House rule granting advantage to all flanking creatures

[oncnawan]

My DM has house-ruled that flanking (any creature friendly to attacker within 5 feet of target) gives any creature advantage on attack rolls. It cuts both ways: he uses it for mobs and we take advantage of it with our characters.

I would prefer to use the RAW on this issue and plan on discussing with him reasons why he might want to revert to RAW. I could use some help coming up with reasons why RAW may be the better option.

DM is my brother-in-law. Conversation will be respectful (and private) and won't ruin the game or the relationship. I just want to show him some of the, perhaps, unintended consequences of his house rule.

Here are the arguments I have against his house rule:

1. Devalues rogue characters, as that is their schtick;
2. Devalues AC-based characters and mobs, as attacks will hit more often than not with advantage;
3. Significantly boosts the value of HP, as AC is less effective;
4. Makes combat maneuvering very one dimensional - everyone clusters around the mobs, even casters do this (I played a straight sorcerer last campaign, and often would hit with firebolt and then charge and stand next to one of the mobs to give the paladin advantage on his attack - it felt really weird, from a flavor/realism point of view), as the advantage it gives to melee is so valuable. No one is tripping opponents, or moving in and out of range, because the easiest way to get advantage is to flank.
5. As a subset of 4, devalues feats and subclasses that grant advantage, making those selections less interesting.

What am I missing?

[Easy_Lee]

Mobs that explicitly are able to do this with pack tactics are weakened. Everyone rolling advantage on every attack slows the game down.

[oncnawan]

Thank you! I'll add slowing down the game to the list. I will also start, and keep updating, a list of each mob feature, class feature, and feat that grants advantage on attack rolls.

Nerfed:
Pack tactics
Rogue flanking
Prone condition
Paralyzed condition
Unconscious condition
Grappling
Feat: Mounted Combatant
Hiding and invisibility in combat
Attacking creatures squeezed into a small space
Help action in combat
Vow of emnity
Assassinate
Versatile Trickster

[EDIT]

Conditions that grant disadvantage on attack rolls that would be (under house rule) neutralized by flanking:
Compelled Duel
Poisoned (condition)
Prone (condition)

[GiantOctopodes]

Not to mention that it disadvantages single targets (such as the BBEG), and buffs mobs of weaker monsters, making fights harder and more deadly where they shouldn't be (fighting many enemies below CR) and easier when they shouldn't be (fighting single high CR enemy).

In addition, flanking provided a +2 bonus. Advantage provides, on average, a 3.32 bonus, and reduces the probability of getting an exceptionally low result by also reducing the standard deviation. In addition, it doubles your chance of a crit. Long story short, it is better than a +4 bonus, which means it's effectively more than doubling the power of flanking.

[some guy]

How does a flanking bonus devaluate rogue characters?

[Invader]

How does a flanking bonus devaluate rogue characters?

Because they use sneak attack if they have advantage on attack rolls. If you give everyone advantage all the time it takes away from their signature ability.

It doesn't neccesarily make the rogue weaker, just everyone else stronger.

[Ashrym]

The DM is essentially granting the help action for free so that also devalues that among the other action choices.

The beast master companion can grant advantage as a bonus action (7th lvl iirc) and that animal companion becomes less useful as a ranger option is lost plus any character or creature can accomplish the same thing at 1st level.

The issue with flanking = advantage is that it makes it too easy to counter every effect in the game that creates disadvantage, including things like the foresight spell.

The flanking bonus already exists in the help action and carries that action cost in the current rules. It's just not explicitly stated as such.

[MadGrady]

We actually tried this out in some of our first excursions into 5e, and ended up taking it away. Because of the lack of AoO's from movement, players could get into position without any penalty and just start whacking away with advantage. They had advantage on almost all attack rolls, which really weakened combats.

If you add in flanking advantage, I would HIGHLY recommend adding back in movement AoOs

[INDYSTAR188]

Thank you! I'll add slowing down the game to the list. I will also start, and keep updating, a list of each mob feature, class feature, and feat that grants advantage on attack rolls.

