Is flanking too strong?

[EvanescentHero]

I really like the idea of flanking, and it was something I used a lot in 3.P. However, I'm chafing at the idea of allowing flanking with its current rules; advantage seems too strong. Does anyone have any in-game experience that supports my gut feeling here, or does it work out okay?

P.S. I realize fighting two combatants at one is tough, but from a game balance perspective, advantage is just a really strong benefit.

[Daishain]

Flanking is pretty strong, but bear in mind that its a double edged sword that can work against the party just as easily as for. More so in many cases, since they're often going to be outnumbered towards the beginning.

Whether I'd recommend using it or not somewhat depends on the players. If they like using position tactics and/or being in tense battles, break it out. If not, you might want to hold off.

[ad_hoc]

I think it is too strong. Worse, it is uninteresting. It is trivial to get behind an enemy now. You don't incur opportunity attacks to walk around enemies anymore.

Rogues get their sneak attack damage if the enemy is engaged by someone else. Other characters aren't skilled enough to place deadlier blows.

[ProphetSword]

I think it's too strong, which is why I haven't allowed it at the table. I'm glad it's an optional rule.

At first, my players were a little bit bummed that they wouldn't be able to use it when I told them I wasn't allowing it, and then I explained how the monsters could use it against them and how terrible it would be in situations when monsters surround them (which seems to happen a lot in dungeons), and they suddenly had a change of heart. Amazing.

[Yagyujubei]

yeah my group tried it for a few sessions and stopped because it ruins game balance. It kinda kills the whole bounded accuracy thing.

[7heprofessor]

Is this presented in the DMG as an optional rule? I'm AFB at the moment.


I don't see this as game-shattering by any means. The DM can use the same tactic on PCs, and PCs that make use of it often simply open themselves up to it more often as well.

[Yagyujubei]

Is this presented in the DMG as an optional rule? I'm AFB at the moment.


I don't see this as game-shattering by any means. The DM can use the same tactic on PCs, and PCs that make use of it often simply open themselves up to it more often as well.

well here's the thing, this game is paced around lower general accuracy, and you have lower hp to compensate, so when people are getting advantage literally every attack (which isnt hard) monsters and PC's end up getting destroyed really quickly...like one round quickly(at least in my experience).

and yeah there are flanking rules in the DMG, but I dont remember what they are either.

[Malifice]

Im allowing it, but I've also houseruled any movement out of a threatened square provokes unless you take the disengage action.

So rogues still have no difficulties, everyone else needs to either engage into a flanking position, or draw an AoO.

[Knaight]

It seems fine to me. It's a lot weaker than outnumbering bonuses in other games I've played, and those work pretty well; I don't see flanking presenting an issue.

[Balor777]

I would make it softer giving just +2 damage.
Easy to calculate and realistic cause a flanked person should be hit harder because he cant concentrate on 2 attackers in the opposite size from him.

[Yakk]

As a suggestion:

If you move into a flank around a target, no benefit. If you maintain the flank from last turn (by a small move), advantage.

So the initial flank is just a threat of next turn. Which adds some tactical depth.

[Kryx]

I think flanking giving advantage is much too strong. I chose to give a +1 advantage to hit based on another GiantITP thread: House rule granting advantage to all flanking creatures (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?384713-House-rule-granting-advantage-to-all-flanking-creatures)

Advantage invalidates a lot of things:

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.


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


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

[obryn]

It's an issue in 5e largely because it's trivial to get into position. And that devalues all other ways of getting Advantage.

I wouldn't use the rule as-is.

[Slipperychicken]

It seems fine to me, from a realism standpoint at least. Even being outnumbered 2-to-1 in melee is a really bad situation, especially if they're coming from both sides like that.

Also, it's important to remember that flanking in 5e requires being on opposite sides of an opponent. As in, two adjacent sides won't cut it.

[Person_Man]

One of the best things about 5E is that it abandons many (though certainly not all) of the small/fiddly/tactical/meta elements of previous editions, and focuses more on your class abilities and story telling. It's a roleplaying game, not a tabletop squad combat game. You're not supposed to worry about flanking, or your exact position on the battlefield, or whatever. You just listen to your DM, describe whatever sounds like the most interesting/useful thing you should do in that situation, maybe roll a few dice, and then your DM describes what happens.

If you're more into tactical squad combat, I would highly suggest 4E.

[themaque]

I was a player in a game where the GM was using the Flanking rules, and it really felt like it was not in the players favor. we only had 4 players so where constantly fighting odds in the monsters favor, and where taking much more damage than where dishing out. It was really disheartening.

[Kane0]

We had the same question raised in our first 5e game, and we voted to not use optional flanking.
The reasoning being the advantage granted is very easy to get and makes combat stagnant quickly as people move to flank even though they normally wouldn't and takes away a lot of other interesting things because flanking is more efficient.
It is also of note that since large amounts of lower CR threats in a battle pose more of a threat in other editions, flanking becomes an extremely effective tactic for swarms of low CR creatures that are often a handful to begin with.

It turns out that removing flanking makes combat a lot more fluid and mobile, people shifting and looking for other ways to get advantage. The strategic benefit of ganging up on targets is not really hindered that much by not getting advantage from flanking, as bounded accuracy and a ton of other things make sure it isn't necessary.

But as said above advantage is huge, and getting it so easily and readily changes more than one might suspect from first glance.

[MaxWilson]

I was a player in a game where the GM was using the Flanking rules, and it really felt like it was not in the players favor. we only had 4 players so where constantly fighting odds in the monsters favor, and where taking much more damage than where dishing out. It was really disheartening.

4 PCs can arrange themselves to be impossible to flank: just fight in a square formation. There are no two sides of you that can be open.

That said, I agree with those who say the optional flanking rules makes combat less interesting, because advantage is binary.

[Malifice]

4 PCs can arrange themselves to be impossible to flank: just fight in a square formation. There are no two sides of you that can be open.

Yes there are. Diagonally.

[Psikerlord]

I really like the idea of flanking, and it was something I used a lot in 3.P. However, I'm chafing at the idea of allowing flanking with its current rules; advantage seems too strong. Does anyone have any in-game experience that supports my gut feeling here, or does it work out okay?

P.S. I realize fighting two combatants at one is tough, but from a game balance perspective, advantage is just a really strong benefit.

Yes I think it's too strong ime. High AC means little when flanking is easily obtained, which makes hp and dmg even more important in comparison. We have changed it to +2 to hit if you outnumber your opponents in melee. We dont use a grid, so this houserule is also for ease of use when positioning is not crystal clear.

I am considering no bonus at all however. The obviously still a big benefit to having multiple enemies attack a person (more rolls to hit, more hp to soak, etc). A separate bonus isnt really necessary at all. We did start out playing this way, in fact. We changed over with DMG. Then modified it. Hmm but perhaps we will just drop it altogether. Interesting thread!