I love and hate the Flanking variant

[Rebonack]

I like rules that add a bit of tactical depth. Using terrain and allies to get a leg up on foes. But I feel like doling out advantage for it is WAY too much. Worse, it invalidates class features like Reckless Attack and the Help action, which often represent a much higher investment in class resources or action economy.

So instead of an Advantage, I was thinking more along the lines of an Edge.


Edge: An Edge is a minor combat boon, not quite an Advantage, but still helpful. Maybe you've flanked a foe with one of your allies. Maybe you've managed to seize the high ground. Maybe you just swung from a chandelier and attacked from an unexpected angle. Regardless of the source, when you attack a foe in a fashion that doesn't quite offer an advantage the DM may grant your attack an Edge. When you attack with an Edge, treat the natural face value on your d20 roll as if it were one higher than what's displayed.

So thus, attacking with an Edge would offer three benefits. It's a +1 to your attack roll, it prevents a botch, and it effectively increases your critical range. That's a bit more bite than a straight +1 modifier, but still a far cry from the boost Advantage offers.

Does that seem like a pretty reasonable benefit? Or would a straight +1 modifier be more appropriate?

[Willie the Duck]

Seems excessively wordy for a '+1' that happens to threaten a crit 5% more often, but the practical effect is fine (in other words, no it doesn't seem overpowered, but it sounds like more trouble than any value added it provides).

One thing: If you get this and advantage, do you get both? Seems like a crit-fishers dream come true. That's not bad or good, but it will inventivize certain behavior.

[Rebonack]

The intent was that Advantage and Edge would be able to stack, yes. The goal is to encourage using allies and terrain to aid oneself in combat without invalidating sources of Advantage, which are pretty much universally more difficult to obtain. Getting both (say, a Reckless Attack while flanking a foe) is meant to offer more of a reward to the player than both individually.

The main thing to watch out for with this variant would be Hexblade shenanigans, I suspect. But specifying that you don't get an Edge because your flanking-pal is blinded by your Darkness would probably curtail the worst abuse.

[MaxWilson]

Does that seem like a pretty reasonable benefit? Or would a straight +1 modifier be more appropriate?

It seems reasonable but a bit wordy. Once your players get the idea it should be fine.

A straight +1 modifier would also be reasonable.

I have at times offered players a similar edge if they act out their actions in character when they declare them, with the intent of boosting fun without having a dramatic effect on power. I think the rule I used was, "If you roll a natural 1, and you acted our your action, you get to re-roll it." (If it were a halfling then they'd obviously get to reroll up to two natural 1s, but that never came up anyway.) Mechanically it's about half as powerful as a +1. Specifically, it's like a +X, where X is the fraction of the time you'd succeed on a reroll. But it doesn't feel like power creep because it only comes into play 5% of the time, whereas a straight +1 makes some players feel like they've got to have it all the time because they obsess about getting their numbers up as high as possible. (These are the same players who can't stand to play a fighter who rolls Str 16 when someone else rolls Str 18.)

So, my advice to you would be to make edge a flat +1 if you want it to feel like a big deal, and make it a die manipulation if you want it to be less impactful.

[eastmabl]

So instead of an Advantage, I was thinking more along the lines of an Edge.

...

Does that seem like a pretty reasonable benefit? Or would a straight +1 modifier be more appropriate?

+1 modifier or the Edge benefit are both more fiddly that 5e is designed to be.

[Willie the Duck]

The main thing to watch out for with this variant would be Hexblade shenanigans, I suspect. But specifying that you don't get an Edge because your flanking-pal is blinded by your Darkness would probably curtail the worst abuse.

Given that this is a house rule, I would invoke the 'you know what I mean' clause--as in, DM has perfect authority to say, "I put this in to garner this, this, and this, not incentivize you to do that (kind of cheeze). It does not count there." And then make a list and work on a carefully worded version after playtesting.


+1 modifier or the Edge benefit are both more fiddly that 5e is designed to be.

In theory, but exceptions abound. Portable Rams give a + to opening doors, since they want to synergize (not overlap) with allies aiding you. Etc.

[Rebonack]

+1 modifier or the Edge benefit are both more fiddly that 5e is designed to be.

Ostensibly, yeah. I had considered doing something like 'AC is 9 plus modifiers and ties favor the defender with Edge making ties favor the attacker.'

But then I remembered that spells like Aid and Slow exist. There are still static situational modifiers, they're just far more uncommon.

'Roll with Edge' isn't much more fiddly than 'Roll with advantage' is.

[Eric Diaz]

Why not straight +2 like 4e (IIRC)? Seems to be the easier option...

I have a different variant for flanking where the target chooses who he is being flanked by FWIW:

If a character gets surrounded by two or more creatures (or vice-versa), the creatures can divide themselves in two groups in order to flank/back-stab the character. The character chooses which group to face. The other group has advantage when attacking the character. The number of creatures that can attack a character at once is limited by their size, position (no backstabbing people who have their backs to a wall), and the length of their weapons.

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2017/03/5e-quick-fix-flanking-and-facing.html

[Envyus]

I am also of the opinion that Advantage is too good. So I go with a simple +2. Just like half cover or something would give.

[Rebonack]

Why not straight +2 like 4e (IIRC)? Seems to be the easier option...

Mostly because of how bound accuracy works.

Due to the much lower AC (and ToHit values) a +2 is a significantly more powerful buff than it was in earlier editions of D&D. Also, I figure the fiddliness of 'that natural 19 is actually a natural 20' is pretty easy to keep track of.

[Envyus]

Mostly because of how bound accuracy works.

Due to the much lower AC (and ToHit values) a +2 is a significantly more powerful buff than it was in earlier editions of D&D. Also, I figure the fiddliness of 'that natural 19 is actually a natural 20' is pretty easy to keep track of.

A +2 is good. But it's still less powerful then advantage. It's the same buff as cover gives is my reasoning.

[Cespenar]

If you don't want to stack static bonuses, another Edge variant could be: "You have advantage on your damage rolls."

[poolio]

By "prevents a botch" i assume you mean a crit fail? Which if you're swinging from a chandelier trying to hit someone, and roll a 1 in my game, you can bet your battle axe you're taking a header into the closest pillar/column/beam/wall/floor or ally lol

But i like the idea, my group and i will probably start applying these ideas soon, cause having an ally nearby should help you in combat.

[Laserlight]

If you don't want to stack static bonuses, another Edge variant could be: "You have advantage on your damage rolls."

For higher powered characters who are rolling a bunch of dice--I'm thinking of a rogue mc paladin we had, who would both smite and sneak attack--that might soak up more time. If you're going for increased damage, I'd just add 1d6 or some such.