Flanking

[Bjarkmundur]

Ya'll remember Combat Advantage, that was fun.

I've been looking at how the 5e's expected "Theater of the Mind" play-style likely affects various rules and features, and flanking is a rule that was most likely got cut because of it.

My groups use miniatures, and a grid, and frankly, we miss flanking.

Do you use flanking at your table? Does it grant advantage or a flat bonus to hit?
Do you feel flanking undermines other class' features and abilities that either grant advantage or bonus to hit?

[Lunali]

We use flanking giving advantage currently, but usually when someone's flanking it's because the creature has decided to go after someone we'd rather it didn't go after. Flanking will typically help the side with numbers on their side, which isn't usually the PCs except when the PCs are fighting something particularly dangerous.

[Galithar]

I use it with advantage, but I highly recommend using a +2 hit instead. It keeps the incentive for other abilities designed around using advantage.

I never see things like Faerie Fire or Reckless attack in my game because it's too easy to just flank. You don't need superior numbers, you just need 2 people and the enemy to not use shield wall tactics (and let's be honest they don't :P )

[Dalebert]

Flanking doesn't work with 5e rules. It's not about it being theater of the mind. it's about things like how easy it is to get into flanking position and about how powerful advantage is. Making it +2 instead is less broken but it's still broken.

It used to be a lot harder to flank because you provoked an AoO from a creature if you moved more than 5 ft while within its reach. Now you can easily move into flanking position without provoking.

In reality everyone is moving at the same time and you try not to let your enemies get into flanking positions around you. You'd be backing away and moving constantly. This is the point of the AoO for moving within a creature's reach--to adjust for the simplificatino of turn-based moves. 5e did away with those complications and flanking had to go along with it. Putting it back is broken.

[stoutstien]

Flanking overshadows alot of game features like reckless attack and pack tactics.
I usually just give them advantage on AOO while flanking.

[Lunali]

I think if I were starting a new game I'd make flanking slightly more accessible and slightly less powerful. On the power side, I'd lower it from advantage to +2, preserving the power of things that give advantage, but making sure that flanking still matters.

To make it more available, I'd say that a creature is flanked if it's in melee range of attackers that don't all fit in less than 180 degrees. A creature that is flanked is flanked for all melee attackers. This means that two people on opposite sides still cause the creature to be flanked, but also 3 creatures spread evenly do as well.

[Cikomyr]

As a GM, I would not allow pure flanking to work as per the optional rule, but simply in a situation where its clear two allies are sorrounding an opponent that has to divert his attention between them, then I'd give the sorrounded party disadvantage on his rolls because he is constantly being distracted.

The flanked party can decide to focus his attention on his target, but then the character he decides to ignore has advantage on attacks.

This overall setup doesn't work in a broad melee, because everyone is trying to focus on everyone. This only takes place in clear 2 on 1 situations with actual efforts made for coordination. No "conga line of death"

[Danielqueue1]

I do like flanking but I am a little more restrictive in giving it out.
when I'm running it, (most recent, I've changed my mind a few times) Flanking creatures must be
• on exact opposite sides of the creature to gain advantage. (mostly only important to large or bigger creatures)
• able to see the target (for reals though)
• not being flanked themselves. (conga line neutralizes itself.)
• within 2 size categories of target (a house cat isn't going to help you flank an ancient dragon/purple worm etc)
• not under affects of a spell that makes them unable to effectively contribute to combat (confusion, command, dominate, etc)

I'm not calling it a fix, but it is a variant rule anyway, this is how I run it. it rewards positioning but not a blanket "always have advantage" that a lot of people are seemingly concerned about.

[opaopajr]

I like the idea of Flanking and other tactics. But as written it's simply too much, especially given the power of Dodge and Disengage as core moves. :smalltongue: Used to Dodge to provide Flanking all the time, even in the required 180 degree opposite sides homerule version.


Flanking overshadows alot of game features like reckless attack and pack tactics.
I usually just give them advantage on AOO while flanking.

OA with Adv. while Flanking is a pretty good start. :smallsmile: Gives a good reason to Disengage. It really hammers Dodge as sub-optimal play when getting away.