Nerfed:
Pack tactics
Rogue flanking
Prone condition
Paralyzed condition
Unconscious condition
Grappling
Feat: Mounted Combatant
Hiding and invisibility in combat
Attacking creatures squeezed into a small space
Help action in combat
Vow of emnity
Assassinate
Versatile Trickster


Also, conditions and effects that grant disadvantage on attack rolls can be easily nullified by flanking. E.g., Compelled Duel, poisoned condition, prone condition, etc. can be neutralized if the effected creature attacks a flanked target.

In addition to your first post, this is a perfect justification for removing the house rule right here. It nerfs a lot of PC and NPC stuff and has far reaching consequences. The DMG might have flanking rules in it, ask him to revisit after he gets his hands on the book.

[Easy_Lee]

If you add in flanking advantage, I would HIGHLY recommend adding back in movement AoOs

Which, in turn, weakens polearm master while strengthening war caster. It's hard to mess with basic 5e rules too much.

[MadGrady]

Which, in turn, weakens polearm master while strengthening war caster. It's hard to mess with basic 5e rules too much.

Exactly - which is why we just removed it entirely. As stated above, we are just going to wait for DMG to see what alternate rules they provide.

[silveralen]

Going to mean high CR monsters weaker and low CR monsters used in swarms stronger, when my person experience already has the latter more of a threat (could be party dynamic of course).

[T.G. Oskar]

Exactly - which is why we just removed it entirely. As stated above, we are just going to wait for DMG to see what alternate rules they provide.

Well, if what the early buyer of the DMG says is true, amongst the tactical combat rules is flanking, and it's exactly as your houserule states. Well, not exactly as the houserule, since it probably retains the requirements of 3.5 (characters on opposite sides attacking the same target), but it does offer Advantage on attack rolls against the flanked target. There's also the return of some other combat tactics (disarm, overrun; strangely enough, no sunder) and even one 4e tactic got in (marking; in this case, it's Advantage on Opportunity Attacks), but one of the specifics is flanking. Probably will have to wait until a preview with tactical combat is released (or if the FreeMG will have those rules) to confirm, but it seems the developers thought the same.

[thepsyker]

Because they use sneak attack if they have advantage on attack rolls. If you give everyone advantage all the time it takes away from their signature ability.

It doesn't neccesarily make the rogue weaker, just everyone else stronger.

If Flanking gives Advantage and Rogues need Advantage to Sneak Attack, wouldn't that mean that these Flanking rules make the Rogues signature ability stronger and usable more often? How is that taking away from the ability?

[Theodoxus]

Advantage is a huge bonus, and tricky, as outlined in this well thought out thread.

I know the game tried moving away from static bonuses - but it failed to remove them completely (hello attribute mods and magic weapons) - I see no reason, if you really want flanking, that you couldn't use it exactly as 3.x A +2 bonus to hit... Although given bounded accuracy, I would just grant a +1 bonus - it's enough to encourage getting into flank, but not so much your friendly neighborhood sorcerer risks getting into melee for the paladin. Nor is it as over the top game changing (and disadvantage negating) as advantage.

I would also require actual flanking as outlined in 3.x and bring back AoOs - and either remove or modify Polearm Master to replace the OA benefit with another of similar power.

[Theodoxus]

If Flanking gives Advantage and Rogues need Advantage to Sneak Attack, wouldn't that mean that these Flanking rules make the Rogues signature ability stronger and usable more often? How is that taking away from the ability?

Rogues can already sneak attack when an ally is within 5' of their target (useful for ranged sneak as well). Thus advantage on flanking doesn't actually change anything for the rogue - although, unless I'm mis-remembering something - if a rogue has disadvantage on an attack, but is attacking a critter flanked by an ally, it still gets sneak dice.

[GiantOctopodes]

Advantage is a huge bonus, and tricky, as outlined in this well thought out thread.

I know the game tried moving away from static bonuses - but it failed to remove them completely (hello attribute mods and magic weapons) - I see no reason, if you really want flanking, that you couldn't use it exactly as 3.x A +2 bonus to hit... Although given bounded accuracy, I would just grant a +1 bonus - it's enough to encourage getting into flank, but not so much your friendly neighborhood sorcerer risks getting into melee for the paladin. Nor is it as over the top game changing (and disadvantage negating) as advantage.

