Positioning (flank and rear attacks) and mass melee?

[sepulchre]

Do the rules for positioning (flanking and rear attacks) apply to mass melee or are they merely employed when a single combatant is facing multiple attackers?

[Matthew]

Interestingly, the section "who attacks whom" references the positioning rules to the extent that it says "remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made upon one opponent." So, whilst I do not think positioning matters, I would suggest that the melee works similarly to what is eventually suggested in second edition, where each "zone" fills up from best defended to worst defended. So, for example, if two fighters are engaged in melee with eight orcs and six of the orc attacks are determined to be directed at one fighter, then he would receive three attacks to the front, two attacks to the flank, and one to the rear, whilst his companion would receive only two frontal attacks.

Tactically, the thing to do when faced with these sort of rules is to close down the number of zones that you can be attacked from, such as by standing in a passageway. A perhaps more advantageous method is to have fellows standing on either side of you, but that really does start to break up the whole concept of the randomness of the "mass melee", though I think it is possibly what was intended [i.e. a mass melee is randomised, but not that random!].

[T. Foster]

I make it a function of the number of combatants per side -- if the number is even then everybody is attacking everyone else frontally; if one side has a numerical advantage, then the excess numbers may (depending on the specific circumstances of the encounter, i.e. not if the party is fighting 2 or 3 abreast in a 10' corridor, or specifically state that they're keeping their backs to a wall, fighting back-to-back, etc.) be able to get flanking attacks in the 2nd & subsequent rounds of the melee (last bit via Chainmail). Rear attacks only come in a mass melee (as opposed to a specifically maneuvered situation) if one side is badly outnumbered (say 4:1 or greater). As always, these things are not as formalized or cut-and-dried as they appear in these descriptions -- in the heat of play it's all done pretty much ad-hoc what seems appropriate at the moment, but these are the general principles that tend to inform the various judgment calls.

[sepulchre]

First, my thanks and gratitude for giving this question its own a thread

Foster wrote:

I make it a function of the number of combatants per side -- if the number is even then everybody is attacking everyone else frontally; if one side has a numerical advantage, then the excess numbers may (depending on the specific circumstances of the encounter, i.e. not if the party is fighting 2 or 3 abreast in a 10' corridor, or specifically state that they're keeping their backs to a wall, fighting back-to-back, etc.) be able to get flanking attacks in the 2nd & subsequent rounds of the melee (last bit via Chainmail).

Got it, nice example, especially the part from Chainmail, 'excess numbers...flanking on subsequent rounds'.

Matthew wrote:

where each "zone" fills up...

Thanks Matt, the example you cite seems similar to how I have handled this question in the past.


So here are a few phrases I have questions about:

simply use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents, remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made
upon one opponent (70 DMG).

Taking into account the confusion that is mass melee, is this random generator re-rolled every round? In other words, in this chaos does one stay engaged with said combatant for the duration of the melee? Or must one be a PC or intelligent creature to remain engaged with the same opponent (see below)?

If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat (70 DMG).

Hence, are characters and intelligent creatures only subject to the initial roll at the beginning of the first melee round to find out which opponent one randomly engages? Or are they too, subject to the same roll on subsequent melee rounds shared by other less intelligent creatures?

[Matthew]

I believe the intent is that attacks are usually allocated randomly each round, but that intelligent characters can specifically engage a particular opponent, with whom they are then locked in combat. Say, for instance, that a 4th level fighter and his two men at arms were in melee with six goblins and a hobgoblin. Ordinarily, all attacks would be allocated randomly each round, but if a character chose to attack a particular opponent then he would be locked in combat with it. So, if the fighter "locks" himself in combat with the hobgoblin, he must fight until that hobgoblin is dead, and cannot attack the goblins until that is the case (barring him fleeing or withdrawing or something of that nature). I would further add the probability that in such circumstances, the character being singled out would have to consent to the "lock", which is to say if the hobgoblin refused to be particularly singled out, attacks would have to be allocated randomly (the hobgoblin presumably using the goblins to safeguard his own life).

[T. Foster]

So here are a few phrases I have questions about:

simply use some random number generation to find out which attacks are upon which opponents, remembering that only a certain number of attacks can usually be made
upon one opponent (70 DMG).

Taking into account the confusion that is mass melee, is this random generator re-rolled every round? In other words, in this chaos does one stay engaged with said combatant for the duration of the melee? Or must one be a PC or intelligent creature to remain engaged with the same opponent (see below)?

If characters or similar intelligent creatures are able to single out an opponent or opponents, then the concerned figures will remain locked in melee until one side is dead or opts to attempt to break off the combat (70 DMG).

Hence, are characters and intelligent creatures only subject to the initial roll at the beginning of the first melee round to find out which opponent one randomly engages? Or are they too, subject to the same roll on subsequent melee rounds shared by other less intelligent creatures?

My understanding of the intent is that the default for a mass melee, and the only choice for unintelligent creatures, is that the target of each creature's attacks (or, presumably, each attack for those creatures capable of attacking multiple opponents in a single round) is rolled randomly every round. Intelligent creatures and characters can, instead, choose specific targets and only attack (and, at least implicitly, be attacked by) them -- so the mass melee breaks down into a bunch of one-on-one duels occurring in close proximity to one another. Because there's no penalty to doing this, it tends to produce better results (being able to concentrate all your attacks on a single target and thus take it out more quickly), and it's a lot easier to keep track of, I've found in practice over the years that the vast majority of combats end up this way -- PC 1 vs monster 1, PC 2 vs monster 2, etc.

[sepulchre]

Matthew wrote:

Say, for instance, that a 4th level fighter and his two men at arms were in melee with six goblins and a hobgoblin...

This example from the intelligent creature's perspective is a nice way of fleshing out the mechanics, thanks.

Foster wrote:

Because there's no penalty to doing this, it tends to produce better results (being able to concentrate all your attacks on a single target and thus take it out more quickly),

This is a nice way of underscoring the nature of PCs and that of intelligent creatures and I share the opinion that this approach is easier.

It appears we share the same point of view here, thanks for the help.