Flanking Question

[Bellberith]

Quick question that may or may not be obvious......

If there are four people - 3 in a line and the last one above the middle person (on a mini map) - would the person above the middle person get advantage because the guy in the middle is being flanked at his sides? or would there need to be a fifth person opposite him for him to get it as well?

[Mjolnirbear]

Quick answer is that there is no flanking in 5th. However, such a position allows a rogue to get a sneak attack and no extra person is required.

[Townopolis]

Also, while there are optional flanking rules, they are popularly regarded as screwing the PCs 90% of the time. So don't use them. And, if you're already using them, stop.

Also, not by RAW & probably not by RAI. I would say yes, but also I wouldn't because the optional flanking rules suck (because they screw the PCs 90% of the time, especially the melee), so I don't use them. Bottom line, ask your DM (to stop using flanking rules, because they suck).

[Edenbeast]

Quick question that may or may not be obvious......

If there are four people - 3 in a line and the last one above the middle person (on a mini map) - would the person above the middle person get advantage because the guy in the middle is being flanked at his sides? or would there need to be a fifth person opposite him for him to get it as well?

Asside from whether or not it's wise to use flanking rules, I find your description rather vague. What do you mean with four people, and then requiring a fifth? Flanking requires 3: 2 allies, 1 opponent. Let's say party members X and Y are flanking opponent O. This will look like the following:
X
O
Y
Simply put: if you draw a line from X to Y and it crosses the opponent's square, then they are flanking. Mind you that flanking only counts for melee attacks, so only squares that are adjacent to the opponent (or within melee reach) count.

I don't think flanking rules are that bad, they just make the game harder when they are applied at all times (and you should if you do decide to use them). It's a good tool to compensate for minmaxers.

[The Shadowdove]

Asside from whether or not it's wise to use flanking rules, I find your description rather vague. What do you mean with four people, and then requiring a fifth? Flanking requires 3: 2 allies, 1 opponent. Let's say party members X and Y are flanking opponent O. This will look like the following:
X
O
Y
Simply put: if you draw a line from X to Y and it crosses the opponent's square, then they are flanking. Mind you that flanking only counts for melee attacks, so only squares that are adjacent to the opponent (or within melee reach) count.

I don't think flanking rules are that bad, they just make the game harder when they are applied at all times (and you should if you do decide to use them). It's a good tool to compensate for minmaxers.

Agreed. On everything.

Yeah, OP, it'd help if you wouldn't mind stating who the allies are/in which position.

Edenbeast's "X/O/Y" example is a good format.

Maybe we'll be able to answer you a bit clearer then.

[Malifice]

Asside from whether or not it's wise to use flanking rules, I find your description rather vague. What do you mean with four people, and then requiring a fifth? Flanking requires 3: 2 allies, 1 opponent. Let's say party members X and Y are flanking opponent O. This will look like the following:
X
O
Y
Simply put: if you draw a line from X to Y and it crosses the opponent's square, then they are flanking. Mind you that flanking only counts for melee attacks, so only squares that are adjacent to the opponent (or within melee reach) count.

I don't think flanking rules are that bad, they just make the game harder when they are applied at all times (and you should if you do decide to use them). It's a good tool to compensate for minmaxers.

It does nothing to compensate for min maxing. They'll just be the first ones looking to flank.

The benefit of flanking is so strong that your games will quickly become a bogged down flank fest.

I second the recommendation of dont use flanking.

[Edenbeast]

It does nothing to compensate for min maxing. They'll just be the first ones looking to flank.

The benefit of flanking is so strong that your games will quickly become a bogged down flank fest.

I second the recommendation of dont use flanking.

It adds an extra layer of tactics. I'm not familiar with your flank fest. Normally if the party outnumbers the enemy, maybe one BBEG, then they'll try to flank. If the party is outnumbered, they'll think twice before rushing in head first.

Flanking is a standard rule in Pathfinder and previous D&D editions, not optional, and it works fine there.

Off course, since it is now optional you can choose to ignore flanking. It's good wotc added difficulty levels.

[EvanescentHero]

Flanking is a standard rule in Pathfinder and previous D&D editions, not optional, and it works fine there.

It's also +2 in 3.P, not advantage. Advantage is huge, worth way more than a +2. Players getting advantage on every attack will make enemies go down way faster, and enemies getting advantage on every attack will be similarly lethal to the players. That can be fine, but it's not for everyone.

Edited to add: I think the OP was imagining a scenario like this, with X being the enemy and O being the players. (The dashes are just so I can properly place the top player.)

--O
OXO

Now the question is, does the player on top there get the flanking bonus, or does it need to look like this?

--O
OXO
--O

I think technically the board needs to look like the second diagram, but were I to use flanking at all, I'd probably allow the first diagram to grant all players the bonus. Otherwise it seems silly to me.

[ad_hoc]

It adds an extra layer of tactics. I'm not familiar with your flank fest. Normally if the party outnumbers the enemy, maybe one BBEG, then they'll try to flank. If the party is outnumbered, they'll think twice before rushing in head first.

Flanking is a standard rule in Pathfinder and previous D&D editions, not optional, and it works fine there.

Off course, since it is now optional you can choose to ignore flanking. It's good wotc added difficulty levels.

In 3.x you could only move 5ft a round to get your full attack and moving while next to an opponent triggered an attack of opportunity.

In 5e you can just freely flank enemies.

5e was built for theatre of the mind. It abstracts this sort of thing. It is assumed that you are trying to get the best advantage and do the most damage.

Everyone rolling advantage on every attack doesn't make for a more difficult game. It makes other ways to get advantage useless which ruins the difficulty.

[Edenbeast]

It's also +2 in 3.P, not advantage. Advantage is huge, worth way more than a +2. Players getting advantage on every attack will make enemies go down way faster, and enemies getting advantage on every attack will be similarly lethal to the players. That can be fine, but it's not for everyone.

Oh my bad. I was applying the +2 for flanking. Totally ignored the actual description in the DMG.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Oh my bad. I was applying the +2 for flanking. Totally ignored the actual description in the DMG.