I would also require actual flanking as outlined in 3.x and bring back AoOs - and either remove or modify Polearm Master to replace the OA benefit with another of similar power.

One thing to keep in mind, too, is that with the lower power structures inherent in this edition, any given + is much more meaningful. So, think of it this way: +2 to hit was 1/5th of max level bonus to hit for Wizards, 2/15ths of the max level bonus to hit for Rogue types, or 1/10th of the max level bonus to hit for Fighter types. +2 in this system is the equivalent of 1/3rd of your max bonus by level for *everyone*.

Put another way, the +4 equivalent provided by Advantage, equivalent to 2/3rds of your max bonus by level, is the same as a +10 bonus in 3.5 for Rogue types (+6 for Wizards, +13 for fighters). Just so it's clear what exactly is being provided here.

The main reason I quoted you in this is to raise the point that the +2 from flanking previously, being between 1/5th and 1/10th of the max bonus by level, would indeed equate to a +1 bonus with the reduced scaling provided by this system. That's not nerfing it at all, that's just keeping up with the times.

[oncnawan]

Well, if what the early buyer of the DMG says is true, amongst the tactical combat rules is flanking, and it's exactly as your houserule states. Well, not exactly as the houserule, since it probably retains the requirements of 3.5 (characters on opposite sides attacking the same target), but it does offer Advantage on attack rolls against the flanked target. There's also the return of some other combat tactics (disarm, overrun; strangely enough, no sunder) and even one 4e tactic got in (marking; in this case, it's Advantage on Opportunity Attacks), but one of the specifics is flanking. Probably will have to wait until a preview with tactical combat is released (or if the FreeMG will have those rules) to confirm, but it seems the developers thought the same.

Thanks for the heads up on the DMG. My problem with the flanking bonus taking the form of advantage on attack rolls stems from the myriad of combat options that it shuts down or deemphasizes. In my experience, combats become very static - not much movement, everybody hits often. If flanking grants advantage on attack rolls, other features need to be included to balance it out.

Part of my problem is that he grants flanking based on ally within 5 feet, not ally on opposite side.

Thanks for the comments.

[Slipperychicken]

My DM has house-ruled that flanking (any creature friendly to attacker within 5 feet of target) gives any creature advantage on attack rolls. It cuts both ways: he uses it for mobs and we take advantage of it with our characters.


My group has been playing a similar way*, because we feel the need to award some benefit for flanking. We don't have many problems with it, aside from most attacks being made with advantage. It makes positioning more important. Also, our rogue has a field day getting a sneak-attack every round.


*We ruled that, if you satisfy the conditions to get 3.5/PF flanking (i.e. Two or more allies adjacent to an enemy. If you can draw a line connecting the centers of the allies' squares which passes through the target's square), you get advantage on melee attacks.

[themaque]

My DM has house-ruled that flanking (any creature friendly to attacker within 5 feet of target) gives any creature advantage on attack rolls. It cuts both ways: he uses it for mobs and we take advantage of it with our characters.

I would prefer to use the RAW on this issue and plan on discussing with him reasons why he might want to revert to RAW. I could use some help coming up with reasons why RAW may be the better option.

What am I missing?

I had a GM that was doing this for a while as well, and I felt it was a much bigger handicap for our party, who was only 3 - 4 players strong, than it was a benefit. We ended up fighting groups bigger than ourselves often, meaning the tank had an even harder time keeping our one squishy safe.

[Yoroichi]

My group has been playing a similar way*, because we feel the need to award some benefit for flanking. We don't have many problems with it, aside from most attacks being made with advantage. It makes positioning more important. Also, our rogue has a field day getting a sneak-attack every round.


*We ruled that, if you satisfy the conditions to get 3.5/PF flanking (i.e. Two or more allies adjacent to an enemy. If you can draw a line connecting the centers of the allies' squares which passes through the target's square), you get advantage on melee attacks.

In our party we have house ruled 1 advantage per turn for the flankers. If 3 creatures are flanking someone, one advantage will be given per turn.

[RealCheese]

Also, our rogue has a field day getting a sneak-attack every round.

But you don't need any flanking house rule for that, you get sneak attack if an ally is next to your target.
I don't miss the flanking rules.