flanking

[Mark Dunder]

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

Same to you, I specifically said the archer may not threaten. If this also means you cannot flank your opponent, then so be it.

Assuming the yaggite has it correctly, unless you are directly on opposites sides of the opponent, you cannot "flank" them.

My supposition puts your target in such a position, that all sides are engaged except the one through which the archer has a clear line of sight, then and only then, can you give the archer a flanking bonus. This is an indirect bonus, given because of the archers position. The opponent may not be "aware" of his danger, and due to the assumed distance of the archer, is not "directly" engaged (threatened), by the archer. Thus the ally opposite the archer (relatively speaking) does not get a flanking bonus. As soon as the archer scores a hit, allow the target to become aware of the "threat," future flanking bonuses from that archer are lost.

This allows a small "window of opportunity" for the archer to "flank" a target.

I assumed all along that this is an "option" that allows a flanking attack by the archer. You may allow this in your game or not. I don't think it will play a significant threat to the melee, but may allow the archer to subtly influence the melee. This may give more options to those campaigns where Hyrkanians, with their incredible bows, play a greater part.

Perhaps "flanking a melee" could be a Feat available to Hyrkanians or Archers at higher levels. In fact, that's what I would do. Anyone have a suggestion as to what level and name you could give this Feat?

 

[MadDog]

If I may butt into my topic, I think the rules are as they are as an archer is not something a person in HTH combat can apply a lot of attention to, thus the lack of flanking, when flanking is more of a generic term than a specific one.

I didnt think there was a way for an archer to flank, but wasnt sure if there was a feat somewhere.

thanks,

Mad Dog

 

[Mark Dunder]

Thanks for the idea that there "may" have been a flanking Feat.

Feat:
Flanking Shot (General)
Your advanced skills as a Soldier, allows deeper insight into combat tactics. This insight allows you to shoot effectively into a melee combat.
Prerequisite: Precise Shot, Soldier level 10+. Target must have all sides threatened except the side towards shooter.
Benefit: Receives a +1 bonus on attack roll.
Special: Once target is hit, even if no damage is caused, shooter looses bonus as target adjusts to new tactic. May try again if target moves, during another round.

I'm going to try it out when I get the chance. If anyone wants to be daring and give it a try, I would appreciate your experiences.

Also, if anyone has a better wording for this trial Feat, I would appreciate the editing.

 

[argo]

Yadjacent 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.

But it was YOU who suggested that an archer be allowed to trheaten earlier in this same thread.

Except you didn't. You only intended to suggest that an archer should be allowed to flank. But several others here made the connection back to threatining (and thus AoO's and sneak attacks). And it took you half a page to sort out the confusion and make yourself clear.

All of which comes back to my earlier point that rules systems based on "plain language" and "common sense" quickly degenerate into endless rules squables as no group can agree on the meaning of plain language and common sense is anything but common. And boy isn't it fun to sit around the table on game night with the dictionary arguing about the meaning of "mortgage" and "stack"?

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.

Oh yes. Rules of this nature are clearly superior game design compared to a system based on pseudo code and object oreinted design principles.

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.

Forgive my snarkiness but considering some of the things you yourself have written in this thread I find your appeal for "respect" to be somewhat lacking.


And lastly...

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.

Once again, despite your intended sarcasam this statement contains more deep wisdom. Chess is indeed a game which substitutes codified rules for "realism". And yet it is a game which has famously withstood the test of time and enjoys a strong following.


I'm also curious as to how your reconcile your, quite accurate, chess analogy with this comment you made

Using rules to force people to change how they would think naturally, takes away their critical thinking and tactics.

Or do you suggest that chess does not rely on critical thinking and tactics?

Later.

 

[Mark Dunder]

Chess is a strategy game, of which I am quite good at. The opening , middle and end moves are generally what gets the critical thinking and tactics.

Input from previous posts changed my assumptions and proved my ignorance of the rules, but I don't easily take "can't" and "no" as an answer, until all the options are exhausted, comes from playing Paranoia I guess. I think I'm not the only individual that needed this cleared up. Previous posts from others suggested that flanking could be an option for an archer. Some of us were not entirely clear on the rules, and had questions. Many of us are naturally rebels, we don't like to follow Big Brother just because he wrote the rules. A game will never improve if the rules are not challenged constantly, chess originally did not allow the pawn to move 2 squares on the first move. When this rule was introduced, a problem occured that required another rule to be introduced called En Passant. So rules that lasts for centuries, can be changed, and sometimes makes a better game. If you don't understand this, you are not a critical thinker.