I actually like this. Like a mirror of the cover rules.

ooh! What if the bonus hit +5 when COMPLETELY surrounded?

[Bellberith]

It's also +2 in 3.P, not advantage. Advantage is huge, worth way more than a +2. Players getting advantage on every attack will make enemies go down way faster, and enemies getting advantage on every attack will be similarly lethal to the players. That can be fine, but it's not for everyone.

Edited to add: I think the OP was imagining a scenario like this, with X being the enemy and O being the players. (The dashes are just so I can properly place the top player.)

--O
OXO

Now the question is, does the player on top there get the flanking bonus, or does it need to look like this?

--O
OXO
--O

I think technically the board needs to look like the second diagram, but were I to use flanking at all, I'd probably allow the first diagram to grant all players the bonus. Otherwise it seems silly to me.


Exactly this, sorry for being vague.

[The Shadowdove]

also, there exists a rule that is used as a standard in 5e before applying the optional flanking rules.

look at the "help" action.



now, the players at my table have an understanding. Any optional rules that players have also apply to monsters.
knowingly they love to strategically use the optional flanking rules while ALSO denying enemies said advantages.


but before we implemented them they all made really clever use of the Help action.

And it wasnt just the players. familiars/companions assisted in its usage.

[Malifice]

It adds an extra layer of tactics.

No it doesnt. It reall doesnt. Everyone gets move + attack. And everyone can freely move within the threatened area of anyone else; they just cant leave it.

This means that every creature with more than 1 hostile creature adjacent is 'flanked' every single round with next to zero effort.


Flanking is a standard rule in Pathfinder and previous D&D editions,

Flanking in pathfinder grants +2 to hit. BAB alone in pathfinder ranges from 0 to +20

Advantage is worth around +5 to hit. In bounded accuracy where BAB maxes at +6.

They're not comparable.


not optional, and it works fine there.

It works differently between the systems because you can freely move around a hostile creature in 5E, and the bonus flanking grants in 5E is far far higher.

Its far easier to get, and a much higher bonus. Youre comparing apples to oranges.

[Zman]

I am a bit torn with Flanking. I've been using it with a hex map, requiring directly opposite, and it has been fun. Sure, being out numbered and being relatively easily flanked is scary and lethal for either side, but IMO it is fitting. If you've ever been in a combat situation, being flanked is disasterous. I have been considering making movement within threatened squares count as double making it a touch harder to maneuver directly around someone, or limiting threatened movement to 10'. I think granting advantage is a good fit, but I feel it is too easy to come by as is. Being only directly opposite makes it better, maybe not quite perfect, but definitely better than the as written Flanking rules.

Being flanked definitely gives a character a reason to get out of dodge quickly, gives them more reason to stand side by side with an ally, or use terrain to protect your flank etc.

[Malifice]

I am a bit torn with Flanking. I've been using it with a hex map, requiring directly opposite, and it has been fun. Sure, being out numbered and being relatively easily flanked is scary and lethal for either side, but IMO it is fitting. If you've ever been in a combat situation, being flanked is disasterous.

Being outnumbered in 5e is already deadly (thanks to bounded accuracy).

Its waaaay to easy to get flanking in 5e, and the bonus for doing so is massive (advantage is huge) compared to +2 to hit in 3.5.

It also punishes martial PC's (who are almost always outnumbered) far too harshly, and drains the fun from solo monsters v the party (who will get bumrushed and swamped).

[Zman]

Being outnumbered in 5e is already deadly (thanks to bounded accuracy).

Its waaaay to easy to get flanking in 5e, and the bonus for doing so is massive (advantage is huge) compared to +2 to hit in 3.5.

It also punishes martial PC's (who are almost always outnumbered) far too harshly, and drains the fun from solo monsters v the party (who will get bumrushed and swamped).

Bounded accuracy does not make being outnumbered deadly, it is a simple linear multiplication of damage recieved. Mathematically it is roughly equivalent to +4-5. Is is a bit over twice as good as 3.5. Using a fairly standard 60% hit chance Advantage results in 40% more damage than not having advantage. So instead of taking 200% Damage for facing two enemies you take 280% damage or the threat to you almost triples. IMO that is fitting for the seriousness of being flanked, though the old +2 would like lye be better for Bounded Accuracy.

I understand how easy it is to get flanking in 5e, which is why I devoted the majority of my post to address the issues with Flanking. Also, my requiring opposite sides adds reasonable limits to flanker damage.

Yes, Martial characters do have a bit touher time against numerous opponents, but martial characters working together can gain advantage right back and maneuver themselves to prevent it or limit it. Slight adjustments to moving within threatened squares helps.

You assume the whole party is melee capable and able to flank for advantage. I can't say most parties I've seen would choose to melee a boss monster. It'll more likely still be those same two martials gaining advantage making up for their trouble against Hordes.

[Malifice]

Bounded accuracy does not make being outnumbered deadly, it is a simple linear multiplication of damage recieved.

Due to bounded accuracy, monsters always have a good chance of hitting (even mooks). Facing off against two ogres is far worse than facing off against one.

This is different to PF where once you get past a certain point, low level mooks just arent a threat even if they flank you.


Mathematically it is roughly equivalent to +4-5. Is is a bit over twice as good as 3.5.

Its better than twice as good assuming the hit bonus in 5e is the same as in Pathfinder. Its not. A 20th level 5E fighter has a BAB of +6. In PF he has +20.

Awarding +4-5 for flanking in 5E, is akin to awarding a +15-20 in PF. Not only is the bonus bigger (and easier to get) but the effect of the bonus is enormous.


I understand how easy it is to get flanking in 5e, which is why I devoted the majority of my post to address the issues with Flanking. Also, my requiring opposite sides adds reasonable limits to flanker damage.

Its triflingly easy to get. Dipping 2 of Rogue becomes mandatory also (bonus action disengage making you immune to AoO for your turn, move to flank, make all your attacks with advantage). Effectively you get almost perma-advantage every single round you have an ally fighting with you.


Yes, Martial characters do have a bit touher time against numerous opponents, but martial characters working together can gain advantage right back and maneuver themselves to prevent it or limit it. Slight adjustments to moving within threatened squares helps.

