Alternate Flanking rule

[Theodoxus]

So, I have one DM who loves flanking per the DMG and granting advantage on attacks is cool, but a little too powerful. As an alternative, I was thinking it would work more like Bless; granting a 1d4 bonus to hit (which would stack with Bless). But, also, if you hit, the roll would also add to the damage you do. So, if you and your buddy are flanking an orc, you both roll a d20+1d4; say, a 12 and 3. If you hit (probably would), you'd roll damage and add 3 to it.

Now, crits normally double dice, but my thinking is, this is only a die for hitting, once a hit is confirmed, that bonus becomes a static damage amount, so wouldn't double on a crit.

The reasoning behind this change is it's not as powerful as advantage, but the extra damage payoff makes it desirable still. It's a combination of Bless and Divine Favor, both things in the game, so it's not bringing a wholly new mechanic. Flavorwise, I see it as the flanking buddies are distracting their target to the point where not only is it a little easier to hit, but when you do, you get a little oomph to the blow - an opening not normally available.

Anyway, thoughts?

[Innocent_bystan]

Advantage is worth a +3 to a +5 modifier to an attack roll. So your +1d4 is worth that much less. Especially if you add it to damage as well.

In my game, the players get to add +1 to their attack roll if they are flanking or have high ground or have some other small advantage. Simple, but efficient.

[DMThac0]

I don't see a problem with flanking as it stands, a +3 to +5 is a nice bonus. I mean, heck, when I surround my players with a pack of wolves they get pack tactics, flanking, and life sucks in general.

I can see how it feels like the players get too much out of this, but the game is geared to let them win. I feel that rather than taking flanking away, use those rules against the players as much as they use them against you.

I recall a fight not too long ago where I almost TPK'd a group of players with 10 goblins. They were a group of 5 level 4 adventurers in a cavern structure, the goblins came in from above and started to rain down arrows and stones. Using their disengage, the terrain, and constantly rotating creatures around, I made the players' lives miserable. It's not that they were outnumbered, I'm sure we've all seen a group of 4 adventurers take out a similar horde of goblins with no issue. Using the tactics and strategy a creature would take, being indigenous to the area, and using that mind set, I made a difficult battle using fairly easy creatures.

As a DM "Anything you can do, I can do better", as DM to the players "Anything you say and do, will be used against you.", as the player "I have all the tools to win, but so does the DM". It may not be Players vs DM, but in respect to "nerfing" a mechanic of the game, those thoughts sum it up for me.

[Ratter]

snip

I dont like flanking because it makes the help, and kobold race features useless.

[nickl_2000]

For our table you get +1 to the attack when there is flanking. However, if you have advantage from anything you don't get the flanking bonus (to keep the bonus sane)

[strangebloke]

Flanking as written in the DMG is garbage.

1. It's a huge bonus. Advantage on average is the same as a +4, roughly.
2. It's trivial to get. There's no penalty for moving within an enemy's threatened area, so you basically can just walk around the ogre to wherever you need to be to get flanking.
3. Advantage doesn't stack, so flanking makes Pack tactics, knocking people prone, the help action, and other such things worse. This makes the game boring.

Zman has "each creature flanking the opponents" grants a +1 to attack rolls, up to a +5. Remember, you can't get a bonus on someone unless they're on the opposite side of the monster, so generally you can't get more than a +1.

I also use a rule (tweaked version of Zman's) that "Creatures can always use a creature of the same size category than them or larger as cover." Because I think it's criminal that the cover rules don't get used more.

I don't do this, but @Zman recommends making 'threatened area' into difficult terrain. So maneuvring around the ogre costs double movement.

[kardar233]

Strangebloke hit the nail on the head for reasons I don’t like flanking as presented. The devaluation of advantage-granting abilities and effects is bad, but the hilariously easy access to flanking (due to unconstrained combat movement) makes for an even more skewed advantage for whichever side has greater numbers. I had been working on a revival of the 3.5e Opportunity Attack rules to balance that side of flanking but it made reach weapons far too powerful.

Flanking would be less bad if the bonus were not as amazing but I think the problem lies in how easy it is to get, not how good the bonus is.

[Armored Walrus]

If you outnumber an enemy in real life it's also easy to walk around behind them while your ally engages with them. It also greatly increases your odds of winning the fight.

I think it's working as intended, and flaking an enemy you outnumber should be an "always use" tactic. If your DM can't come up with varied terrain to make it difficult to maneuver into a flaking position, or have enemies smart enough to fight back-to-back, then you'll just always flank and have advantage, and your other methods for getting advantage won't be used. If you face smart enemies, or have difficult or damaging terrain, or cover, or enemies who fight in formation, or encounters at range, or flying enemies, or flaming gas attacks from their backsides rendering flanking more dangerous than facing the enemy head on, then you'll get to use your other methods of gaining advantage.

The whole point of the advantage system was to do away with tiny, incremental, situational bonuses, and give one streamlined system. If the situation gives you an advantage, you have advantage. Done.

Edit: That being said, my take on OP's suggestion is that it seems usable and balanced enough. To me it's a bit wonky, and no one at my table is looking to add complexity, so it's not something we'd adopt, but I certainly think as houserules go, it's a reasonable one.

[strangebloke]

If you outnumber an enemy in real life it's also easy to walk around behind them while your ally engages with them. It also greatly increases your odds of winning the fight.

