I'm fed up with flanking. How about you?

[HappyDaze]

I am about to start a new campaign, and I have decided I don't like the flanking rules. I feel that flanking makes it too easy to gain Advantage and it skews the balance of combat encounters towards melee offense and numerical superiority in a way that can be tough to deal with (regarding game balance, not the tactics). Also, I feel that the flanking rules cheapen spells and special abilities that grant Advantage. Does anyone else feel this way?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Flanking is an optional rule.

But I do feel like you need to get something. And I feel like advantage is too much.

In a game I play in the DM gives +1 to attack and damage for flanking.
In the game I an DMing I give a +2 to attack for flanking.

[Expected]

Flanking does negate the benefit of advantage-granting features and spells, but only if you can reliably do so. Personally, I feel like it really adds to strategy in combat (because they can flank you, too) but it does make playing Barbarian less fun because Reckless Attack is essentially worthless.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Flanking does negate the benefit of advantage-granting features and spells, but only if you can reliably do so. Personally, I feel like it really adds to strategy in combat (because they can flank you, too) but it does make playing Barbarian less fun because Reckless Attack is essentially worthless.

Or it make reckless attack more usable.
If there are goblins all around you know they get advantage anyway so you can recklessly attack freely.

And if you have the upper hand and attack with flanking advantage you get to not be attacked with advantage.

[Merudo]

Flanking breaks the game. Don't use flanking rules.

[HappyDaze]

Beyond looking at it as a player, consider how it screws with game balance.

Number of melee-attacking enemies should matter more for calculating difficulty than number of other types of enemies.
Number of melee-attacking PCs should matter more for calculating effective party level (their offense is better).

[HappyDaze]

Flanking breaks the game. Don't use flanking rules.

This is where I currently stand. An hour ago I sent my players an email telling them that the flanking rules will not be used in the upcoming game.

Care to expand on how it breaks the game beyond what I've already mentioned?

[Kane0]

No you pretty much nailed it, it makes other means of gaining advantage less lucrative (like reckless attack and Guiding Bolt) or outright irrelevant (like pack tactics) and heavily favors numerical advantage.

Edit: If you still want to use it consider granting a +1 to hit rather than advantage. It's a common houserule and works much better if you don't mind the extra counting.

[Vessyra]

I just use +1 to attack. The players don't often remember to flank, and it isn't my job to remind them, but it is still nice when they remember and work for that extra edge. And the +1 can come in handy; just a few hours ago, the players missed the big bad's AC by one, twice in a row, then remembered they had +1. That was a pretty sweet moment.
Although, if the extra counting is difficult, you could just ignore flanking altogether. An alternative method is to have flanking give -1 to AC; instead every players having to add a +1 bonus to every attack, the one DM can simply make the adjustment.

I don't use advantage for, well, basically all of the reasons listed above. Makes every other source of advantage almost useless, since flanking costs next to nothing.

[Zhorn]

I've DM'd one adventure (~12 sessions) with flanking giving advantage.
Never again.

[Damon_Tor]

I'm toying with a system of "formations" which give tactical benefits to creatures in certain positions relative to their allies assuming they and the other allies involved know the formation, something that mostly evolved from thinking about how to make intelligence more relevant for more characters. All "martial" characters can know a number of formations equal to their intelligence modifier. "Flanking" is a formation, so knowing it requires at least int 12, and it represents an opportunity cost because there might be other formations you're missing out on. And you need a buddy who also has int 12+, and who also knows the formation. Characters can swap out formations during a long rest.

[nickl_2000]

Edit: If you still want to use it consider granting a +1 to hit rather than advantage. It's a common houserule and works much better if you don't mind the extra counting.

This is what our table do. +1 for flanking, unless you have advantage, then you don’t get it at all.

[opaopajr]

It's too much benefit for little risk. Adv is roughly akin to +4 to-hit (averaged out) and thus magnifies any extra attacks. It also allows flanking from more than one pairing, making running into the center of a bunch of enemies & Dodge very powerful. Clerics with AC17 or 18 Dodging in the center of monsters, Concentrating on a current Bless/Bane, is a nightmare tank... all strikers get Adv if they can get in a radial pattern, and whoever has Bless just chews through the mob faster (Bane to debuff nastier mobs to outlast). :smallredface:

I like the idea of tactical formations, but past editions did it better. :smallsmile: That said, 5e's +2 AC for being in the second rank with a reach weapon is awesome simplicity for Polearm second rank tactics.

[Lunali]

I've been considering using +1 for each other enemy of the target within 5' of them up to an undecided maximum.

[nickl_2000]

I've been considering using +1 for each other enemy of the target within 5' of them up to an undecided maximum.

That makes mobs a lot more dangerous

[Jack Bitters]

Just curious--for those of you who have modified it to be +1, why +1 and not +2?

[Lupine]

Just curious--for those of you who have modified it to be +1, why +1 and not +2?

Mostly because of the way the math works

First, lets look at advantage, so you see why people are modifying it at all, from a math standpoint. Another poster said +4, I’ve always heard +5, but we’ll stick with the conservative estimate (just remember that if it is a +5, these numbers are even crazier).
4/20=1/5=~20%
4/15=~26%
Now you see the problem. By giving advantage, you’ve made the character get a huge bonus for no resources. If they have no other bonuses, then the character needs a 15 to succeed on a DC20, instead of a 20. In a little over one out of five rolls, you are statistically likely to get to get a 16 or higher. That’s a great increase from the twenty rolls to get a 20.
Lets look at our options .
If it’s a plus one, then you’ve added one out of twenty. Thats around a 5% increased chance to hit, if the DC is 20. If it is say, 15, then a +1 is 1/15 extra chance ~6% chance.
Now, a 5 or six percent chance doesn’t feel like much, but it is enough to be noticeable (though not very powerful)
Now lets look at +2
2/20=1/10 you just added a 10% chance to hit
2/15=~13% chance to hit.

All in all, it’s just a matter if you want them to take a little less than 20 rolls, or a little less then 10 rolls. They’re both noticeable, but ones a bit more beefy. Just a matter of what fits your table.

[Anderlith]

I’m a supporter for anything that gives marriage an edge. Next time my BMF moves to flank I’m gonna shout, “I cast Sword!, you gain advantage!”

[Amdy_vill]

I am about to start a new campaign, and I have decided I don't like the flanking rules. I feel that flanking makes it too easy to gain Advantage and it skews the balance of combat encounters towards melee offense and numerical superiority in a way that can be tough to deal with (regarding game balance, not the tactics). Also, I feel that the flanking rules cheapen spells and special abilities that grant Advantage. Does anyone else feel this way?

flanking is a great rule and remember you can use it as well. i have never had a problem with flanking because i use groups of enemies. you don't need to remove it just remember to play around it. ranger fighters, melee fighters using flanking, spell caster that fly and many more whys.

[Reynard]

If the rules around Opportunity Attacks didn't to allow you to literally run donuts around an enemy without ever having to be afraid of them, flanking would be a lot more risky to attempt to get, especially in tighter battles.

Is Advantage still too much of a reward? Maybe. But just fighting two-on-one is a very bad time for the singleton, even when they're not standing on opposite sides of you, so... if you prefer realism, Advantage might not even be harsh enough. Players and DMs should be encouraged to use positioning carefully, for reasons other than Fireball. Thinking about where you're standing should be important.