Practically they cant though can they? Your average party of 4-5 PC's has no more than 2-3 that are melee fighters (on average). Meaning that your PC's will more ofthen then not be outnumbered in melee, and your martal characters will feel it the most.

It looks good on paper (i tried it myself on day one of my campaign) but it is not worth it (I scrapped it after one session, when it quickly became perma-advantage). Its triflingly easy to get (which cheapens it compared to 3.P) its benefit is massive compared to 3.P (equal to a +15 BAB boost in 3.P), and it punishes martial characters, particularly PC's.

Its your campaign, but I strongly suggest ditching it, or reducing it to a +2 bonus to hit (which is still a relatively much bigger bonus than it was in Pathfinder) and introducing a 'moving out of any threatened square provokes an AoO unless you disengage first' rule.

[Zman]

Due to bounded accuracy, monsters always have a good chance of hitting (even mooks). Facing off against two ogres is far worse than facing off against one.

This is different to PF where once you get past a certain point, low level mooks just arent a threat even if they flank you.



Its better than twice as good assuming the hit bonus in 5e is the same as in Pathfinder. Its not. A 20th level 5E fighter has a BAB of +6. In PF he has +20.

Awarding +4-5 for flanking in 5E, is akin to awarding a +15-20 in PF. Not only is the bonus bigger (and easier to get) but the effect of the bonus is enormous.



Its triflingly easy to get. Dipping 2 of Rogue becomes mandatory also (bonus action disengage making you immune to AoO for your turn, move to flank, make all your attacks with advantage). Effectively you get almost perma-advantage every single round you have an ally fighting with you.



Practically they cant though can they? Your average party of 4-5 PC's has no more than 2-3 that are melee fighters (on average). Meaning that your PC's will more ofthen then not be outnumbered in melee, and your martal characters will feel it the most.

It looks good on paper (i tried it myself on day one of my campaign) but it is not worth it (I scrapped it after one session, when it quickly became perma-advantage). Its triflingly easy to get (which cheapens it compared to 3.P) its benefit is massive compared to 3.P (equal to a +15 BAB boost in 3.P), and it punishes martial characters, particularly PC's.

Its your campaign, but I strongly suggest ditching it, or reducing it to a +2 bonus to hit (which is still a relatively much bigger bonus than it was in Pathfinder) and introducing a 'moving out of any threatened square provokes an AoO unless you disengage first' rule.

**Note**. I use a Hex map and the opposite only Flanking change, all my comments are in reference to this. I am also looking to add the double movement cost for engaged/threatened movement.


Care to throw arbitrary numbers out, or do a bit of actual math? Look at low levels when 3.P functions best, a +2 bonus was a big deal, at later levels it was completely irrelevant, I mean literally worthless. At low levels Bab is +0 or +1 compared to +2 for Proficiency. At 1st level a +2 Bonus is a bigger effect in 3.P than it would be in 5e. So universal sweeping claims are inherently inaccurate.

How can you say it is equal to a +15 BAB boost? +15-20 was auto hit in 3.P at literally almost all levels, that is vastly different than Advantage's effective +4-5. The math showed an ~+40% increase in expected damage while flanking. Mum calling your claims wild exaggerations.

Rogue 2 is practically mandatory... Yeah, no. It is great and definitely offers the Rogue some options in CC, but it is far from mandatory unless we are talking about imaginary lvl20 vacuum builds here. When do you take it... Delaying your extra attacks and class features... Makes it a viable choice but far from mandatory.

Practically they can, and do. There is an additional tactical element to martials movement, even standing back to back to limit attackers and flankers works. You make vacuum assumptions that PCs are drowned in hordes of enemies, but of we look at the XP and encounter difficulty modifiers it become reasonable. I mean, even a mid level character doesn't want to be surrounded by ten Orcs. A lvl9 Fighter surrounded by 10 Orcs is a 1.25xDeadly encounter. If the Fighter doesn't retreat, use terrain like a corner to reduce or eliminate flanking, he will very likely die as he should for a beyond deadly encounter. If the martial character gets to a corner, they have the best chance of survival in either case. That is practically a worst case scenario for Flanking. If we have two martials standing back to back or side by side it usually takes an extra turn for an enemy flank, two using terrain or three working together can virtually eliminate the risk. Those are the kinds of tactics I want to encourage if possible.

Now, I understand there are issues with flanking as written, hence why I said they have to be directly opposite. Remember we are using hex which is IMO much better for combat. I'm looking at instituting double movement through engaged spaces or a rule saying to benefit from flanking you have to begin your turn engaged with the target you intend to flank meaning you can't just run up and flank, it is delayed a turn. Alternatively a +2 would work, but 5e doesn't make nearly as much use of static modifiers.

We both agree that flanking as written is a bad idea and too strong/unbalancing. I believe it is salvageable and can bring something beneficial to the game, whereas you think it needs to be completely scrapped.

It is my campaign, and so far it hasn't been an issue. PCs fan out to spread enemies out, attempt to flank, withdraw etc when being flanked, make targeting decisions and spell decisions to eliminate flanks on allies, etc.

[MadBear]

How can you say it is equal to a +15 BAB boost? +15-20 was auto hit in 3.P at literally almost all levels, that is vastly different than Advantage's effective +4-5. The math showed an ~+40% increase in expected damage while flanking. Mum calling your claims wild exaggerations.


it being worth about +15-20 is fairly dead-on at level 20.

In PF at 20th level a non-minmaxed fighter could expect to get a to hit at about +35 reliably (20 bab+ 10 strength + 5 magic weapon + 1 weapon focus). keep in mind magic was assumed for PC's in this edition.

In 5e a fighter at 20 can expect around +11 (6 proficiency + 5 strength).

So using that, we see that a +5 (advantage) is worth roughly 50% of a fighters total to-hit bonus.

Using that model, the equivalent amount for a PF fighter would be +16.5 (17) to-hit.

Put another way. A 20th level threat in PF a monster will usually sport a 36 AC. In 5e, a monster will typically sport an AC of 19.

a +5 to-hit is worth 26% bonus to-hit in 5e, and only a 13% bonus to a PF character.