As far as meaning of words are concerned, I always challenge my children and peers with what the correct meaning of a word is. I have a dictionary by my side at work at home at playing Scrabble. Wherever I may be, I see nothing wrong with challenging anyone about the correct meaning of a word. Words rarely have one meaning, some do. Words have known derivations and usage that must be known to be understood. I understand full well that games use words that may have specific meaning in the context of the game. I write out rules to my own games enough to know this.

I challenged that the archer did not have an ability to make a flank attack. I believe that if an opponent is sufficiently engaged and presents a flank, that the archer should be allowed a flanking bonus. The rules of the game gave only melee fighters any chance for a flanking attack. So I presented situations and possibilities and hoped some possibility presented itself to give an archer justice in this game.

If I am sarcastic and rude at times, I do so to get a response. Politeness rarely gets noticed. I asked respect only to my many years of playing games, not for my critiques. You may take that as you wish. You argue well enough, but I already know my failings. I change my mind about many things, and I reserve the right to do so. If I contridict an earlier statement, then my current statement is the amendment and stands until further thought may change that.

I may never agree a rule is right, but I will use it if no better presents itself. Independance demands independant thought. You may be wrong, but at least you have the choice. I could be wrong about the ability of an archer to flank a melee battle, but I'll play it until "I" know myself. You can only know if something is true, if you experience it yourself. Until then you can only assume.

 

[Tegman]

Thanks for the idea that there "may" have been a flanking Feat.

Feat:
Flanking Shot (General)
Your advanced skills as a Soldier, allows deeper insight into combat tactics. This insight allows you to shoot effectively into a melee combat.
Prerequisite: Precise Shot, Soldier level 10+. Target must have all sides threatened except the side towards shooter.
Benefit: Receives a +1 bonus on attack roll.
Special: Once target is hit, even if no damage is caused, shooter looses bonus as target adjusts to new tactic. May try again if target moves, during another round.

I'm going to try it out when I get the chance. If anyone wants to be daring and give it a try, I would appreciate your experiences.

Also, if anyone has a better wording for this trial Feat, I would appreciate the editing.

The idea is good, but I think the prereqs are a bit hars for a feat that only gives a +1. I think it should be allowed at a lower level, and only a few threatened sides (I don't think it will happen so often otherwise). And I don't think it have to be 'unthreatened' towards the archer, archers can shoot into melee anyway.
I think the feat's name speaks for itself, so I see no need to change that.
I will try it out myself, but I think I'll make it a combat maneuver instead of a feat (it's enough feats in the d20 games as it is).

 

[ricardo440]

I agree that GMs should change rules if they want to. I refigured the DR system so armour takes damage in my games.
It is a bit like Stoneskin in D&D vanilla.
except each time your armour (including natural armour DR such as a thick hide) takes 15 damage it is reduced in power by 1.

However I don't think an archer should get flanking bonuses. It should be harder to shoot at someone who is a sword length away from a friend, not easier. And if they are surrounded on all but one side then it just makes it worse. You shoot just as your friend makes his lunge, and his wrist has your arrow in it.

 

[Mark Dunder]

However I don't think an archer should get flanking bonuses. It should be harder to shoot at someone who is a sword length away from a friend, not easier. And if they are surrounded on all but one side then it just makes it worse. You shoot just as your friend makes his lunge, and his wrist has your arrow in it.

That is a good point. The description for Precise Shot is "Your friends need not fear your missiles when you shoot past them." I'm hoping that will take care of that problem. But I would say a natural 1 will definetly cause you to hit your friend, not just miss your target. As you say, your friends are all over this doomed man, hard not to hit something with your arrow.

The Combat Manoeuvres listed in Conan PE are all melee options, and seem to have some sort of penalty to use. Not all of them. They all seem to be designed to take care of a situation where an opportunity exists to give you an instant "upper hand" so to speak. Not something you may have anticipated getting yourself into. But I don't know if it would not work for Flanking Shot. I would allow that you could do this at 10 feet or less, but you would be unable to move away, allowing the opponent to engage you in melee. Just a thought.

