Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

Maybe it's just me, but it's just not cricket to me unless hexes are for large scale exploration and squares for small scale.

We use the 5/10/5 method in my game, and have for longer than Pathfinder has existed. I just never wrote it down.

Release 3 of Combat with Floor Plans has been uploaded to The Showcase. The main driver for this latest release was to bring the supplement into line with the 3rd Edition of the Core Rules (with respect to page number references and monster lists). However, I also took the opportunity to update the "Attacks from Behind" section and to make some other minor corrections to the text and figures.

Thanks for the updates.

I've been using some of the rules in this supplement myself in the past year. It's a good looking document. I like all the pictures.

As for the Rear Attack rules, I'm considering using the following for my houserules, from 2e's Player Options: Combat and Tactics:

... characters can make a single facing change during an enemy's move if the enemy moves adjacent to them.

The idea is that you only need 2 characters "flanking you" (with one behind) to be attacked from behind. The two attackers are not taking turns in combat, so there is always one on your back, even if the defender is aware of both; the defender has to choose which one to face, once they've moved in. However, this also prevents a single attacker from running around behind you every round, because as the attacker moves, the defender can turn to face him.

The Thief's sneak attack, however, still requires that the defender be unaware of his presence.

Having said that, I suspect some like to reserve the +2 only when the defender is absolutely unaware (or forced by 4 attackers.)

Regards

Thanks for the feedback. Earlier in this topic, when I first started developing the supplement, there was quite a lot of discussion surrounding moving and turning within combat. What the supplement attempts to do is to retain the flexibility and dynamism of Old School combat within the confines of a grid-based system. Hence it's pretty generous in terms of allowing both attackers and defenders to alter their relative positions. Nothing wrong with your suggestions though, and I'm glad you're finding aspects of the supplement useful. I've been using it in my own Roll20 game for a long time now and it seems pretty robust.

Release 4 of Combat with Floor Plans has been uploaded to The Showcase. Changes as follows:

- References to page numbers in the Core Rules have been removed as these sometimes change when the Core Rules are updated. They have been replaced with references to sections of the Core Rules (Characters, Spells, Encounter, etc.).

- Various (very) minor updates to the text.

First of all, I love the work you've done here. It's very clear and covers a multitude of potential questions. Thanks for doing the work!

That said, I do have one question: on page 9, in "Attacks from Behind", if Derval moved to the square directly "north" of the Goblin or Dunbar moved to the square directly "east" of the Goblin, wouldn't that make it possible for one of them to make an attack from behind with fewer than four attackers, regardless of which way the Goblin adjusts his facing?

Also, I know I'm about five years late to the discussion, but it looks like diagonal movement was made the same as vertical/horizontal movement for simplicity. I agree with that sentiment (if that was the reason) as I always have a point when playing Pathfinder where I either forget if I've made a 5' diagonal movement already or my brain hitches trying to alternate adding 5' or 10'.

However, in the real world moving diagonally one square would work out to be almost exactly 7' of travel. At least how my brain works, I find it much easier to switch from adding fives to adding sevens and back again. If you round to the nearest 5' at the end of your movement, it even works out to match the distance you'd cover alternating 5' and 10' (7->5, 14->15, 21->20, 28->30, etc.). I think this would be a reasonable compromise between keeping the rules simple and keeping movement rates quasi-realistic. Maybe an optional rule to a supplemental rule? Just a thought. YMMV. Thanks!

pawibus wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 10:53 am That said, I do have one question: on page 9, in "Attacks from Behind", if Derval moved to the square directly "north" of the Goblin or Dunbar moved to the square directly "east" of the Goblin, wouldn't that make it possible for one of them to make an attack from behind with fewer than four attackers, regardless of which way the Goblin adjusts his facing?

Hah! I do believe you are right. How did I miss that for all these years? Anyway, good spot. The minimum number of assailants for an attack from behind should be three, not four. I'll update in the next release.

pawibus wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 10:53 amAlso, I know I'm about five years late to the discussion, but it looks like diagonal movement was made the same as vertical/horizontal movement for simplicity. I agree with that sentiment (if that was the reason) as I always have a point when playing Pathfinder where I either forget if I've made a 5' diagonal movement already or my brain hitches trying to alternate adding 5' or 10'.

However, in the real world moving diagonally one square would work out to be almost exactly 7' of travel. At least how my brain works, I find it much easier to switch from adding fives to adding sevens and back again. If you round to the nearest 5' at the end of your movement, it even works out to match the distance you'd cover alternating 5' and 10' (7->5, 14->15, 21->20, 28->30, etc.). I think this would be a reasonable compromise between keeping the rules simple and keeping movement rates quasi-realistic. Maybe an optional rule to a supplemental rule? Just a thought. YMMV. Thanks!

The earlier releases of this supplement did use the 3E/Pathfinder 5'/10'/5' approach. However, in playtesting, I just found it too fiddly. It's not so bad when moving in a straight diagonal. But for more complicated movement, or when calculating ranges for missile weapons or spells, it just seemed more trouble than it was worth. So I reverted to 5' diagonals for simplicity and speed of play.

Your 7' diagonals would work just fine. The obvious drawback is that you lose the easy multiples of five. For example, when working out missile ranges, you can't simply count the number of squares between the firer and the target and multiply by 5.

Also, I guess we have to ask ourselves whether any of the various options for diagonal distances are actually likely to materially alter the outcome of a combat. I'd suggest, in most cases, probably not. In which case you might as well use the easiest one, even if it's not geometrically precise.

Finally, this all becomes a bit moot when using virtual tabletops, as most will now auto-calculate distances for you according to your preferred system.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback and I'll correct the attacking from behind section in the next release.

Joe, nice to still see you around Couple nitpicks for your copyright dates:

• For your copyright date (both on the upper right of the first page and the bottom of the OGL page), it should read "2012-2013, 2015, 2018" (going by your changelog dates)
• On the OGL page, update the BFRPG date from "2006" to "2006-2016"

chiisu81 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:31 am Joe, nice to still see you around Couple nitpicks for your copyright dates:

• For your copyright date (both on the upper right of the first page and the bottom of the OGL page), it should read "2012-2013, 2015, 2018" (going by your changelog dates)
• On the OGL page, update the BFRPG date from "2006" to "2006-2016"

Thanks Chiisu - I definitely wouldn't have spotted those! Again, I'll update at the next release.

I'm running an OSRIC game at the moment, but still lurk around the BF forums and make use of MapMatic!