So, no I'd say Malifice was pretty dead-on in his claim.

[Zman]

it being worth about +15-20 is fairly dead-on at level 20.

In PF at 20th level a non-minmaxed fighter could expect to get a to hit at about +35 reliably (20 bab+ 10 strength + 5 magic weapon + 1 weapon focus). keep in mind magic was assumed for PC's in this edition.

In 5e a fighter at 20 can expect around +11 (6 proficiency + 5 strength).

So using that, we see that a +5 (advantage) is worth roughly 50% of a fighters total to-hit bonus.

Using that model, the equivalent amount for a PF fighter would be +16.5 (17) to-hit.

Put another way. A 20th level threat in PF a monster will usually sport a 36 AC. In 5e, a monster will typically sport an AC of 19.

a +5 to-hit is worth 26% bonus to-hit in 5e, and only a 13% bonus to a PF character.

So, no I'd say Malifice was pretty dead-on in his claim.

Not even close. Firstly, that is true at level 20, not at most of the previous levels.

5e +11 to hit vs AC19 hits on an 8, or 65% hit chance. With Flanking this is 88%. A 35% increase in hit chance.

3.P +35 to hit vs AC36. Hits on a 1/6/11/16(61% average) a +15 to hit means that the Pathfinder character would hit on a 2+/2+/2+/2+ Or 95% average. A +15 is a 56% increase in hit chance. A +10 is a 90% hit chance average or 48% increase in hit chance. A +5 is a 79% hit chance or a 30% increase in hit chance which is by far the closest to the the Advantage 35% increase in hit chance.

Your logic is faulty and your argument invalid. What matters is the percentage increase in hit chance against AC appropriate enemies.

[coredump]

Z-Man, I think you should try it. It might be a great fit for you and your group, and you might have a ton of fun with it. So go ahead and try it....

But I will say, in my time on a number of different boards, I have never found anyone that has used it and liked it. Every story I have heard ends in "we decided to drop it after (1-3) sessions". Usually because it was too easy to get, and way too brutal on the PCs in most fights.

But.... different strokes and all that. So, give it a shot, what the heck....

[Zman]

Z-Man, I think you should try it. It might be a great fit for you and your group, and you might have a ton of fun with it. So go ahead and try it....

But I will say, in my time on a number of different boards, I have never found anyone that has used it and liked it. Every story I have heard ends in "we decided to drop it after (1-3) sessions". Usually because it was too easy to get, and way too brutal on the PCs in most fights.

But.... different strokes and all that. So, give it a shot, what the heck....

You missed the multiple references to me currently using it, with the only opposite modification, in my group without issue. For reference that is through 4-5 sessions for ~20hrs of play.

So, now you have heard of one person that runs one group that hasn't had a single complaint about Flanking.

[Zman]

Not even close. Firstly, that is true at level 20, not at most of the previous levels.

5e +11 to hit vs AC19 hits on an 8, or 65% hit chance. With Flanking this is 88%. A 35% increase in hit chance.

3.P +35 to hit vs AC36. Hits on a 1/6/11/16(61% average) a +15 to hit means that the Pathfinder character would hit on a 2+/2+/2+/2+ Or 95% average. A +15 is a 56% increase in hit chance. A +10 is a 90% hit chance average or 48% increase in hit chance. A +5 is a 79% hit chance or a 30% increase in hit chance which is by far the closest to the the Advantage 35% increase in hit chance.

Your logic is faulty and your argument invalid. What matters is the percentage increase in hit chance against AC appropriate enemies.

A couple additions...

As an FYI a +6 averages an 81% hit chance for a 33% increase which is awefully close to that 35% for 5e Advantage. So the true equivalency at least at lvl 20 among Fighters would be a +6-7, not a +15-20. And the way the math will work is that the average bonus changes depending on level. For instance, on a class with the same bonuses that is only a Medium BAB ie losing out on one attack and a +5 to hit compared to the 5e equivalency is a more drastic difference. So, +30 vs AC36 is a 6+/11+/16+ to hit for an average of 50% hit chance. With a +15 this becomes 95% or a 90% increase to hit. A +10 become an 88% hit chance or 76% increase to hit. A +5 is a 73% average for a 46% increase to hit. A +4 is a 70% average or a 40% increase to hit. A +3 is a 65% or 30% increase to hit.

So, Advantage is worth ~+3.5-6.5 not +15-20 bonus in 3.P terms when comparing advantage to a fixed modifier when considering percentage increase to hit.

[Mellack]

With flanking giving advantage and the relative ease of getting it, this weakens a lot of character and monster abilities. For example, a barbarian would never need to Reckless Attack when he can gain advantage by a 10' move. Pack tactics becomes practically worthless. A whole list of powers become invalidated by simple flanking, and IMO simply calling threatened spaces difficult terrain doesn't work to alleviate that.

[Kane0]

And theres also the -5/+10 feats, where advantage is the best thing you want to mitigate the loss of hit chance. Thats why barbarians, battlemasters and vengeance paladins are the most frequent users of GWM.

[Dalebert]

An optional flanking rule I've seen is to just give +1. That doesn't seem too bad. Otherwise I agree that it's horribly broken to just implement it for 5e. It's very easy to get and much more powerful. They did away with it because it complicated things just as they did for many changes in 5e.

Is it more realistic? Sure. You know what else is realistic? If I see you trying to flank me, I'm not going to just stand there while you casually get into position. I'm going to maneuver to prevent it. In a more realistic (and thus more complicated) fight, everyone is moving around at the same time. But D&D is turn-based to keep it simpler. I think that's why they settled for a compromise in 3.x with opportunity attacks for moving through a threatened space.

So when they did away with that complication, flanking needed to go along with it. They are a package deal. If you start tweaking these things, it's like a domino effect of complications. Not saying "don't do it ever" but I am suggesting caution and thinking it through.