I made the level 10+ just arbitrarily, I really have no way of knowing if this is fair or workable. I made it a +1 attack bonus, because I'm not sure if the possibility of hitting a friend may give you some pause, even if you are one heck of an archer. Also I felt that given the current ruling that flanking is only for those engaged in melee, too much of a bonus would invalidate the conception that melee is king of the battle field in Conan.

Thanks for your support of this idea. I hope it pans out for some of you.

 

[Auggie]

Can one assume your target is flat-footed if he is unaware of you when you sneak-attack?

 

[Jotenbjorn]

archers shouldn't get a flanking bonus at close range. the bow is an absolutely horrible weapon close up. giving the archer the ability to flank just flat out makes the bow superior to the sword, which is terribly inaccurate.

 

[Castel]

Can one assume your target is flat-footed if he is unaware of you when you sneak-attack?

Yes you can, it´s in the book, and you add sneak attack dice each time you hit when he is considered flat-footed...

About the flanking... by the rules it´s a melee thing...

I think that flanking was not implemented for ranged weapons, since it really doesn´t work like melee...

But you can do your own rules like dunderm did...

"Flanking shot" feat seems nice, but i would make it a bit diferent.

Precise shot and 4 soldier levels as prerequesite, a +2 bonus, and it could only be done when target is being flanked in melee by at least 2 enemys (soft cover must be considered), and that special part doesn´t make much sense to me, you can´t adapt much when your dodging blades and arrows...

But i find this not needed since "dodge" is normaly smaller than parry (and even in pirates it´s not that big), and bows are not toys, they are really powerfull killing machines as they are, if properly used...

(The only problem I have with the bow is against heavy armored foes, since against high DR, normal bows "are no good")

 

[Bregales]

I haven't seen this thread before now, so I tried reading through since the opening post. I didn't see the point I'm about to make mentioned, so will add this here: DnD 3.x rules deviated from 1st & 2nd edition AD&D in that facing no longer applies. There is no "back," "side," or "flank" to give an advantage in combat in the present edition of the OGL rules. I was incredulous when I first got the 3rd edition rules, and we worked out how it was written, how the WotC website explained the changes and such. By employing a grid based combat system (and doing away with grid AND hex) it would make for a more unitarian combat system. Feats and combat effectiveness, and even skills, are new from previous versions. FLANKING as has been mentioned before means two opponents adjacent, on direct opposite sides of their common opponent. It is not flanking in terms of mounted combat or facing, it's just how they lie on the grid. (the x, i, y in Yogah's post).

If an archer is in a threatened square and tries to use a missile weapon, his melee opponent gets an automatic Attack of Opportunity against him. Now if an archer is only 10' away, archer's melee opponent can, on his initiative, make a 5' step AND make his full attack against said archer (i.e., if he has 2 attacks per round, they apply, but if melee person goes more than 5' up to his normal move, he only gets one attack per round).

3rd Edition, in an attempt to simplify combat by rewriting the whole game dynamic, made it rather difficult. But, as those who have posted have attested, once they've learned the game they don't need to look up rules each combat. Now, on the other hand, my present game group is a bunch of rules lawyers who argue to win a situation, so they're always challenging the rules and people have to look up the rule to say "You're right" or "No shut up and take your lickin', you loser" but that's the way the game is.

The more they fix the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain, so to speak.

But, using the notes on ranged combat IMO works FAIRLY RL. In any combat situation, if armed &/or mounted warriors were charging those archers (who usually weren't heavily armored, were very lightly armed aside from bows), panicked and ran. Mongols aside.

As for archers flanking, I just ask myself, if I saw another guy with a bow 15 feet away from me, pointing his knocked and locked arrow IN MY DIRECTION (with a twisting and evading guy in between us) wouldn't I be more nervous than if my friend held a sword a few feet away? Anyways, I hope this helps.