So for me, the only real argument against Flanking is the invalidation of those class features that grant it. In some cases, such as reckless attack, flanking rules mean you can use it freely without worry, since you're surrounded anyway, and you're a barbarian. Go mad, hit things. In the case of Vow of Enmity, you can now save that for tough enemies that the party is unable to flank, valuable for the Paladin's limited Channel Divinity pool. Also, as this is D&D, there are a number of spells that spread Advantage and Disadvantage around the battlefield like bad smells, and I rarely see complaint about them removing the choice to Reckless Attack.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

That makes mobs a lot more dangerous


Mostly because of the way the math works

First, lets look at advantage, so you see why people are modifying it at all, from a math standpoint. Another poster said +4, I’ve always heard +5, but we’ll stick with the conservative estimate (just remember that if it is a +5, these numbers are even crazier).
4/20=1/5=~20%
4/15=~26%
Now you see the problem. By giving advantage, you’ve made the character get a huge bonus for no resources. If they have no other bonuses, then the character needs a 15 to succeed on a DC20, instead of a 20. In a little over one out of five rolls, you are statistically likely to get to get a 16 or higher. That’s a great increase from the twenty rolls to get a 20.
Lets look at our options .
If it’s a plus one, then you’ve added one out of twenty. Thats around a 5% increased chance to hit, if the DC is 20. If it is say, 15, then a +1 is 1/15 extra chance ~6% chance.
Now, a 5 or six percent chance doesn’t feel like much, but it is enough to be noticeable (though not very powerful)
Now lets look at +2
2/20=1/10 you just added a 10% chance to hit
2/15=~13% chance to hit.

All in all, it’s just a matter if you want them to take a little less than 20 rolls, or a little less then 10 rolls. They’re both noticeable, but ones a bit more beefy. Just a matter of what fits your table.

It is +5 if your target in the dice is between 8 and 12(or was it 14, I am not sure if it is 12 or 14).

Advantage raise the average by 3.325.
I showed the calculation on another thread and I will look for it if you ask for it.

[J-H]

Yes. I don't use the optional flanking rules or the optional critical failure rules. My games are the better for both.

[Debaterinarms]

I know many have found it troublesome, but I have played with flanking in most of my games and I am happy with the extra tactical choices it adds. I don't allow characters to flank if they themselves are flanked. I also often play that flanked is a condition, meaning that a creature is strongly incentivized to avoid being surrounded.

It could be that the type of games I run and play in has something to do with this, as I tend to play in war gamer campaigns with lots of relatively optimized characters, rolled stats, high magic settings, and deadly combats. I also play a lot of my games on roll20, so advantage is fast to calculate and larger combats are easier to run. It is common for the players to be outnumbered, often by large numbers. The groups I play in and DM for favor a lot of casters as well, so getting flanked by superior numbers of enemies is maybe a more compelling threat and flanking less of a player advantage.

There is no question that if you are the sort of DM that tends to run 1-2 monsters in an encounter advantage flanking will help your players a lot.

An alternative I have experimented with is a stacking bonus based upon the number of allies you have adjacent to you minus the number of opponents you have adjacent to you. This tends to involve more ad hoc math, but greatly encourages fighting in "formations" and makes abilities that force movement more valuable (Shove, Repelling Blast, etc.).

[Protolisk]

I don't use it.

Advantage is already easy enough to get from a variety of sources. Flanking however makes it far too easy to obtain, and reduces choice/strategy. Now the best option is always ganging up on one dude, and there's no need at all for:

Wolf totem level 3 abilities
Kobold Pack Tactics
Summoned Wolves/Dire wolves Pack tactics
Rogues getting Sneak Attack near allies (typically without advantage)

and so on, as Flanking quite literally gives these benefits to everyone else, always, for free (barring some ranged shenanigans).

Further more, it reduces the need for any resources spent, like in first level spells like Faerie Fire, or other interesting options like shoving an enemy prone, or needing to hide for advantage. Why play a Vengeance Paladin with a Vow of Enmity when you could just as well get a buddy to just stand next to the boss instead. Why Reckless attack when you could just have a buddy. Why do much of anything except have a buddy. It makes the issue of "I move and hit", a common failing of 5e martial characters, into relying HEAVILY on "I move and hit", as why need to do anything else fancy?

Combat already disincentivizes getting ganged up on. One creature only has so many attacks, and two creatures will typically have more. A 1v2 is already a bad place to be in. In tier 2, this means the loner has 2d20 chances to hit/crit, and has the chance to get hit 4d20. Now, it's 8d20 (though capped to 4 attacks, that's still already higher amounts of hits and crit chances). Trying to escape means more opportunity attacks. Granting further advantage makes the game less about interesting choices (spells, advanced tactics, class features, trade offs like Reckless Attack) and instead just defaults to "zerg rush and swarm around an enemy till it dies, then move on to the next one". This already is good idea (less enemies means better survival), but trivializes any other thought required.

There are only really two main counters to flanking, as well. More numbers on your side or heavy AoE. Which for the DM, both of these is "easy". Need more numbers? More enemies means larger battles. However, larger battles are notorious in 5e to be a bit of a slog to get through. For the party, that usually means summoners, as a party is only as big as the players with characters. Minionmancy is already a powerful build type, this ends up being a straight buff for them. Familiars using the Help action to provide 1 attack at advantage? Instead, it's pretty much all attacks, and it keeps it's action to do something else, like Dodge. Like summoning wolves because they have their inbuilt Pack Tactics as a feature? Not needed, wolves as a choice is now removed because every other possible summon gets Pack Tactics for free now, AND buffs the party members while they are at it. As for the other main counter, AoE: so much flanking means combat becomes a tight ball of targets. One well placed pie plate of damage tends to wipe them out. Again, for DMs, that just means adding spell casters. For the party, AoE is pretty much the wheelhouse of magic casters.

Whenever I hear people on the side advocating for Flanking in that it increases tactics and helps out martial characters, I only really see it reduce tactics (Why spend resources, try to hide, knock prone, so on, if we just bunch up) which leaves the resources that are unspent used more for AoE or summoning spells. Both of which heavily increases the power of spell casters, not martial classes like Flanking is supposed to be helping.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't use it.

Advantage is already easy enough to get from a variety of sources. Flanking however makes it far too easy to obtain, and reduces choice/strategy. Now the best option is always ganging up on one dude, and there's no need at all for:

Wolf totem level 3 abilities
Kobold Pack Tactics
Summoned Wolves/Dire wolves Pack tactics
Rogues getting Sneak Attack near allies (typically without advantage)

and so on, as Flanking quite literally gives these benefits to everyone else, always, for free (barring some ranged shenanigans).

Further more, it reduces the need for any resources spent, like in first level spells like Faerie Fire, or other interesting options like shoving an enemy prone, or needing to hide for advantage. Why play a Vengeance Paladin with a Vow of Enmity when you could just as well get a buddy to just stand next to the boss instead. Why Reckless attack when you could just have a buddy. Why do much of anything except have a buddy. It makes the issue of "I move and hit", a common failing of 5e martial characters, into relying HEAVILY on "I move and hit", as why need to do anything else fancy?