But what is the incentive to Flank, or to get away from being Flanked? :smallredface: Staying still has no penalty for bad position.

[HunterOfJello]

Flanking doesn't work with 5e rules. It's not about it being theater of the mind. it's about things like how easy it is to get into flanking position and about how powerful advantage is. Making it +2 instead is less broken but it's still broken.



This. Plus the designers wanted to remove situational modifiers from the game as much as possible and turn all bonuses and penalties into advantage or disadvantage.

[MrStabby]

Advantage just undermines class features.

A flat hit bonus is a small improvement but still provides a buff to features like great weapon mastery that don't really need them.

[Ganryu]

I used to have advantage at my table. Never again, it neuters a lot of classes honestly. I still use +2 ruling many others do, but advantage I feel should be rarer.

[Keravath]

Flanking is an optional rule in 5e in the DMG p251.

However, it is a bit too powerful and can be abused by both the players and the NPCs. The DMG rule gives advantage to attacks if you have attackers directly on opposite sides of a defender.

Advantage is roughly equivalent to a +3 to +5 to hit in the usual range of numbers required to hit a target. It also roughly doubles the chance of a crit much more regularly than normal to hit die rolls and it synergizes with rogue's sneak attack particularly well.

I've never played with the rule but from chatting with folks who have it seems like it is a bit less fun since NPCs often outnumber PCs and so they tend to benefit from flanking more often than the PCs.

[N810]

Don't forget that the DM's creatures get to use it was well, and often the hero's will be outnumbered.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've started implementing a rule that you get a bonus to your attack for every ally adjacent to the target.

So if 2 goblins are adjacent to a player, both goblins would get +1 to their attacks.
If 3 goblins are adjacent to a player, all three goblins would get +2 to their attacks.

Then I have shields and Two Weapon Fighting reduce this bonus by 1.

So 3 goblins adjacent to one player, who is using a second weapon, would get +1 to their attacks.

This incentivizes surrounding a creature without it being game breaking, and it's easy to track. It also doesn't easily provide Advantage.

Creatures with Pack Tactics (Wolves, Kobolds) count as 2 allies each. So 2 kobolds surrounding a single player get +4 to their attacks.

[Teaguethebean]

Man over game I love your ideas as usual but how in gods name do you keep track of this stuff

[Man_Over_Game]

Thanks, man! I appreciate you saying that!

The trick is to never overwhelm one particular aspect of the game. If you add big combat changes, there will be a big chance you'll forget something. But you can add a boss change, a rest change, and a combat change, because you think of those separately. It also confused players a lot less.

The exception is character creation. It doesn't really matter how complex you make character creation, because players can spend as much time as they want out of session to review the changes.

So I would not combine my Pain rules, and my Flanking rules, in the same campaign as they both accomplish the same thing (complexity into melee combat).

If you mean how do I keep track of them on my down time, I'm just really organized with anything involving computers. I really like OneNote for this.

Or do what all the Playgrounders do and flood their Signature. You think all that's for you? Nah, we just are too lazy to search up our own homebrews.

[Kane0]

Or do what all the Playgrounders do and flood their Signature. You think all that's for you? Nah, we just are too lazy to search up our own homebrews.

The truth, man.

Edit: To actually contribute to the topic, I use +1 to hit for flanking.

[JackPhoenix]

I've started implementing a rule that you get a bonus to your attack for every ally adjacent to the target.

So if 2 goblins are adjacent to a player, both goblins would get +1 to their attacks.
If 3 goblins are adjacent to a player, all three goblins would get +2 to their attacks.

Then I have shields and Two Weapon Fighting reduce this bonus by 1.

So 3 goblins adjacent to one player, who is using a second weapon, would get +1 to their attacks.

This incentivizes surrounding a creature without it being game breaking, and it's easy to track. It also doesn't easily provide Advantage.

Creatures with Pack Tactics (Wolves, Kobolds) count as 2 allies each. So 2 kobolds surrounding a single player get +4 to their attacks.

Oh gods. As if Animate Objects or Conjure wolf pack Animals weren't powerful enough....