with arrows. There probably is a feat out there that allows it. Never has been an issue in our games to be honest because, as you point out, most archers avoid being within 30-40' of an opponent. I also agree about the "rules"...most good GM's create house rules to suite the campaign and the players.

One point I will encourage you to rethink is the combat grid. We have played 3.5 with and without the grid. Frankly, without it, you might as well play a different system. The attack of opportunity, flanking, sneak attack, etc. features of 3.5 make movement and initiative CRITICAL. The combat system is designed for miniatures (or chits) on a grid. The diagonal movement is also another issue. If you are going to allow free movment, than 2nd Edition would work just fine. Add some skills (Dungeoneer's and Wilderness Survival Guide) and you are set.

HLD
 

Foxworthy

Mongoose
Well Implay without a grid and we've never had aproblem with AoO and what not. Sometimes we have to stop for us to get a quick idea of the lay out of the fight but 95 out of a hundred times we have no problem with it.

On the issue of flank it's technically the wrong term for what they want. Flank implies facing which is none existent in 3.5 since you face wherver you need to at any given moment. Unrealistic but simple. I believe if you look into the d20srd.org website they have a section with variant rules for combat facing which have rules that represent a more realistic flank and rear attack scheme.

My opinion on the ranged wepaons not flanking is that it would require more book keeping as the way rounds work you cna't pull the ammo out when it's not your turn. So archers don't flank because they have no weapon to flank with. Which explains why they don't grant an ally a flank bonus. Though I'm not sure why they don't get a flank bonus on thier action.

Or more sensible it's to make getting into melee combat deadlier since it's a bit more cinimatic for a fantasy game.

Either way it's a simple rule to house rule if need be. Though I cna see arguement on distance. Why wouldn't an archer at one hundred feet threaten the target when someone at thirty can? Hell you could argue that the farther the archer the better he would be to flank since the target can't anticpate his shots as well. Since no matter the distance all shots take the same time to hit.

But I suggest checkign the variant rules they can help if you wnata bit more realism.
 

Mark Dunder

Mongoose
Flank implies facing which is none existent in 3.5 since you face wherver you need to at any given moment. Unrealistic but simple.

Here's a possibility that would allow a flanking bonus, but due to it's unlikelyhood, would be justified. Consider that the target is nearly surrounded, the only square open is the one through which the archer has a clear shot through. Because the targeted PC is most likely turning towards the opponents in all the squares that are threatening, the archer has a clear shot at the target's flank. In this single circumstance, where the target presents a more or less constant flank to the archer, a flanking bonus may be justified.
 

ricardo440

Mongoose
Dunderm your argument is very odd. You are clearly new to the rules and are making some claims in the name of game balance.

As someone who has played D&D a lot D&D3.5 a lot and conan a lot now I would say that the rules are nice simple, clear, and they have an excelent system od defining key terms.

I think this probably came for their experience in producing magic.

Flanking is a KEYWORD that comes with it a set of defined rules.
D&D and Conan are excelent in the way they use such KEYWORDS it removes so much ambiguity.

Sure if a guy is ducked behind a wall you can "flank" him, move round the back of the wall and shoot him so he has no cover.
But in game terms you are not using the FLANKING keyword, and rules. It is just a keyword. It could have been called RULE 27/a it doesn't matter.
What is important is that it defines the situation quite clearly.

The situation is this.
If you attack an opponent, and that opponent is THREATENED (another keyword clearly defined) by an ally on the opposite side of your opponent you get a +2 to hit.

Screw with the keywords and you are opening yourself up to a whole host of problems.

e.g. if you say a bowman threatens any enemy in 30ft, that means that if they do anything to provoke an attack of opportunity you should get a free shot at them.
It means that a bowman could provide a "flank" for melee troops against as many individuals as can fit in the area. Just by drawing and holding a bow your non fighter would provide a +2 to hit for every melee fighter you have.
IT would mean you could sneak attack every time you shoot into combat, and indeed every time a thief attacks anyone as long as they are in your aegis missile troopers range.

Start making exceptions left right and centre and your players start to get pissed off as the game is completely inconsistent and they don't know what is going to happen in any given situation. It would also slow the game down as the players would ahve to confirm all situations with the GM every single attack which would just hamper gameflow.

The balance at the moment is fine. If you actually had a reason to change stuff then do so in your own games. But as it stands I like the way these keywords work, they make everything so much simpler especially for new players.
 

Mark Dunder

Mongoose
Your argument is incorrect, you can only threaten with a melee attack in this game system (page 229 Conan PE). Thus to make your point complete, you will need to revise your argument. Your point seems to be that certain words are just key words and can not be taken literally. This seems to be a consistant argument with many players for this game system. It would mean less consistancy due to a need to have an extensive glossary of terminology related primarily to this game. My 28 years of playing RPGs, and various war and miniature games, and the extensive gaming vocabulary I use relatively interchangeably between hundreds of games I have played, should now just be tossed out, due to designers that seem terminology impaired? Not gonna do it.

Read here about Attacks of Opportunity from the SRD.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#threatenedSquares
 

Oly

Mongoose
Dunderm, exactly what is your point?

The Conan RPG defines what it means by "flanked" and "threatened" and then uses them. The SRD link that you've sent clearly does the same thing for "threatened."