Combat already disincentivizes getting ganged up on. One creature only has so many attacks, and two creatures will typically have more. A 1v2 is already a bad place to be in. In tier 2, this means the loner has 2d20 chances to hit/crit, and has the chance to get hit 4d20. Now, it's 8d20 (though capped to 4 attacks, that's still already higher amounts of hits and crit chances). Trying to escape means more opportunity attacks. Granting further advantage makes the game less about interesting choices (spells, advanced tactics, class features, trade offs like Reckless Attack) and instead just defaults to "zerg rush and swarm around an enemy till it dies, then move on to the next one". This already is good idea (less enemies means better survival), but trivializes any other thought required.

There are only really two main counters to flanking, as well. More numbers on your side or heavy AoE. Which for the DM, both of these is "easy". Need more numbers? More enemies means larger battles. However, larger battles are notorious in 5e to be a bit of a slog to get through. For the party, that usually means summoners, as a party is only as big as the players with characters. Minionmancy is already a powerful build type, this ends up being a straight buff for them. Familiars using the Help action to provide 1 attack at advantage? Instead, it's pretty much all attacks, and it keeps it's action to do something else, like Dodge. Like summoning wolves because they have their inbuilt Pack Tactics as a feature? Not needed, wolves as a choice is now removed because every other possible summon gets Pack Tactics for free now, AND buffs the party members while they are at it. As for the other main counter, AoE: so much flanking means combat becomes a tight ball of targets. One well placed pie plate of damage tends to wipe them out. Again, for DMs, that just means adding spell casters. For the party, AoE is pretty much the wheelhouse of magic casters.

Whenever I hear people on the side advocating for Flanking in that it increases tactics and helps out martial characters, I only really see it reduce tactics (Why spend resources, try to hide, knock prone, so on, if we just bunch up) which leaves the resources that are unspent used more for AoE or summoning spells. Both of which heavily increases the power of spell casters, not martial classes like Flanking is supposed to be helping.

The reason not to zerg rush is not taking too big of a risk.

The other options are more consistent (like pact tactics and reckless) or safer.

I don't use the flanking rules as is because my players will just kill themselves trying to zerg rush(I run 2-3 encounter per short rest, 2-3 short rest per day and every encounter as deadly 2-3, sometimes deadly 1.5).

It is powerful, too powerful if you run encounters by the book.
And if your encounters are like my encounters it is not that strong and the risk is higher.

Also, don't forget that you can't flank every enemy, some fly, some are in groups, some are close to walls an more.

[GorogIrongut]

I have no problem with flanking granting advantage. It adds tactics. And it helps negate the fact that spellcasters > martials.

All of that said, I can see merit in the argument that it trivializes reckless, guiding bolt, etc. Next time I DM, I might change it to the positive modifier approach. But a simple +1 is too small. I'd probably settle comfortably at a +3 when flanking. That way players can still benefit from advantage however they choose to get it, while still benefitting from the tactics of flanking.

And yeah, I've never found flanking to be overpowering. Whatever the characters can use, my mooks can use against them. In fact, I find that it helps balance encounters against the PC's. Because it never hurts throwing in a dozen or so low level mooks that suddenly become a real danger (in my campaigns there are ALWAYS more Big Bads with minions than there are PC's).

[bendking]

In my game, granting a flanking ally advantage takes a bonus action on your turn, and only affects him.
This way there's some cost to it, and it isn't an immediate benefit. Also, it's a nice use of a bonus action for classes that don't have them.

[MrCharlie]

I typically handle flanking situationally. Because each turn is a snap-shot of time and movement is supposed to be simultaneous, we can assume that with the moving and positioning taking place over multiple turns, flanking an enemy is much harder. People are going to try to keep both people in their frontal arc by side stepping and moving in response to people trying to take over another flanking position. So I only really grant flanking if someone can't move, or something.

[Dienekes]

Flanking comes in the weird place where wanting to reward good tactics and wanting to keep the game streamlined are at odds.

Because clearly flanking an enemy should make it easier to hit them. The guy can’t keep their eyes on everyone, but Advantage is just too much.

Personally I’ve done two different fixes. Both have worked, but I prefer the latter, because I’m a mean GM.

1) Flanking adds 1d4 to attack. Keeps the 5e desire to avoid a bunch of fiddly bonuses and rolling dice is fun. It is also always helpful but you can get the occasional +4 which is fun for the players and is a great little in character moment that they struck exactly when their opponent wasn’t watching them.

2) Flanking is a flat +2. However Surrounded, when a target is flanked by two different sets of flanking opponents is +5. This mirrors the bonuses of cover which I like. And it makes little swarming critters like goblins and kobolds terrifying and gives them a reason not to hit and run. Now one could argue that they already were, but as I said I’m a mean GM.

[Damon_Tor]

How would you guys feel about flanking as a Fighting Style? "When you and at least one of your allies are adjacent to an enemy and on opposite sides or corners of the enemy’s space, you flank that enemy, and each of you has advantage on melee attack rolls against that enemy."

Is replacing a fighting style enough of an opportunity cost?

[stoutstien]

How would you guys feel about flanking as a Fighting Style? "When you and at least one of your allies are adjacent to an enemy and on opposite sides or corners of the enemy’s space, you flank that enemy, and each of you has advantage on melee attack rolls against that enemy."

Is replacing a fighting style enough of an opportunity cost?

I attempted to do it as a versatile weapon style at one time. It was ok but not great so I scratched it.
I just use the +1 attack per flanker now.

[ZorroGames]

Confused. Where is flanking in AL 5e? I do not see that in the rules. Please point me there.

[Kubular]

It's not in Adventurer's League, its a variant rule in the DMG:


Flanking on Squares. When a creature and at least one of its allies are adjacent to an enemy and on opposite sides or corners of the enemy's space, they flank that enemy, and each of them has advantage on melee attack rolls against that enemy.

When in doubt about whether two creatures flank an enemy on a grid, trace an imaginary line between the centers of the creatures' spaces. If the line passes through opposite sides or corners of the enemy's space, the enemy is flanked.

Flanking on Hexes. When a creature and at least one of its allies are adjacent to an enemy and on opposite sides of the enemy's space, they flank that enemy, and each of them has advantage on attack rolls against that enemy. On hexes, count around the enemy from one creature to its ally. Against a Medium or smaller creature, the allies flank if there are 2 hexes between them. Against a Large creature, the allies flank if there are 4 hexes between them. Against a Huge creature, they must have 5 hexes between them. Against a Gargantuan creature, they must have at least 6 hexes between them.

DM's Handbook p.251

I imagine there are a lot of people (like me) that feel the game is missing something without flanking rules, but they aren't a part of the game's mechanics officially.

[HappyDaze]

It's not in Adventurer's League, its a variant rule in the DMG:



I imagine there are a lot of people (like me) that feel the game is missing something without flanking rules, but they aren't a part of the game's mechanics officially.

The last game I ran, I was convinced that the flanking rules were a standard part of the rules by a veteran player that had played in other games using them. I'm not sure that the player realized they were an optional rule, and I discovered that they were optional rules after we had already used them for a few sessions. That game has ended, and I'm now preparing a new one that will not be using the flanking rules.

[Laserlight]

I don't use it because I want the PCs to run around the battlefield a lot, not stand in a clump to grant each other flanking.