[N810]

We play with advantage flanking, and also opportunity attacks against leaving close combat.
I feel it add a lot to movement and strategy. It's offset by the crazy powerful stuff we have to fight. :nale:

[Bellberith]

We play with advantage flanking, and also opportunity attacks against leaving close combat.
I feel it add a lot to movement and strategy. It's offset by the crazy powerful stuff we have to fight. :nale:

Something that helps with the flanking rules being really nice to use is making it like 3.5, where moving while in a threatened square is enough to provoke an AoO. I like those rules better anyway, this way you don't have people running circles around some guy with no consequence.

[Dalebert]

When I realized my DM was using the optional flanking rules, I took Mobile. It's a nice feat for a wood elf moon druid anyway but it's much better when flanking's in place. Makes it easier for me to both gain it and escape it.

My shadow monk also has mobile but he's in AL games--no flanking. If flanking were implemented he would be even more obnoxious than he already is. He has a 60 ft move and a 60 ft teleport. Flanking would rock my world.

It makes the whole game a lot more swingy. Creatures with pack tactics are weaker. Creatures with mobile or flyby are worse. The edition was built around it not being there.

[Malifice]

A couple additions...

As an FYI a +6 averages an 81% hit chance for a 33% increase which is awefully close to that 35% for 5e Advantage. So the true equivalency at least at lvl 20 among Fighters would be a +6-7, not a +15-20. And the way the math will work is that the average bonus changes depending on level. For instance, on a class with the same bonuses that is only a Medium BAB ie losing out on one attack and a +5 to hit compared to the 5e equivalency is a more drastic difference. So, +30 vs AC36 is a 6+/11+/16+ to hit for an average of 50% hit chance. With a +15 this becomes 95% or a 90% increase to hit. A +10 become an 88% hit chance or 76% increase to hit. A +5 is a 73% average for a 46% increase to hit. A +4 is a 70% average or a 40% increase to hit. A +3 is a 65% or 30% increase to hit.

So, Advantage is worth ~+3.5-6.5 not +15-20 bonus in 3.P terms when comparing advantage to a fixed modifier when considering percentage increase to hit.

Exactly. Flanking (advantage) is a bigger boost than flanking (+2.). A much bigger boost. We agree on this.

Can we also agree that a bigger boost in 5e is more noticeable (due to bounded accuracy) than it would be in PF?

Would you be comfortable handing out +6.5 to hit for flanking in Pathfinder.

Because (by your maths above) you're doing it in 5e.

[Zman]

Exactly. Flanking (advantage) is a bigger boost than flanking (+2.). A much bigger boost. We agree on this.

Can we also agree that a bigger boost in 5e is more noticeable (due to bounded accuracy) than it would be in PF?

Would you be comfortable handing out +6.5 to hit for flanking in Pathfinder.

Because (by your maths above) you're doing it in 5e.

We do agree on that, and it was never in dispute. A bigger boost is not necessarily more noticeable in 5e than it would be in 3.5P. Actually, with the lower BAB to Prof bonus it would be more noticeable in 3.P at lowest levels. And as my math did show it was more pronounced for non Full BAB classes in 3.P.

I would be comfortable with a +5 bonus for Flanking in 3.P.

[Malifice]

A bigger boost is not necessarily more noticeable in 5e than it would be in 3.5P.

How can you say that when you consider 5E has bounded accuracy, and 3P has constantly increasing linear accuracy. BAB oF +6 at 20th in 5E for a Fighter v a BAB of +20 in 3P.

Your 20th level fighter gets (Prof +6 and Str +5) +11 to hit at 20th in 5E. In pathfinder its [+20 (BAB) +10 (Strength), +5 (class) +5 (weapon)] +40.

A +2 (or +5) bonus in a system featuring bounded accuracy is far more valuable that a +2/5 in PF.


I would be comfortable with a +5 bonus for Flanking in 3.P.

I wouldnt, and I certainly wouldnt be happy with it in 5E with its bounded accuracy.

Its your game mate, and what works for you, works for you, but I do honestly think you might not be looking at the flanking stuff objectively. I get that you seem to be more of a simulationist type, but I implore you to look at the gamist stuff too. Youre punishing melee based PCs, and the bonus your giving out (advantage) is too easy to get.

You not only cheapen gaining advantage on attack rolls (and thus devalue class features like reckless attack, wolf totem barbarian, vengance paladin divine channel, shoving etc) but your game turns into 'move 10 feet, gain advantage, full attack, rinse and repeat'. There are already disadvantages for being cought in melee with two opponents (action economy loss - two attacks to your one, you have one reaction, they have two etc). Stacking trivially easy to obtain advantage on the top is just brutal.

I would also ask you to consider the effect advantage has on crits. PC's (particularly martials) are the classes most likely to suffer from your variant rule (their class features are devalued AND they are the ones that suffer the most in return), and are now (in addition to most monsters having advantage against them far more often than not) far more likely to wear a critical hit.

[Zman]

How can you say that when you consider 5E has bounded accuracy, and 3P has constantly increasing linear accuracy. BAB oF +6 at 20th in 5E for a Fighter v a BAB of +20 in 3P.

Your 20th level fighter gets (Prof +6 and Str +5) +11 to hit at 20th in 5E. In pathfinder its [+20 (BAB) +10 (Strength), +5 (class) +5 (weapon)] +40.

A +2 (or +5) bonus in a system featuring bounded accuracy is far more valuable that a +2/5 in PF.



I wouldnt, and I certainly wouldnt be happy with it in 5E with its bounded accuracy.

Its your game mate, and what works for you, works for you, but I do honestly think you might not be looking at the flanking stuff objectively. I get that you seem to be more of a simulationist type, but I implore you to look at the gamist stuff too. Youre punishing melee based PCs, and the bonus your giving out (advantage) is too easy to get.

You not only cheapen gaining advantage on attack rolls (and thus devalue class features like reckless attack, wolf totem barbarian, vengance paladin divine channel, shoving etc) but your game turns into 'move 10 feet, gain advantage, full attack, rinse and repeat'. There are already disadvantages for being cought in melee with two opponents (action economy loss - two attacks to your one, you have one reaction, they have two etc). Stacking trivially easy to obtain advantage on the top is just brutal.

