flanking?

[JeenLeen]

For a general character, is flanking a thing in 5e?

Back in 3.5, there was a bonus when flanking a foe. I think that no longer exists in 5th edition, but someone in my group thought it gave advantage.
I know there are some monsters that get or give advantage when an ally* is within 5 feet of a foe, and that it lets a rogue sneak attack,

Also, rogues get sneak attack from 'flanking', but not advantage as well, correct?

*ally defined in a technical sense as something like "a hostile to the target that is not unconscious or incapacitated", that is, it does not necessarily have to be your ally so much as an enemy of your enemy. But I'm trying not to side-track on that.

[Beelzebubba]

Optional rule, DMG p. 251, along with a lot of the 3.5-esque grid stuff.

And Advantage allows a sneak attack, it doesn't create it.

[nickl_2000]

For a general character, is flanking a thing in 5e?

Back in 3.5, there was a bonus when flanking a foe. I think that no longer exists in 5th edition, but someone in my group thought it gave advantage.
I know there are some monsters that get or give advantage when an ally* is within 5 feet of a foe, and that it lets a rogue sneak attack,

Also, rogues get sneak attack from 'flanking', but not advantage as well, correct?

*ally defined in a technical sense as something like "a hostile to the target that is not unconscious or incapacitated", that is, it does not necessarily have to be your ally so much as an enemy of your enemy. But I'm trying not to side-track on that.

Rogues get sneak attack if they have advantage OR if they have an ally within 5 feet of the enemy you are attacking. This applies to ranged attacks as well as melee.


Flanking is an optional rule. My table gives a +1 to all attacks with flanking (defined an an ally on the exact opposite side of the enemy). We do this as advantage is a much bigger plus than the +1 to hit. It works out well for us.

[PeteNutButter]

Keep in mind that in 3.5, moving more than 5ft within an enemy's reach would typically provoke an opportunity attack.

That isn't a concern in 5e, so flanking becomes much less of a gradual accomplishment and more of an "always on."

In order for flanking to work appropriately, I think you have to rework the opportunity attack rules a bit, so you can't just run circles around enemies without them having a say at it.

[nickl_2000]

Keep in mind that in 3.5, moving more than 5ft within an enemy's reach would typically provoke an opportunity attack.

That isn't a concern in 5e, so flanking becomes much less of a gradual accomplishment and more of an "always on."

In order for flanking to work appropriately, I think you have to rework the opportunity attack rules a bit, so you can't just run circles around enemies without them having a say at it.

As long as you apply it both way it has never been an issue for our table. It actually makes encounters with critters that have pack tactics WAY more deadly.

[N810]

We have run with flanking for 18 levels and it's fine,
since all of our enemies also have it, and flanking
is also potentially dangerous as now you are in melee
range of some very nasty attacks at higher levels.

[Armored Walrus]

As long as you apply it both way it has never been an issue for our table. It actually makes encounters with critters that have pack tactics WAY more deadly.

Why would it make critters with pack tactics more deadly? They have advantage without the optional flanking rule. What does using the flanking rule change that makes them more deadly?

[nickl_2000]

Why would it make critters with pack tactics more deadly? They have advantage without the optional flanking rule. What does using the flanking rule change that makes them more deadly?

because my table does flanking as a +1 to attack, not advantage (from a previous message in this thread). Pack tactics means advantage and +1 to attack