We discussed using +1 or +2 flanks for the last campaign I ran, but I pointed out "the monsters will normally outnumber you and intelligent monsters will get flanking benefits just like you do" and that pretty much ended that.

[Slayn82]

There's an old Asian saying "two hands can't block 4 weapons". Flanking tatics is part of training for any kind of organized combat group.

But it works very poorly when you play on an empty board, just tracking character's relative positions, because flanking is also a side of a coin, along with cover.

Someone with cover can endure a lot of ranged attacks, and break line of sight almost at will, making necessary that someone charges the position in melee to break the stand off.

I think the best lesson on cover and advantage mechanics is watching a decent gameplay of X-COM 2. Aiming to make encounters as dinamic and exciting as that has been my goal since I've seen it in action.

Someone suggested Formations, and I love the idea. Maybe as tool proficiencies instead of maneuvers.

[opaopajr]

In my game, granting a flanking ally advantage takes a bonus action on your turn, and only affects him.
This way there's some cost to it, and it isn't an immediate benefit. Also, it's a nice use of a bonus action for classes that don't have them.

:smalleek: Holy crap, I think you found the solution! :smallcool:

That is actually better than Help, as it costs only a bonus action.

And it outright neuters the conga-line of 'passive' flanking. (move in, unload attacks, move out, take the one OA the enemy can have, let next ally move in, unload attacks, repeat without any further OA threat...)

And it still requires tactical positioning.

It is just enough boost to frontliners, and gives those bonus action-less something to do.

Help is still useful as it does not require as much at-risk tactical positioning and still leaves bonus action slot open -- an option better for squishies & strikers.

And I think you found the empty design space where Tactics can grow as a campaign asset. Shield Wall, Wolf Pack, 2nd Rank Reach, etc. can all tap into Bonus Action slot as a cost (with Tactical positioning as a restriction) to raise threat. :smallcool: Nice!

[JakOfAllTirades]

In my game, granting a flanking ally advantage takes a bonus action on your turn, and only affects him.
This way there's some cost to it, and it isn't an immediate benefit. Also, it's a nice use of a bonus action for classes that don't have them.

This is interesting, and I'm going to show it to my gaming group.

We've never used the optional flanking rules because we all see granting advantage in melee with almost zero use of resources as a game-breaker. I say "almost" because movement is a resource. It's just a bloody cheap resource because it gets refreshed at the beginning of every turn.

[Jerrykhor]

I dont use it, because its stupid. It assumes the combatants are static and could never turn to face other directions once their turn is over. It also semi-imposes dumb facing rules, which i don't like.

[pming]

Hiya!


I dont use it, because its stupid. It assumes the combatants are static and could never turn to face other directions once their turn is over. It also semi-imposes dumb facing rules, which i don't like.

BINGO!

:)

When I play (DM) 5e, I pretty much use a "BECMI/1e mindset". That is to say, I (we, as we are all playing and imagining the situation; no minis/grid 90% of the time) think about the current situation. If something looks like it should give a bonus...like being able to be behind someone...sure, Advantage. But how any DM could just let the "conga-line" example someone used above, actually play out in game without the entire table bursting out laughing due to the shear Monty Python absurdity of it, is beyond me. o_O

So, I do use 'flankin' but not the actual 5e rules. I also don't use anything other than the PHB, MM, DMG and individual things from elsewhere on a case-by-case basis. Oh, and we don't use 4d6-L usually, nor do I allow Multiclass or Feats (you know, OPTIONAL things for the most part).

PS: For the record, you would not believe the amount of headaches we have avoided simply by removing Multiclassing and Feats! Try it and see if it improves your game. Go on, if you don't like it, go back. If you do like it...keep it. If all your players complain...tell one of THEM to DM. ;)

[HiveStriker]

I am about to start a new campaign, and I have decided I don't like the flanking rules. I feel that flanking makes it too easy to gain Advantage and it skews the balance of combat encounters towards melee offense and numerical superiority in a way that can be tough to deal with (regarding game balance, not the tactics). Also, I feel that the flanking rules cheapen spells and special abilities that grant Advantage. Does anyone else feel this way?
Hi!

I used in a few "long one-shots", didn't like it at all in the first place... Although I loved it in 4e.

Two big problems in Flanking as described in DMG.
1) Bonus is far too big: as everyone said, advantage is too much: it leads to an arms race that may quickly annoy players, or DM, or both. Because the only way to keep it in check is to use the other strange (imo) rule that say that just one source of disadvantage negates all sources of advantage.
So if players are really smart about using Flanking, *yet* want some challenge (otherwise, if they have fun, why not? XXD) you have to ramp up your encounters in a much steeper fashion than usual, introducing blinding/slowing/frightening effects much earlier (like level 4 players instead of level 8-9).

2) It simply breaks the core principle of 5e which is: unless you're hidden, your position is irrelevant.
I mean, if being aside does grant advantage, what should be done about someone completely behind? Shouldn't it be considered invisible?
All 5e relies on the idea that since rounds are just abstract representations of simultaneous actions, in "reality" everyone constantly looks around and manage to do it in a 360° fashion (which I find ridiculous, but hey I'm not the designer ^^).
And everything has been balanced around that, including and in priority the advantage/disadvangage system that gives such a strong benefit instead of some stackable +1 / +2.

Flanking was great in 4E, because the whole system was designed upon the assumptions of strongly tactical fights.
5E changes I appreciate overall because fights are much simpler to manage. But Flanking as is breaks things, hard.

If you want to use it, make it +1 on attack roll per creature flanking. Largely strong enough but at least it requires a true team effort to make a decisive difference.
OR, make it "Flanking as a reaction": if you are in a position that would allow "regular Flanking", anyone can use reaction to grant advantage on ally's attack.

I tried it, it works well enough. :)

[MustaKrakish]

I don't like the + to hit rule because it feels to me that 5e is very sensitive on how much bonus you give to attack rolls. I think that a re-roll to 1 and 2 to the weapon damage die might be more of a direction I would take. After all, rogue gets a sneak attack out of it, so maybe other characters get a chance to hit in a less protected area and deal a little bit more damage.

EDIT: Also any flanking bonus is automatically a huge buff to rogue, and I don't think they need any buff.

[Sparky McDibben]

So... I don't know. I just don't get this mindset. I see this complaint or complaints like it about once a month, and it just kills me every time.

Let me distill the arguments against flanking I've seen so far:


Devalues other sources of advantage
Allows crits too much
Harms game balance
Gives a bonus that has no cost


There's also the people who just say they used it once and never will again, which...OK? I'm not really sure how that's an argument, but alright. First off, let's define some terms:

Flanking: when two enemies are on opposite sides of a foe.

Advantage: The 5th edition mechanic of rolling two dice and taking the higher result.

Game balance: The relative power between player characters (PCs) and non-player characters (NPCs).

Now, flanking generates advantage if you use an optional rule from the DMG. I suspect that most people believing flanking is non-optional is the result of Critical Role and other streams, many of whom use this rule, though I don't have any support for that position. Literally all this rule does is generate advantage. If you position yourself carefully, you have a better chance to hit through teamwork. That sounds...pretty reasonable. Now let's look at the arguments against using flanking to generate advantage.