I would also ask you to consider the effect advantage has on crits. PC's (particularly martials) are the classes most likely to suffer from your variant rule (their class features are devalued AND they are the ones that suffer the most in return), and are now (in addition to most monsters having advantage against them far more often than not) far more likely to wear a critical hit.

Again with the 20th level example. I pointed out where that sweeping statement you are making is incorrect, and I also pointed out that it is generally correct.

You are failing to mention Iterative attacks and 3.P's limited AC scaling. Iterative attacks have a greater percentage benefit from those bonuses.

You stated that a fixed bonus in Bounded accuracy is more significant than in a linear accuracy system, this is only conditionally true as I've shown previously.

You may not be happy with it, that is fine. So far, my game has not devolved into what you describe. Sure, there were a few moments where characters or monsters have flanked for advantage, but it has also been great, for instance when the rogue tosses down his bow draws his rapier and cunning actions into combat to save the wizard using advantage to lank his sneak attack.

The predicted massive issues you listed for being flanked is not true in my experience. You listed prexisting disadvantages but that is purely a byproduct of being outnumbered with action economy and has zero impact on tactical positioning. You list it as punishing martial PCs, but they are able to take advantage of it just as enemies can so it is not purely a penalty as your erroneously keep stating. I'm curious,mare all your encounters just enemies swamping the lone two martials? I am aware what it does to crits, it raises the Crit chance from 5% to 9.75% effectively almost doubling it.


I have already agreed that there some issues with flanking, I would not run the as written optional rule. Requiring directly opposite is better, I'm still looking for the right fit to cut down the mobility through threatened spaces. I feel with the right addition it significantly adds to the game.

[Kane0]

Do you use a square or hex grid? My group prefers Hexes.

How about:
- Must be opposite (if using hexes you can use a one in front, three behind model which is also good)
- Threatened area is treated as difficult terrain, or alternatively use some basic facing rules where you threaten in front, therefore getting an opportunity attack if someone decides to dance around you.
- Flanking is +2 bonus to hit, not advantage.

Saves the mechanics that rely on advantage (reckless attack, pack tactics, etc) while also avoiding the significant increase in lethality of easily acquired advantage. Mobility inherent to 5e is preserved and feats such as mobile and sentinel still function as they should.

[Zman]

Do you use a square or hex grid? My group prefers Hexes.

How about:
- Must be opposite (if using hexes you can use a one in front, three behind model which is also good)
- Threatened area is treated as difficult terrain, or alternatively use some basic facing rules where you threaten in front, therefore getting an opportunity attack if someone decides to dance around you.
- Flanking is +2 bonus to hit, not advantage.

Saves the mechanics that rely on advantage (reckless attack, pack tactics, etc) while also avoiding the significant increase in lethality of easily acquired advantage. Mobility inherent to 5e is preserved and feats such as mobile and sentinel still function as they should.

Hex, since I started using it I greatly prefer it for combat.

Those rules could work. I've had a couple ideas...

Flanking as per DMG, +1 instead of Advantage.

Flanking is simply +2, 1:3 for determining flanking, threatened movement is Difficult a Terrain.

Flanking is Advantage, opposite only, threatened movement is Difficult Terrain.

Flanking is Advantage, opposite only, must begin turn threatening the target.

[Kane0]

Hex, since I started using it I greatly prefer it for combat.

Flanking is simply +2, 1:3 for determining flanking, threatened movement is Difficult a Terrain.


That one sounds the best to me. I wouldn't mind that if I were going for a crunchy, tactical game of 5e.

[Malifice]

You are failing to mention Iterative attacks and 3.P's limited AC scaling. Iterative attacks have a greater percentage benefit from those bonuses.

AC in 3P scales much faster and much higher than in 5E.

A Balor has an AC of 36 in pathfinder. It's 19 in 5E.

A high level fighter has an expected AC of 40 in pathfinder (10 base + 5 dex + 10 armor + 5 magic + 5 deflection + 5 natural). It stays at 20 in DnD.


You stated that a fixed bonus in Bounded accuracy is more significant than in a linear accuracy system, this is only conditionally true as I've shown previously.

No, its not. Advantage is a bigger bonus than +2 (we both agree on this), and using it in a system with lower target numbers and bounded accuracy (such as 5E) further exaggerates the gap.


You may not be happy with it, that is fine. So far, my game has not devolved into what you describe. Sure, there were a few moments where characters or monsters have flanked for advantage, but it has also been great, for instance when the rogue tosses down his bow draws his rapier and cunning actions into combat to save the wizard using advantage to lank his sneak attack.

He could have gotten sneak attack anyway simply by attacking something that was adjacent to an ally.


The predicted massive issues you listed for being flanked is not true in my experience. You listed prexisting disadvantages but that is purely a byproduct of being outnumbered with action economy and has zero impact on tactical positioning.

Not true. You are not outnumbered in melee if you dont have more than one enemy positioned next to you.


You list it as punishing martial PCs, but they are able to take advantage of it just as enemies can so it is not purely a penalty as your erroneously keep stating.

How many martial PC's do you have in your campaign? Discount the wizards, and archers. Now how many times are they outnumbered by monsters? Unless you throw solo encounters at the party (and 5E isnt built for that kind of thing with any level of regularity) it unfairly punishes the martial classes (and the players).


I am aware what it does to crits, it raises the Crit chance from 5% to 9.75% effectively almost doubling it.

Yep. And crits are bad for PC's. Monsters have one fight to engage in. PC's need to deal with hundreds. There are always more monsters.


I have already agreed that there some issues with flanking, I would not run the as written optional rule. Requiring directly opposite is better, I'm still looking for the right fit to cut down the mobility through threatened spaces. I feel with the right addition it significantly adds to the game.

I suggest reducing the bonus to +1 or +2. Maybe make it half proff bonus (this might sit with your simulationist bent). Make anyone who leaves a threatened hex provoke an AoO (instead of just leaving a threatened area) unless they first take the disengage action.

[Zman]

That one sounds the best to me. I wouldn't mind that if I were going for a crunchy, tactical game of 5e.