Are you complaining that the game takes words which have certain meanings, such as "flank" or "threaten", and uses them to describe game rules?

If so then it's something that just about every game I've ever played does the same thing. Hell even Monopoly uses the word "mortgage" and there's no mortage that I've ever seen that gives you half the value of your house and then lets you own it again by paying that half back plus 10% at some later point of your choosing. Maybe the monopoly games designer was "terminology challenged" too, *shrug*.

I even remember my war games telling me that I could stack 6 units in one hex, I'm fairly sure that they didn't mean I was parking tanks on top of one another.
 

Mark Dunder

Mongoose
You really should not argue if you haven't looked up the meaning of the words you're using (I make that mistake too often).

Mortgage is used correctly by Monopoly. Stack has as a meaning "a large number or amount."

But that's beside the point.

The archer cannot 'threaten" an opponent, because the archer is not adjacent to the opponent. Threatening is clearly defined and works for me. It was the previous post that assumed I meant the archer could threaten the opponent at range, and so I gave reference to that incorrect assumption, to show I knew that an archer could not threaten out at 30 or even 10 feet.

Again, the archer cannot threaten, but should be able to take advantage of an opponent that is threatened. But I also realized this may imbalance this game in favor of the archer over the vaunted melee fighter, so to give the archer a flank attack, that is based in "some" realism, I offered that only under one special circumstance could an archer be given a flanking bonus.

Vaunt - to boast, brag (so some of you don't have to run to the dictionary).

Flank has several meanings, but the military one simply means the side of the formation or the side of the enemy.

If the opponent is thus engaged on every side but the one presented to the archer, then the archer can shoot into the "side" or flank of the target. If even one other side is open to the target (given the square and 8 available "sides"), then a consistant "side" or flank is not presented as a target to the archer, the archer cannot therefore fire with any certainty into the flank of the target, and therefore cannot get the flanking bonus.

But I tire of this redundancy, and assumptions I haven't a clue as to how to play an RPG. That sort of disrespect is wrong.
 

Mark Dunder

Mongoose
I wanted to add, without editing the last entry. It's long enough as it is. That Mad Dog wanted to know if there was any way to flank using a missile weapon. The answer turned out to be no, according to a rule designed to give more weight to the melee fight, contrary to known historical data. I pointed that out, but made several errors as I got to know the rules better, with the helpful hints from several other posts. Once I realized that flanking was a restricted term solely used in melee, I was appalled by such usage. I was further appalled the more I read about the archer skills and feats, by how weak the archer appeared to be. Some of the postings made it blatenly clear this was "intentional" in order to give the melee fighter more of an edge in combat.

For whatever reason, many players of Conan believe that the hack and slash of attack by Conan is what makes Conan, Conan. Therefore any attack threatening that perception has to be "dumbed" down. Archers, as such in this game, become weak and not as effective as the melee fighter. The Mongols and Huns would have found that particularly hilarious. I will point out that these guys were "mounted" archers, and so had mobility on their side, enabling them to get at the "flank" of the enemy more easily. Archers in the Hyborian Age do not seem to have this ability to a heightened degree, and therefore suffer the penalty of being approachable by the melee fighter. So, not having a flanking attack just cripples the archer unnessarily. But, I play a large variety of "realistic" games, so find this type of restriction galling. Oh, but this is a fantasy game (so what RPG game isn't?). And it would be too hard to create a realistic game. Excuses, excuses, excuses...

But most of you seem quite happy to play the rules and not ever questions the rules cause they "work just fine for me." Of course they do. Chess works just fine, but it doesn't come close to reality. You can play chess if you like, I want to play an RPG.

Oh, I didn't insult anybody did I? Or am I being too sarcastic? Or am I too (insert appellation here).
 

Yogah of Yag

Mongoose
If I may butt in here briefly...
I understand the term flank(-ing, -ed) to be in reference to not oneself and the enemy, but a term describing oneself and one's ally being situated on opposite sides of an enemy.

xxx
xEx
xxx

Above, an Enemy (E) occupying a 5 ft. square, and surrounded by 8 empty squares (x).

xxx
yEi
xxx

Now, I (i) and You (y) are flanking the enemy (E). We each should get +2 to our attack rolls to this enemy, providing that the enemy (E) is an NPC or PC who doesn't have any feats or class abilities which negate that flanking bonus.

Now, if that is not correct, I will have to don a large dunce-cap on my elephant head and sit shamefully in the corner. :?
 

Oly

Mongoose
OK, staying on target, your problem is that the Conan RPG doesn't grant "flanking" bonuses to an archer?

If so that's not really got anything do to with Conan as that inability is in D&D 3rd Edition (no idea about 3.5), the Conan designers probably didn't see any reason to change the rule and took it into Conan. That doesn't mean the issue can't be thought about and a rule added, just that it's not connected with hack and slash for Conan's sake.

The rules in The Free Companies for mass combat allow flanking in the "unit vs. unit" war gaming way. A battle fought with those rules is the perfect place that gives mounted Mongol style archers the ability to get onto the enemies flank. Well if the GM sees fit to, it's a very rules light system.
 

ricardo440

Mongoose
Dundern

read my posts before you start ranting about them.

What I said was the system is perfectly fine as it is.

IF you START to allow a missile character to threaten people then you open yourself to a whole host of problems.
 
Top