Devalues other sources of advantage. "Why play a Vengeance paladin when you can have a buddy stand on the other side of someone?" That's a somewhat reductive version of an argument posted earlier that I'm too lazy to actually quote. Well, you play a Vengeance paladin because you want to have a hasted edgelord who can knock the ever-loving snot out of people. Their Vow of Enmity is a bonus action (something paladins don't have a lot of use for outside certain feats) and it's once per short rest. By my heuristic, that makes it an option to use when you don't have any other way to get advantage and this monster needs to die fast.

Flanking doesn't devalue someone's character choices. The only way I can even make this argument make sense is if you build a character specifically to get advantage, which...why? If I show up to game night and you tell me you're nixing this rule in your game, my first question will be whether or not your monsters still have pack tactics.

Too many crits. Advantage raises the likelihood of a crit from 5% to just over 11%, according to the last math I saw. This can have some outsized impacts for high-damage characters like rogues and paladins, who can dish out damage in the 150 - 200 hp range high levels. However, and I can't stress this enough, the game was built to withstand high-damage characters occasionally critting. If a character landing a crit makes your game unsatisfying, look at how you're running your combats and ask some questions. Why was this an unsatisfying outcome? Was it unsatisfying for the players, or for you? Was this just bad luck, and not a mechanical issue?

This game runs on randomness. More dice being rolled will result in wilder swings. Plan for it.

Harms game balance. I see this one a lot, and I have never seen someone use it and say the hell they think it means. Using my definition from above, flanking generating advantage raises player power relative to the monsters. Except it doesn't, because it should cut both ways. Yes, players can generate advantage, but why aren't your monsters using it, too? If you're using a solo monster against a party of PCs, your monster might not profit from this, but you planned this encounter, which means you should have planned for the PCs to use positioning to their benefit. On the other hand, flanking generating advantage does great things for bounded accuracy, like keeping it relevant at higher levels of the game. Ever tried threatening a high-level martial with hobgoblins? Especially if that martial has invested in raising their AC with magic arms and armor, and the Defense fighting style? That's not great game balance, because an AC 21 martial up against some hobgoblins with a +3 attack bonus means the hobgoblins have a 15% chance to hit. That can break down bounded accuracy unless the hobgoblins have an advantage, like numerical superiority, solid positioning, and a theme song! Well, maybe not the theme song, but you get my point. This rule doesn't harm game balance unless you let it.

Gives a bonus that has no cost. I'm going to say something revolutionary. Not everything has to have a cost associated. Costs make things meaningful, but not everything has to be meaningful. Stop trying to make a mechanical impact that isn't part of a character choice have weight. Flanking already has an associated requirement - you have to have a buddy across from the bad guy. That's it. That means roughly half the party (assuming a 4-person team) is in melee. And you know what? Sometimes, things just work. I'm a big fan of "X happens" because it means less dice-rolling, allows for faster gameplay, and reduces the cognitive load on the players and on me. I don't have to worry about the goblins using their bonus action to help an ally, and to which ally did they give advantage. I just roll with advantage, add some numbers, and ask if a 22 hits. And if you want flanking to impose some kind of cost, give the bad guy some reinforcements. While the martials have the primary villain locked down and are going to town, half a dozen goblins come in the back and stab the crap out of the wizard, who was all alone because the martials wanted to get advantage.

Now, let's look at the causes behind some of these complaints. I see two possibilities. One, you think your combats aren't enough of a challenge. Two, you are unhappy with players getting something without feeling like they've earned it.

If your problem is one, look at your combats. Is it just you who thinks that your combats aren't challenging? Ask your players if they felt like they were being pushed too far. If not, don't make the encounters more challenging, just add more encounters. The whole point of a combat is to provide tension - "Can we overcome [obstacle]?" Why do you feel like that tension is insufficient? Is it because the party was able to nova the boss and roll on smooth? Then start throwing more encounters in their way. Let them nova the bugbear-led patrol...then hit them with a goblin druid riding an enslaved bear. Suddenly facing a foe without all your resources ratchets up tension. Is it because the emotional stakes of the combat were low, so victory felt unearned? Then start giving your players more ways to interact with the environment. Give them things to become attached to. Last night, I had a player who wanted to abduct an NPC I literally just made up on the spot. He was a homeless guy with one leg, a veteran from a previous war who is mentally unsound. While they were pumping him for information, they noticed the heating grate he sleeps on connects to a mage's lab, and made a Medicine check. I described them realizing that the cough he had was probably from lung cancer, and that this guy was going to die horribly in less than a year. Suddenly, the actual plot (an alkilith) was less important that getting this NPC some help. Now they're ready to throw down with a guard who came over to arrest the homeless guy for vagrancy.

If your problem is two, suck it up. Literally. I see this a lot from DMs who are proud of how, in their games, "nothing is given, everything is earned!" Personally, I think this is some adversarial DM crap. I don't have to earn squat when I play the Witcher - Geralt starts knowing how to use Signs, a sword, and investigate stuff. If this is your issue, stop playing 5e. Seriously. Just stop. Go play Basic D&D, or 1st edition, or something else. Fifth edition is a game of high action, exciting stakes, and character growth. The dynamic has changed; if you want to play an adversarial game that thrives on character death, go run Tomb of Horrors in 1e. But stop trying to make 5e something it's not, because all you're going to frustrate yourself and your players.

[deljzc]

I think part of the crux of the issue is it gives advantage to BOTH flankers. That seems very strong to me.

You wonder if the simple solution is just one attacker gets the bonus advantage instead of both.

Also, there seems to be a significant disadvantage of being big with flanking. If you take up 4 squares, doesn't that open up a lot more room to be ganged up on, thus creating even more advantage rolls against you?

Seems counter intuitive. Maybe it takes 2 Medium creatures to flank a medium target. And 3 medium creatures to flank a large creature, 4 for huge and 5 for gargantuan or something.

When medium creatures battle a huge or gargantuan creature, they aren't on either "side"... they are all below.

[stoutstien]

So... I don't know. I just don't get this mindset. I see this complaint or complaints like it about once a month, and it just kills me every time.

Let me distill the arguments against flanking I've seen so far:


Devalues other sources of advantage
Allows crits too much
Harms game balance
Gives a bonus that has no cost


There's also the people who just say they used it once and never will again, which...OK? I'm not really sure how that's an argument, but alright. First off, let's define some terms:

Flanking: when two enemies are on opposite sides of a foe.

Advantage: The 5th edition mechanic of rolling two dice and taking the higher result.

Game balance: The relative power between player characters (PCs) and non-player characters (NPCs).

Now, flanking generates advantage if you use an optional rule from the DMG. I suspect that most people believing flanking is non-optional is the result of Critical Role and other streams, many of whom use this rule, though I don't have any support for that position. Literally all this rule does is generate advantage. If you position yourself carefully, you have a better chance to hit through teamwork. That sounds...pretty reasonable. Now let's look at the arguments against using flanking to generate advantage.

Devalues other sources of advantage. "Why play a Vengeance paladin when you can have a buddy stand on the other side of someone?" That's a somewhat reductive version of an argument posted earlier that I'm too lazy to actually quote. Well, you play a Vengeance paladin because you want to have a hasted edgelord who can knock the ever-loving snot out of people. Their Vow of Enmity is a bonus action (something paladins don't have a lot of use for outside certain feats) and it's once per short rest. By my heuristic, that makes it an option to use when you don't have any other way to get advantage and this monster needs to die fast.