I do have a few reservations about adding additional static modifiers to the game that weren't intended to be there as it does have an unfair advantage for those that do have easy access to advantage. Those characters receive a greater advantage than other characters generally.

[Zman]

AC in 3P scales much faster and much higher than in 5E.

But it scales slower when compared to BAB in 3.P which is what really matters. What is really relevant is the average to hit chance of a character vs a relevant threat.

A Balor has an AC of 36 in pathfinder. It's 19 in 5E.

Sure and the Fighter with a +11 still needs 8s to hits and has an accuracy of 65%. In 3.P if we look at the +14 for BAB, the assumed +5 for magic, and the additional bonuses for Stats the Fighter hits on 2+.

A high level fighter has an expected AC of 40 in pathfinder (10 base + 5 dex + 10 armor + 5 magic + 5 deflection + 5 natural). It stays at 20 in DnD.

The Fighter's AC scales better. Other classes aren't as lucky. A Paladin hits AC20/21 with a shield very easily while a Paladin in 3.P doesn't get a +5 Dex etc. If we compare a class's chances of hitting themselves things are a big different. In 5e it is often around 60% for all attacks, in 3.P it is often 95% for a single attack and above 60% on average.

No, its not. Advantage is a bigger bonus than +2 (we both agree on this), and using it in a system with lower target numbers and bounded accuracy (such as 5E) further exaggerates the gap.

That isn't what you said, you said a bigger bonus would matter more in 5e than in 3.P. Though, you seem to think you restated the obvious, something we already agreed on, Advantage is a larger bonus than a +2 in 3.P.

He could have gotten sneak attack anyway simply by attacking something that was adjacent to an ally.

Yes, he had options, shoot though light cover for sneak attack, move and attack for sneak attack, or maneuver himself into a dangerous position for advantage and sneak attack.

Not true. You are not outnumbered in melee if you dont have more than one enemy positioned next to you.

Which has no tactical depth whatsoever.

How many martial PC's do you have in your campaign? Discount the wizards, and archers. Now how many times are they outnumbered by monsters? Unless you throw solo encounters at the party (and 5E isnt built for that kind of thing with any level of regularity) it unfairly punishes the martial classes (and the players).

Two, sometimes a third. Both the Rogue and Wizard have been temped to move into CC to save or flank with others in the party. Seems like there is more though and risk reward with modified flanking than not.

Yep. And crits are bad for PC's. Monsters have one fight to engage in. PC's need to deal with hundreds. There are always more monsters.

Crits are bad for anyone, it is effectively +~50-70% damage on a single attack when coming from monsters.

I suggest reducing the bonus to +1 or +2. Maybe make it half proff bonus (this might sit with your simulationist bent). Make anyone who leaves a threatened hex provoke an AoO (instead of just leaving a threatened area) unless they first take the disengage action.

See Blue text.

[Malifice]

See Blue text.

I see your blue text. Look man, it's your game and your rules. I'm by no means a lone voice here when I say granting advantage for flanking in 5e is waaay OP compared to how it worked in PF (and you seem to agree too).

Additionally you're devaluing classes that get access to advantage in combat (barbarians - particularly wolf totem, vengeance Paladins, rogues via cunning action + hide, BM fighters via manoeuvres and monks via stunning) and then punishing them further by handing advantage to the monsters they face. By your own admission you have 2 melee PCs meaning flanking only affects one monster at a time, accordingly in your campaign its a detriment far more often than not to the PCs (particularly the Melee orientated PCs) than it is to the monsters. It's a double whammy to the melee PCs (devaluing their class feature, and making them far easier to hit in melee) for no real return.

If that's the result you're going for, don't let my advice get in the way. But it's kinda like introducing a rule where everyone gets advantage on saves - it has mechanical effects on game balance and on different classes differently.

Most of us tried it once but quickly ditched it because of these issues (it was so incredibly strong that it quickly became a game of ring around the rosie in every combat, it is trivially easy to get thanks to 5es (move plus full attack) and very loose AoO rules, and it double punishes martial characters by devaluing their primary class features and making their job so much harder.

I get the feeling you come from a more simulationist background, but I implore you to reduce it to a +2 and introduce AoO for any movement through someone's threatened space, and not just for leaving it.

This at least ameliorates some of the imbalance that introducing it creates.

[Zman]

I see your blue text. Look man, it's your game and your rules. I'm by no means a lone voice here when I say granting advantage for flanking in 5e is waaay OP compared to how it worked in PF (and you seem to agree too).

Additionally you're devaluing classes that get access to advantage in combat (barbarians - particularly wolf totem, vengeance Paladins, rogues via cunning action + hide, BM fighters via manoeuvres and monks via stunning) and then punishing them further by handing advantage to the monsters they face. By your own admission you have 2 melee PCs meaning flanking only affects one monster at a time, accordingly in your campaign its a detriment far more often than not to the PCs (particularly the Melee orientated PCs) than it is to the monsters. It's a double whammy to the melee PCs (devaluing their class feature, and making them far easier to hit in melee) for no real return.

If that's the result you're going for, don't let my advice get in the way. But it's kinda like introducing a rule where everyone gets advantage on saves - it has mechanical effects on game balance and on different classes differently.

Most of us tried it once but quickly ditched it because of these issues (it was so incredibly strong that it quickly became a game of ring around the rosie in every combat, it is trivially easy to get thanks to 5es (move plus full attack) and very loose AoO rules, and it double punishes martial characters by devaluing their primary class features and making their job so much harder.

I get the feeling you come from a more simulationist background, but I implore you to reduce it to a +2 and introduce AoO for any movement through someone's threatened space, and not just for leaving it.

This at least ameliorates some of the imbalance that introducing it creates.

Dude, let me be bluntly honest. I no longer care what you think, and my opinion of what you say, which previously has been high, is rapidly degrading as what you insist must happen and must degrade to my game isn't happening. There are no complaints. The players enjoy it. So, far, there isn't a major issue that needs correcting.

