Anyone using the optional flanking rule?

[Dalebert]

I hate it. Fortunately, it appears most DMs don't use it in 5e.

In 3.5, it was potentially tricky to get into place for flanking. It was a benefit that had an inherent price. You might have to risk an AoO moving through threatened squares or you might have to blow a lot of your movement trying to get around threatened squares and perhaps fail to get in place and miss an attack.

They obviously simplified combat in a lot of ways. I understand folks wanting to reintroduce a little complication for more realism, but it seems to me that adding flanking back should add some kind of risk back for trying to get it.

EDIT: Basically, I feel like the old AoO rules were a compromise for realism. It sucks to be flanked, so I'm not going to just stand there while you do it. In a real-world fight, I would be maneuvering at the same time as you to try to prevent you from getting into place for it. But combat is turn-based to simplify things and I imagine that's why the compromise of an opportunity attack was implemented. It seems to me those were a package deal so when they got rid of AoO based on moving through a threatened square, they logically also got rid of flanking (barring special cases like class features).

[ProphetSword]

I don't allow it in my games. At first, my players were bummed about the decision, until I explained to them that the monsters would be able to use it against them. After thinking about that for a minute, they suddenly had a change of heart and realized I was right to not allow it.

Honestly, I feel it's overpowered, regardless of which side uses it. So, I doubt I will ever allow it in any game I run.

[calebrus]

The only way to use it effectively is to change the OA rules to more of a 3e or 4e style. And even then, a simple +1 to attack is all I would offer (if I were using it, which I am not).

[JNAProductions]

Not having played 3E or 4E, what's the OA change that makes Flanking so much better/worse?

[calebrus]

Not having played 3E or 4E, what's the OA change that makes Flanking so much better/worse?

5e was designed to be played in Theater of the Mind as a legitimate option. The OA rules about squares don't really support that. So instead, OAs are *only* provoked when an enemy *leaves* an enemy's reach.
They can dance around you, as long as they stay engaged in melee.
That means there is zero risk involved in gaining a flanking position. If there is room to move into position, you can do so.
That, in turn, means that the flanking rules are too powerful (which is why they are an optional rule, but they were poorly done as an optional rule). Thus the changes I suggested.

edit:
3e & 4e were the ones you missed....
OK, in 3e & 4e, if an enemy left a threatened square (5'), they provoked an OA (for each 5'). So no dancing was allowed without some risk (because doing so *always* provoked an OA unless you had a way to avoid it). If you were engaged in melee and moved, you provoked, and thus getting into a tactical position was more dangerous, and therefore more beneficial.
You could only move one single square (5') if you didn't want to provoke. Any more, and you were going to get hit (possibly multiple times). If you wanted to move more than one square without provoking, you had to essentially (for comparative purposes) use your action to do so (kind of like disengaging here in 5e), even if you stayed within the threatened range the entire time.

5e allows free movement within threatened areas, as long as you don't leave that threatened area. 3e & 4e did not allow that much freedom. So in 3e & 4e flanking was usually a risk/reward scenario. In 5e, there's no risk, and it's all reward, unless you make changes to the OA rules.

[Daishain]

We're thinking about trying it at my table paired with a homebrew AOO rule. Moving through reach invokes AOOs just like in 3.5, unless one chooses to take a speed penalty of 5' per reach zone affecting their current square. (so if a creature wanted to move directly in between two creatures, it would cost 30' of speed to go just 2 squares) The disengage action allows the creature taking it to ignore this effect IFF they use their movement to leave all current reach zones they are affected by in that turn.

This setup limits mobility by enough that characters can work to protect themselves from flanking, especially when working in tandem with others, without shutting movement down entirely like older editions tried to. At the same time, it rewards tactical positioning and thinking about how one approaches the melee range of an enemy, something most of us greatly approve of. Yes, it is a bit more complex than 5E strives for, but we'll handle it just fine.

If we actually do this, I'll let you know how it turns out.

[Psikerlord]

We play ToTM. We started without the flanking rule, but started using it when DMG came out.

..... It made it too easy to hit all the time, given most ACs are in the 12-15 range. It felt like it devalued AC too much, and made getting adv too easy.

.... So we ditched it. The game is more fun without it imo. AC means something again.

[Kryx]

I give players and monsters a +1 to hit if they flank. +1 is based on this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?384713-House-rule-granting-advantage-to-all-flanking-creatures).

It's not huge, it's often an afterthought, but it's a nice little benefit without unbalancing much at all.

[Kane0]

I give players and monsters a +1 to hit if they flank. +1 is based on this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?384713-House-rule-granting-advantage-to-all-flanking-creatures).

It's not huge, it's often an afterthought, but it's a nice little benefit without unbalancing much at all.

I would agree with this except for 5e's general lack of circumstantial +/- #s. I like the simplified approach they took and i'm kind of loathe to re-introduce annoying +1's everywhere (I'm looking at you 3.P Bless and bard song!).

First session my group had with 5e we tried it for a couple fights and without for a couple fights. We found it much more fun and fluid without flanking entirely.

[Kryx]

I like the simplified approach they took and i'm kind of loathe to re-introduce annoying +1's everywhere.
I don't mind limited +1s. We only use flanking and soon will use weak stacking of adavantage/disadvantage as outlined here: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Stacking_Advantage_(5e_Variant_Rule)

So for each additional advantage/disadvantage it is a +1/-1 (I limit it to +/-5).

As long as the +1s are limited then it isn't so hard. But I know many prefer these gone entirely.

[Fwiffo86]

To me, flanking is OP. But, the old OA rules didn't make sense to me either. If I'm fighting a guy, I am moving around, and so is he. As long as I'm engaged with him, (and I don't just walk away) he should never get an OA against me, regardless of how much I move around him, and he around me. Moving more than 5' within threat range should never have given OAs in my opinion. I'm glad that rule is gone.

[Person_Man]

I don't use it, and I don't think it would be a good idea to use in 5E given the overall math of the game and the focus on theater of the mind combat.

Having said that, if you're going to use miniatures for combat, and if you want to strongly encourage melee (because your players are cowards that constantly use ranged attacks, Conjure, etc, and refuse to engage in close combat unless you force the issue), then I could see why you'd want some kind of flanking bonus.

[Dalebert]

If I'm fighting a guy, I am moving around, and so is he. As long as I'm engaged with him, (and I don't just walk away) he should never get an OA against me, regardless of how much I move around him, and he around me. Moving more than 5' within threat range should never have given OAs in my opinion. I'm glad that rule is gone.

Right. And in a more realistic scenario, you would be trying to get into place to flank someone and they would be maneuvering to prevent that at the same time. In fact, theoretically, events in combat are considered to be happening relatively simultaneously but turn-based combat is necessary to keep the simulation moving along. I think AoO were a compromise, the idea being that I'm not going to just sit there and pay you no mind as you try to get into position to flank me.

[mephnick]

I don't use it. Flanking for advantage is OP and I hate when people or the designers (looking at you magic items) try to sneak arbitrary +numbers into the game.