Flanking doesn't devalue someone's character choices. The only way I can even make this argument make sense is if you build a character specifically to get advantage, which...why? If I show up to game night and you tell me you're nixing this rule in your game, my first question will be whether or not your monsters still have pack tactics.

Too many crits. Advantage raises the likelihood of a crit from 5% to just over 11%, according to the last math I saw. This can have some outsized impacts for high-damage characters like rogues and paladins, who can dish out damage in the 150 - 200 hp range high levels. However, and I can't stress this enough, the game was built to withstand high-damage characters occasionally critting. If a character landing a crit makes your game unsatisfying, look at how you're running your combats and ask some questions. Why was this an unsatisfying outcome? Was it unsatisfying for the players, or for you? Was this just bad luck, and not a mechanical issue?

This game runs on randomness. More dice being rolled will result in wilder swings. Plan for it.

Harms game balance. I see this one a lot, and I have never seen someone use it and say the hell they think it means. Using my definition from above, flanking generating advantage raises player power relative to the monsters. Except it doesn't, because it should cut both ways. Yes, players can generate advantage, but why aren't your monsters using it, too? If you're using a solo monster against a party of PCs, your monster might not profit from this, but you planned this encounter, which means you should have planned for the PCs to use positioning to their benefit. On the other hand, flanking generating advantage does great things for bounded accuracy, like keeping it relevant at higher levels of the game. Ever tried threatening a high-level martial with hobgoblins? Especially if that martial has invested in raising their AC with magic arms and armor, and the Defense fighting style? That's not great game balance, because an AC 21 martial up against some hobgoblins with a +3 attack bonus means the hobgoblins have a 15% chance to hit. That can break down bounded accuracy unless the hobgoblins have an advantage, like numerical superiority, solid positioning, and a theme song! Well, maybe not the theme song, but you get my point. This rule doesn't harm game balance unless you let it.

Gives a bonus that has no cost. I'm going to say something revolutionary. Not everything has to have a cost associated. Costs make things meaningful, but not everything has to be meaningful. Stop trying to make a mechanical impact that isn't part of a character choice have weight. Flanking already has an associated requirement - you have to have a buddy across from the bad guy. That's it. That means roughly half the party (assuming a 4-person team) is in melee. And you know what? Sometimes, things just work. I'm a big fan of "X happens" because it means less dice-rolling, allows for faster gameplay, and reduces the cognitive load on the players and on me. I don't have to worry about the goblins using their bonus action to help an ally, and to which ally did they give advantage. I just roll with advantage, add some numbers, and ask if a 22 hits. And if you want flanking to impose some kind of cost, give the bad guy some reinforcements. While the martials have the primary villain locked down and are going to town, half a dozen goblins come in the back and stab the crap out of the wizard, who was all alone because the martials wanted to get advantage.

Now, let's look at the causes behind some of these complaints. I see two possibilities. One, you think your combats aren't enough of a challenge. Two, you are unhappy with players getting something without feeling like they've earned it.

If your problem is one, look at your combats. Is it just you who thinks that your combats aren't challenging? Ask your players if they felt like they were being pushed too far. If not, don't make the encounters more challenging, just add more encounters. The whole point of a combat is to provide tension - "Can we overcome [obstacle]?" Why do you feel like that tension is insufficient? Is it because the party was able to nova the boss and roll on smooth? Then start throwing more encounters in their way. Let them nova the bugbear-led patrol...then hit them with a goblin druid riding an enslaved bear. Suddenly facing a foe without all your resources ratchets up tension. Is it because the emotional stakes of the combat were low, so victory felt unearned? Then start giving your players more ways to interact with the environment. Give them things to become attached to. Last night, I had a player who wanted to abduct an NPC I literally just made up on the spot. He was a homeless guy with one leg, a veteran from a previous war who is mentally unsound. While they were pumping him for information, they noticed the heating grate he sleeps on connects to a mage's lab, and made a Medicine check. I described them realizing that the cough he had was probably from lung cancer, and that this guy was going to die horribly in less than a year. Suddenly, the actual plot (an alkilith) was less important that getting this NPC some help. Now they're ready to throw down with a guard who came over to arrest the homeless guy for vagrancy.

If your problem is two, suck it up. Literally. I see this a lot from DMs who are proud of how, in their games, "nothing is given, everything is earned!" Personally, I think this is some adversarial DM crap. I don't have to earn squat when I play the Witcher - Geralt starts knowing how to use Signs, a sword, and investigate stuff. If this is your issue, stop playing 5e. Seriously. Just stop. Go play Basic D&D, or 1st edition, or something else. Fifth edition is a game of high action, exciting stakes, and character growth. The dynamic has changed; if you want to play an adversarial game that thrives on character death, go run Tomb of Horrors in 1e. But stop trying to make 5e something it's not, because all you're going to frustrate yourself and your players.

I've seen some arguments in bad faith but this is in a category all alone.

What is value of flanking on regards to encounter balance?
What do you do about the reduction of player options?
Can you flank creatures that have no flanks to speak of?
Can you flank with a illusion?
If 2 allies are adjacent does it counter the flanking condition?

[Yakk]

What if you are only flanked if you end your turn surrounded by creatures who are not surrounded.

So surrounding a foe doesn't flank, it just threatens it. And a general melee doesn't end up full of flanking.

Surrounded foes who don't reposition get screwed.

[Ganryu]

Both used it, and played without it. VASTLY prefer without it. I had to drag my party kicking and screaming not to use it. They didn't like it at first, but it felt to me they got more tactical without it.

It devalues classes advantages too much. People say 'well then, use monsters to get advantage'. If you're monsters are being too smart, it often feels like metagaming to the players, and they don't appreciate it. Also, solo bosses should be an epic encounter. Critting it to death with flanking just feels too cheap.

Now, builds I can think of that get devalued from it:
Vengeance Paladin
ALL barbarians
Mastermind Rogues
Spells that grant advantage (Looking at you foresight)
Grappler builds
Most spell casters (devalued for melee classes)
Archers

I too am fed up with flanking. Kill it.

[MrStabby]

Played with flanking a couple of times. No one really liked it and it never gave what the DM wanted (he thought it would be more "tactical" - his words).

As some have pointed out one issue is that it devalues sources of advantage. There is an element of "so what" to this but if it is something cool you wanted your character to have and it isn't cool anymore... guess if that player will enjoy the game a) more, or b) less.

It really screws up some classes as well. Does you character have access to animate objects? how about conjure animals? what about animate dead? Basically, do you have something cool to do to abuse this rule?

And on the defensive side? Well - you want to be able to get out of bad positions... because bad can get really bad really fast. But running is bad when you are flanked and gonna take lots of opportunity attacks, so you had best be a character with access to misty step, dimension door or its costing your turn to disengage.

And if it's your side outnumbered? Well no problem if you are a character with access to fireball, or wall of force, or hypnotic pattern... it just sucks if you have to kill these enemies one at a time.

Flanking is a cool idea, and it is great on paper but when you actually apply it it sucks the fun out of the game for a lot of players.

[HappyDaze]

If I show up to game night and you tell me you're nixing this rule in your game, my first question will be whether or not your monsters still have pack tactics.