 

[Mark Dunder]

Hi Bregales,
It's tough to play an RPG when you've got so many miniature rules to deal with. When I started playing a lot of the miniature games such as HeroClix, and later Starwars, I noticed how close all this was to a lot of RPGs. When it came to miniature rules or at least hex based combat in an RPG, "The Fantasy Trip" really came to mind, although it sticks with facing (front, side, and rear). I had also played Paranoia for quite a while. That game is fun on a whole different level, but I mentioned it to point out that some RPGs have little use for miniature rules. In fact, I've started digging through my assortment of RPGs (6 boxes full), and a large majority don't have exact miniature rules that the OGL games seem to be saddle with. I can't say this with assurance about OGL because I don't have a lot of them to reference. I'm not sure if this is significant, but I've played a few scenarios in many other RPGs and never once used miniatures. When players wanted to get back stabs in or hits to the side, I always just made them either try sneak attacks or maneuver attacks.

To make a long winded point short, I think RPGs should do away with miniature rules as much as possible. I still like to set up a diorama just to get a feel for the situation. But to relie on this for exact movement and combat takes away the real feel of the RPG experience IMO.

 

[Etepete]

H
To make a long winded point short, I think RPGs should do away with miniature rules as much as possible. I still like to set up a diorama just to get a feel for the situation. But to relie on this for exact movement and combat takes away the real feel of the RPG experience IMO.

Couldn't agree more. I've done a cple of dioramas with rpg touch and stuff like that, and that's an interesting gaming experience in its own right. But when you just assume, from the writers pow, that everybodys gonna be using grids and minis, well to me that's just a design flaw.

I wasn't raised on D&D, and I find that people that were often have a different conception of what an RPG is. And I'm not saying that I'm into deep immersion or social realism dramas, my games tend to be as much pulp action as the next guys, but I'm not turned on by incessent die-rolling and book-keeping.

 

[High Lord Dee]

To make a long winded point short, I think RPGs should do away with miniature rules as much as possible. I still like to set up a diorama just to get a feel for the situation. But to relie on this for exact movement and combat takes away the real feel of the RPG experience IMO.

COMPLETELY disagree. The 3.5 combat system is awesome. Leave it be. I don't know about you but to me, the old AD&D and D&D had so many flaws in it because it lacked realism. If you like having your character running around freely through a room full of enemies and picking and choosing who to attack without any real concern of taking damage at higher levels then feel free to "wing" it. Flanking, attacks of opportunity, critical hits and sneak attack make the game better. Period. But, to play them accurately you really should use the grid. Interesting that some of you out there play 3.5 without a grid but it also solves the Bregales situation. Rules lawyers just can't argue what you allow or disallow. Less time arguing, more time playing.

RPG's were always designed to play with miniatures. You can do without but you will be missing a fun part of the game. They are there simply to be used to assist the GM and the players with movement and combat (which in most systems are the hard part to keep track of) and just look so cool when done right.

Flanking with a bow is certainly something you could house rule. But, with the thousands of hours of play testing and the feedback of experienced 3.5 vets you have heard from on this thread, it may create an imbalance. That is always the danger of house rules.

Let us know if you try to house rule it and how it turns out.

HLD

 

[Bregales]

I don't know where he found it, but my friend Tiberius mentioned a quote from an outside source from Matthew Sprange about the imminent release of D&D version 4.0 today, and WotC it seems is preparing for the totally new system.

So while I have no idea what this will mean for the d20 license, it could potentially create a legal nightmare for 3rd party vendors like Mongoose who use the d20 3.x OGL for products like the Conan line.

I hope Mr. Sprange or someone from Mongoose will validate or shoot down this rumour, but this was his report on EN World: GAMA REPORT: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=171655

Note the suspicions that the d20 license will end and 3rd party sellers must immediately halt sales of products using the license. That would effectively halt the Conan product line if true.

 

[High Lord Dee]

That's just grrrreeeaaatttt.... :roll:

Hope it is only speculation and rumor. Thanks for the info!

 

[Mark Dunder]

That would be bad news. But I think wiser heads will prevail. Just some greedy evil men trying to make a fast buck. They would be smarter to just say that 4.0 will not be put up for free licensing, and have some "real" good upgrades to the system. I think any improvements will only be superficial, as normal. Might just be a legal ploy to get around the free license currently in place. Well, background material can still be produced, lot of that doesn't reference OGL anyway. It would be nice to see material produced for all sorts of gaming systems.