You seem to think I'm unaware of the potential problems, I'm not. I am fully aware, which is why I'm actively seeking the best solution that offers the greatest improvement to the game. I just believe that there is a reasonable solution that will add tactical depth to the game, do apparently do not. Having no consequence besides action economy for being surrounded an flanked is IMO too simplistic. If it becomes problematic I will make adjustments, like forcing them to start their turn threatening the target to get a flanking bonus basically fixes the problem and makes it more difficult to achieve.

You keep offering a static bonus as the answer, well a static bonus has its own issues, like those classes that have easy access to advantage gain a larger benefit out of it than others. Albeit, less of an issue, but still present.




While writing this I may have come up with a better alternative. It scales, it enhances tactical depth, and it removes many of the potential problems, doesn't minimize class abilities. At its worst you are seeing roughly the same math as Advantage.

Flanking is 1:3, +1 to hit for each ally threatening the target, moving through threatened squares is Difficult Terrain. Bonus ranges from +1-+5 depending on number of flankers.

[Malifice]

Dude, let me be bluntly honest. I no longer care what you think, and my opinion of what you say, which previously has been high, is rapidly degrading as what you insist must happen and must degrade to my game isn't happening. There are no complaints. The players enjoy it. So, far, there isn't a major issue that needs correcting.

You seem to think I'm unaware of the potential problems, I'm not. I am fully aware, which is why I'm actively seeking the best solution that offers the greatest improvement to the game. I just believe that there is a reasonable solution that will add tactical depth to the game, do apparently do not. Having no consequence besides action economy for being surrounded an flanked is IMO too simplistic. If it becomes problematic I will make adjustments, like forcing them to start their turn threatening the target to get a flanking bonus basically fixes the problem and makes it more difficult to achieve.

You keep offering a static bonus as the answer, well a static bonus has its own issues, like those classes that have easy access to advantage gain a larger benefit out of it than others. Albeit, less of an issue, but still present.




While writing this I may have come up with a better alternative. It scales, it enhances tactical depth, and it removes many of the potential problems, doesn't minimize class abilities. At its worst you are seeing roughly the same math as Advantage.

Flanking is 1:3, +1 to hit for each ally threatening the target, moving through threatened squares is Difficult Terrain. Bonus ranges from +1-+5 depending on number of flankers.

I'm not dissing your game man. I used the flanking rules myself for a session before binning them myself. Take a chill pill. I'm simply saying that the optional rule you have inserted into your campaign is famous for unfairly punishing PCs over monsters (particularly melee PCs), makes combat into largely a festival of 'see who can backstab the fastest and the most' and provides a bonus far out of proportion to what it's worth. Added together these outweigh any 'tactical depth' or simulationist feel good factor it offers in return.

This is something you seem to agree with to some extent seeing as you're talking about limiting movement and making it harder to get (although again I note your amended rule again favors the monsters over the PCs as they are far more likely to get 3:1 odds against your 2 melee based PCs who... Can't).

It's not just me mate. Tons of us have had experience with it and reject it pretty hard. Even the OP (the one other flanking advocate in this thread) doesn't use advantage as its benefit.

Again, YMMV. If it works for your group then fine. I would consider giving the Melee PCs in your party something to compensate though.

Maybe consider a Homebrew feat that allows a PC to be immune to being flanked, in addition to some minor benefit (an extra reaction for opportunity attacks perhaps?) or a +1 bonus to a stat (call it 'All round defence' or something) and give all players an extra feat at 1st level to compensate for the fact that battles have just gotten much harder for them to survive.

I have a gut feeling that I would jump at such a feat.

[Dalebert]

FWIW, as broken as I personally believe it to be, we still managed to have a lot of fun in the game where the DM used the optional flanking rule. I was the only experienced player in the game so I was the only one to fully take into account the impact it would have and adjust my character and tactics to it.

[Zman]

I'm not dissing your game man. I used the flanking rules myself for a session before binning them myself. Take a chill pill. I'm simply saying that the optional rule you have inserted into your campaign is famous for unfairly punishing PCs over monsters (particularly melee PCs), makes combat into largely a festival of 'see who can backstab the fastest and the most' and provides a bonus far out of proportion to what it's worth. Added together these outweigh any 'tactical depth' or simulationist feel good factor it offers in return.

This is something you seem to agree with to some extent seeing as you're talking about limiting movement and making it harder to get (although again I note your amended rule again favors the monsters over the PCs as they are far more likely to get 3:1 odds against your 2 melee based PCs who... Can't).

It's not just me mate. Tons of us have had experience with it and reject it pretty hard. Even the OP (the one other flanking advocate in this thread) doesn't use advantage as its benefit.

Again, YMMV. If it works for your group then fine. I would consider giving the Melee PCs in your party something to compensate though.

Maybe consider a Homebrew feat that allows a PC to be immune to being flanked, in addition to some minor benefit (an extra reaction for opportunity attacks perhaps?) or a +1 bonus to a stat (call it 'All round defence' or something) and give all players an extra feat at 1st level to compensate for the fact that battles have just gotten much harder for them to survive.

I have a gut feeling that I would jump at such a feat.

And I've been using them without issue for ~20 hours. Simple modification of opposite only using a hex map. Though, I'm likely to give my new idea go, DMG i.e. 1:3 for determining flanking, bonus equal to number of allies adjacency to the target. It is a bit more organic, offers a scaling benefit, is still easily usable by the PCs, etc. along with threatened space it DT. My original goal was to retain the advantage mechanic and just make it more difficult to get, but this will suffice.

I've never said 3:1 odds, the 1:3 was in reference to how you gain flanking as opposed to directly opposite. I.e. The three hexes on the back half. Requiring outnumbering three to one to flank is just absurd.

[Malifice]

FWIW, as broken as I personally believe it to be, we still managed to have a lot of fun in the game where the DM used the optional flanking rule. I was the only experienced player in the game so I was the only one to fully take into account the impact it would have and adjust my character and tactics to it.

If a feat existed that made you immune to advantage due to being flanked, would you have taken it?

[Dalebert]

If a feat existed that made you immune to advantage due to being flanked, would you have taken it?

Instead of Mobile? No. Mobile does a pretty dang good job of dealing with that issue.