Of course they do, and so too will any monsters you summon or wild shape into that have Pack Tactics. Also, your character will still have any race- or class-based abilities and/or spells that offer ways to gain Advantage. Further, if you want to help your buddy hit better, then use the Help action. However, neither "my monsters" nor your character (nor anything else in my game) will use the flanking rules.

[Sparky McDibben]

I've seen some arguments in bad faith but this is in a category all alone.

What is value of flanking on regards to encounter balance?
What do you do about the reduction of player options?
Can you flank creatures that have no flanks to speak of?
Can you flank with a illusion?
If 2 allies are adjacent does it counter the flanking condition?

What can I say? I'm very good at being thoroughly amazing. I'm arguing in good faith; I'm rejecting your "facts" as value statements you hold which I find repugnant or simple-minded.

As for your questions, I'm not sure if you're trying to annoy me with edge-cases or if you simply don't know how to adjudicate actions.

The value of flanking is to increase player's chances of hitting, because missing sucks. Its effect on encounter balance varies wildly by party, encounter, level, and table. Please elaborate on your question.

Flanking is a player option; there is no reduction to speak of. If you mean that it "devalues character options," see my prior post.

Yes, unless the DM specifically rules a creature cannot be flanked (which is always an option).

Depends on the illusion, the nature of illusions at the DM's table, the group, the creature being flanked, and the party in question.

No.

[Arcturus]

A friend of mine has his own variant Facing rule that he uses instead of flanking. You only get advantage on attacks made while standing in the area directly opposite a creature's facing.

A creature can change its facing at any time on its turn or can turn to face a creature as a reaction. If they use their reaction in this way they can adjust their facing each time the triggering creature moves during its turn (to prevent move-attack-move abuse).

The space behind the creature is not considered a threatened square, so circling out of their line of sight can also provoke an AOO if you started within their reach. Creatures with eyes on all sides or the like have no facing, and thus cannot be flanked.

This provides some very interesting interactions and definitely rewards tactical play, though it does cause some issues for heavily reaction-oriented characters.

[stoutstien]

What can I say? I'm very good at being thoroughly amazing. I'm arguing in good faith; I'm rejecting your "facts" as value statements you hold which I find repugnant or simple-minded.

As for your questions, I'm not sure if you're trying to annoy me with edge-cases or if you simply don't know how to adjudicate actions.

The value of flanking is to increase player's chances of hitting, because missing sucks. Its effect on encounter balance varies wildly by party, encounter, level, and table. Please elaborate on your question.

Flanking is a player option; there is no reduction to speak of. If you mean that it "devalues character options," see my prior post.

Yes, unless the DM specifically rules a creature cannot be flanked (which is always an option).

Depends on the illusion, the nature of illusions at the DM's table, the group, the creature being flanked, and the party in question.

No.

The rejecting of anything that might challenge your stance is the 'in bad faith' portion. also ad hominem.

A good third of a player's options would be completely negated, including entire subclass choices, along with a lot of impactful options on the NPC side due to the way that Advantage/ disadvantage cancel out.
Nothing in your prior post addresses this. If you don't see it as an issue it doesn't devalue the factors for others.

Yes missing attacks sucks but always hitting suck in a entirely different way by removing tension.

I have nothing against flanking in general just the used of the advantage and disadvantage in combination with it. It lacks

[Tzun]

We've always used flanking rules because we like the added tactical complexity although I do think that giving advantage is too much. I think giving a +2 to attack is a good balance, similar power to what ranged combatants would get with their archery fighting style. I do feel melee needs a little boost compared to ranged, where you can fire away in relative safety from the back row and you're not completely neutered by flying foes.

I've toyed with the idea of using modified facing rules to grant flanking where the enemy faces the first melee attacker and any subsequent melee attackers against that same enemy get +2 attack bonus if attacking from the sides or rear of the enemy.

[MrStabby]

We've always used flanking rules because we like the added tactical complexity although I do think that giving advantage is too much. I think giving a +2 to attack is a good balance, similar power to what ranged combatants would get with their archery fighting style. I do feel melee needs a little boost compared to ranged, where you can fire away in relative safety from the back row and you're not completely neutered by flying foes.

I've toyed with the idea of using modified facing rules to grant flanking where the enemy faces the first melee attacker and any subsequent melee attackers against that same enemy get +2 attack bonus if attacking from the sides or rear of the enemy.

Although what you describe isn't a boost to melee over ranged. It is a tool for melee to be overwhelmed by superior numbers more easily.

It only helps melee in the right party composition.

+2 seems a bit much, especially with 5th editions attitude to bounded accuracy. A +1 bonus would seem ample to persuade people to waltz round enemies trying to get into flanking positions.

[Doug Lampert]

Flanking comes in the weird place where wanting to reward good tactics and wanting to keep the game streamlined are at odds.

Because clearly flanking an enemy should make it easier to hit them. The guy can’t keep their eyes on everyone, but Advantage is just too much.

IMAO, it's not only that, advantage is too much, but another simplification for 5th edition was that you can move freely in someone's threatened zone without any cost.

Which makes achieving flanking trivial in a way it will NEVER be in a real fight, because outnumbered 2-1, the 1 will also be maneuvering, if you swing wide to go around him, he'll be simultaneously swinging around your ally or fading back away from you.

It's HARD to surround someone defending a 10' corridor in real life, it's trivial in D&D5 land. 2-1 in a 10' corridor shouldn't be all that much easier than 2-1 in a situation where you can both attack from the front but can't go around for some reason.

With the movement rules, flanking isn't tactics, it's just pressing the button that says "Flank." If you want to reward tactics for flanking, you need a whole raft of other rules relating to movement and positioning to make flanking non-trivial to gain in situations where it would be hard to do in real life.

[Captain Panda]

Flanking breaks the game. Don't use flanking rules.

I wouldn't go so far as to say 'break', people overuse the word 'break'. The only thing in 5e I've seen 'break' the game is mass summoning pixies. It does make advantage something you can expect to have almost every round though, and makes it less special. Also, if you summon things (animate objects, conjure animals, etc.) you can expect to just whomp your enemies. More than usual with those spells, I mean.

[Tzun]

Although what you describe isn't a boost to melee over ranged. It is a tool for melee to be overwhelmed by superior numbers more easily.

It only helps melee in the right party composition.

+2 seems a bit much, especially with 5th editions attitude to bounded accuracy. A +1 bonus would seem ample to persuade people to waltz round enemies trying to get into flanking positions.

Well sure the DM could use flanking to try to overwhelm the players, but what's fair for players should be fair for the enemy, as long as the DM isn't trying to exploit it and be a jerk about it. It's a tool to use for any melee combatant with requisite change in tactics to be considered although granted the tactical complexity with flanking specifically and combat in general in 5e is a bit simplistic at times.

[HappyDaze]

Well sure the DM could use flanking to try to overwhelm the players, but what's fair for players should be fair for the enemy, as long as the DM isn't trying to exploit it and be a jerk about it. It's a tool to use for any melee combatant with requisite change in tactics to be considered although granted the tactical complexity with flanking specifically and combat in general in 5e is a bit simplistic at times.

A big part of the problem is that flanking only helps melee attackers, and usually only when they have superior numbers. This complicates balancing encounters as the Challenge and XP award for various creatures are not made with the use of flanking in mind.