I think it's working as intended, and flaking an enemy you outnumber should be an "always use" tactic. If your DM can't come up with varied terrain to make it difficult to maneuver into a flaking position, or have enemies smart enough to fight back-to-back, then you'll just always flank and have advantage, and your other methods for getting advantage won't be used. If you face smart enemies, or have difficult or damaging terrain, or cover, or enemies who fight in formation, or encounters at range, or flying enemies, or flaming gas attacks from their backsides rendering flanking more dangerous than facing the enemy head on, then you'll get to use your other methods of gaining advantage.

The whole point of the advantage system was to do away with tiny, incremental, situational bonuses, and give one streamlined system. If the situation gives you an advantage, you have advantage. Done.

Edit: That being said, my take on OP's suggestion is that it seems usable and balanced enough. To me it's a bit wonky, and no one at my table is looking to add complexity, so it's not something we'd adopt, but I certainly think as houserules go, it's a reasonable one.

The issue is that it's easy to walk around them even if you don't outnumber them, or if they outnumber you. That's not working as designed. You end up with leapfrog chains that look something like this:

X
O
X
O
X

Then one X dies and things change to:

X
O
X
O

Which is just... what's even going on in that combat?

[Lombra]

At our table we use it straight from the DMG and never witnessed it as being cheap. It may be due to party composition, but usually flanking presents risks and rewards. By having a creature flanked, you're exposing one or both flankers to the enemy line, which in turn could flank the flankers (?).

It doesn't happen often in our games, we do lack a tank tho.

[hymer]

You could introduce d12 advantage. You roll a d12 alongside your d20, and pick the best result. It's the equivalent of about +1.4 (depending on how you want to calculate it), and clearly falls under the normal advantage-doesn't-stack rule.

[Armored Walrus]

The issue is that it's easy to walk around them even if you don't outnumber them, or if they outnumber you. That's not working as designed. You end up with leapfrog chains that look something like this:

X
O
X
O
X

Then one X dies and things change to:

X
O
X
O

Which is just... what's even going on in that combat?

You only end up with that in a white room with every combatant playing offensively and no one playing defensively. You could just as easily end up with the O's standing next to each other with their backs against a wall - which is how I would try to position myself if a friend and I got jumped by three people. Or I'd run away...

The only reason you end up with the above is because no character in D&D has a realistic sense of self-preservation, so decisions are made purely from a mechanical perspective. Most people just charge in and start doing damage. If the DM plays the enemies as though they actually want to stay alive, they aren't likely to value advantage on their attacks as much as they value not getting hit.

I, on the other hand, like to try to have my enemies act a bit more tactically. Real (trained) combatants are going to try to maneuver so that they can engage a lesser enemy force with their greater force, whether that be by flipping a table for cover, positioning themselves against a wall or in a chokepoint, moving in a formation, or retreating until they can find better ground on which to fight.

Untrained combatants just run in and swing at the closest enemy, or the weakest-looking one, or they run away, and they are too stupid or inexperienced to keep from being flanked.

Edit: At any rate, I don't think it was OP's intent to dispute the merits of the advantage/disadvantage system. He's already made up his mind that he doesn't like it. Rather, he's looking for feedback on whether his fix will work at table. Which I think it would.

[DMThac0]

X
O
X
O
X

Then one X dies and things change to:

X
O
X
O

Which is just... what's even going on in that combat?

You're right, that is a weird and convoluted combat, and from my experience doesn't happen.

Players flank because that creature is the biggest threat, that creature has the lowest hp, they outnumber the creatures, they use it for sneak attack, and many more reasons I don't want to try to think of. The bonus from flanking is built in because it makes sense. I have a position where I can strike without repercussion, I can time my attack to hit in a prime location to deal a decisive blow, and I know that the opponent will likely turn on me after that strike.

If, for some reason, you don't want flanking to work like that in your game remember: Flanking does not exist in 5e, it's an optional rule, and would then make it so that Help and Aid would get more time to shine.

[Theodoxus]

Just to follow up, I used the alternate rules this week, and they seemed to be met with cautious optimism. I did get to use it against the players a few times, but they really liked ganging up on my monsters, and the extra damage killed critters outright on a few occasions.

All in all, it did exactly what I wanted to do. Grouping up opened up opportunities for flanking, but also for concentrated AoE on both sides.

[Rebonack]

I like using things like flanking, facing, and high ground. They all grant a static +1 to hit, but they don't stack with each other. That allows them to stack with stuff like reckless attack and pack tactics without totally trivializing them.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I use Star Wars rules for high ground. If you have it, it's over.

[Mith]

While I haven't used it yet, my first thought is a +2 to hit the flanked creature in order to negate a regular sheild bonus to AC. However, due to the larger impact of static numbers in 5e, +1 may be sufficent.

[Contrast]

I'm a little confused by OPs approach here. They say they don't like base flanking because its too powerful but seem to have proposed something which seems more powerful. Critically, it now stacks with advantage which means players can get advantage, plus 1d4 (2d4 with bless!) AND bonus damage.

Now if you want to play a more high power game, its your table but thinking flanking was too powerful clearly wasn't the issue :smalltongue: I tend to agree it is too good and particularly crowds out/devalues other tactics and abilities which generate advantage. I try to avoid adding situational modifiers so my personal preference would be to just ignore it and occasionally throw inspiration out for descriptions of positioning for advantage.

I did like the idea someone made about giving mini advantage with a d20 and a d12. Means it doesn't stack with advantage but there's also still a point in trying to get sources of regular advantage.