[Amechra]

Well sure the DM could use flanking to try to overwhelm the players, but what's fair for players should be fair for the enemy, as long as the DM isn't trying to exploit it and be a jerk about it. It's a tool to use for any melee combatant with requisite change in tactics to be considered although granted the tactical complexity with flanking specifically and combat in general in 5e is a bit simplistic at times.

I mean, that's not the DM being a jerk, really. It's just that flanking is entirely a numbers game.

Like, if I wanted to have an encounter with a group of melee monsters (let's use hobgoblins, because they aren't crazy difficult and you can usually toss them at people in big-ish groups), I'd have to intentionally dumb down their tactics to avoid murdering the party's melee people. Meanwhile, the ranged characters and spellcasters are better than they were before, because they don't have to deal with the monsters all attacking them with advantage.

[FilthyLucre]

I dont use it, because its stupid. It assumes the combatants are static and could never turn to face other directions once their turn is over. It also semi-imposes dumb facing rules, which i don't like.
You're of course entitled to your opinion, but...

...that read leads me to believe you grossly misunderstand the RL point of flanking. It's not like a "back stab" attack - it's that it is inherently more difficult to fight if you have an opponent in front of you and behind you. While you point out that you can simply turn and face the other direction that is itself sort of the problem - now there is a different person to your back. Being forced to split your spatial attention so dramatically is why it is disadvantageous to the 'flankee' and advantageous to the 'flankers'.

So no, it does not assume that "combatants are static and could never turn to face other directions once their turn is over" - it doesn't care if they can or can't because the trouble of being flanked isn't that you're being attacked from behind it's that you're being attacked simultaneously from opposite directions.

[HiveStriker]

What can I say? I'm very good at being thoroughly amazing. I'm arguing in good faith; I'm rejecting your "facts" as value statements you hold which I find repugnant or simple-minded.

As for your questions, I'm not sure if you're trying to annoy me with edge-cases or if you simply don't know how to adjudicate actions.

The value of flanking is to increase player's chances of hitting, because missing sucks. Its effect on encounter balance varies wildly by party, encounter, level, and table. Please elaborate on your question.

Flanking is a player option; there is no reduction to speak of. If you mean that it "devalues character options," see my prior post.

Yes, unless the DM specifically rules a creature cannot be flanked (which is always an option).

Depends on the illusion, the nature of illusions at the DM's table, the group, the creature being flanked, and the party in question.

No.
I'm sharing some pity for your budget, especially the shoes one, must be hard to find a size to fit your ankles in.

[HappyDaze]

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but...

...that read leads me to believe you grossly misunderstand the RL point of flanking. It's not like a "back stab" attack - it's that it is inherently more difficult to fight if you have an opponent in front of you and behind you. While you point out that you can simply turn and face the other direction that is itself sort of the problem - now there is a different person to your back. Being forced to split your spatial attention so dramatically is why it is disadvantageous to the 'flankee' and advantageous to the 'flankers'.

So no, it does not assume that "combatants are static and could never turn to face other directions once their turn is over" - it doesn't care if they can or can't because the trouble of being flanked isn't that you're being attacked from behind it's that you're being attacked simultaneously from opposite directions.

Yet somehow that vulnerable state doesn't apply a benefit to a third attacker that is simultaneously attacking from 90 degrees off of the flanking axis. Likewise, your spatial attention being split doesn't penalize your saves against any spells chucked toward you or ranged attacks made against you. No, somehow you can compensate for all of that, but melee attacks are just so special that they get a bonus? Sorry, I don't buy it.

[FilthyLucre]

Yet somehow that vulnerable state doesn't apply a benefit to a third attacker that is simultaneously attacking from 90 degrees off of the flanking axis. Likewise, your spatial attention being split doesn't penalize your saves against any spells chucked toward you or ranged attacks made against you. No, somehow you can compensate for all of that, but melee attacks are just so special that they get a bonus? Sorry, I don't buy it.

So, this criticism is a literal non-sequitur. I'm not talking about the overall coherence of the 5e rules architecture or how it should or shouldn't apply to different situations. I'm talking specifically and only about flanking and how melee attacks interact with it. Everything is irrelevant to my point because, precisely, it isn't about my point. That point being that the flanking rules DON'T make the assumptions that the person I was quoting had asserted.

[HappyDaze]

So, this criticism is a literal non-sequitur. I'm not talking about the overall coherence of the 5e rules architecture or how it should or shouldn't apply to different situations. I'm talking specifically and only about flanking and how melee attacks interact with it. Everything is irrelevant to my point because, precisely, it isn't about my point. That point being that the flanking rules DON'T make the assumptions that the person I was quoting had asserted.

And my point, from the beginning, has been that the flanking rules are stupid largely because they only apply to melee and imbalance the game because of it. If you're only going to talk about how flanking and melee are related and ignore everything else, then your discussions of it being balanced or making sense are meaningless.

[FilthyLucre]

And my point, from the beginning, has been that the flanking rules are stupid largely because they only apply to melee and imbalance the game because of it. If you're only going to talk about how flanking and melee are related and ignore everything else, then your discussions of it being balanced or making sense are meaningless.

1.) I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to:

I dont use it, because its stupid. It assumes the combatants are static and could never turn to face other directions once their turn is over. It also semi-imposes dumb facing rules, which i don't like.
2.) Flanking is an optional rule, explicitly, so this entire thread is asinine.
3.) Complaining that "flanking doesn't make sense" is not a good argument. Because if you take it to be a good argument, then virtually all of D&D also "doesn't make sense" and therefor should be excised.

Your entire post, and this entire thread, should have just been you saying "I don't like flanking so I don't use it."

[Sparky McDibben]

Your entire post, and this entire thread, should have just been you saying "I don't like flanking so I don't use it."

I'm actually not sure why this thread was tagged "DM Help." Seems more like a hot-take.

[FilthyLucre]

I'm actually not sure why this thread was tagged "DM Help." Seems more like a hot-take.
Not even a "hot take" - just a take.

[redwizard007]

I've never played a 5e game without flanking, and always enjoy combat. Does zerging become a win button? No, but it is often a sound strategy. Do "gain advantage" abilities get trivialized? No, they become situational. Do summon spells get abused? No, they are too expensive to spam. Really the biggest balancing point is the lack of melee characters in my average party. The "tank" may charge into melee, but everyone else hangs back to blast from range. A rogue or cleric might creep up if they like the odds against that particular opponent, but flanking is rarely abused.

[Tzun]

I mean, that's not the DM being a jerk, really. It's just that flanking is entirely a numbers game.

Like, if I wanted to have an encounter with a group of melee monsters (let's use hobgoblins, because they aren't crazy difficult and you can usually toss them at people in big-ish groups), I'd have to intentionally dumb down their tactics to avoid murdering the party's melee people. Meanwhile, the ranged characters and spellcasters are better than they were before, because they don't have to deal with the monsters all attacking them with advantage.

I see your point. Enemy usually outnumbers players, but if the DM is just tossing melee grunts at the party those are usually one of the easiest encounters to beat, unless the DM is throwing in way more numbers than called for. A pair of melee characters, even if outnumbered by monsters can still flank individual monsters one at a time taking them out more quickly, and the ranged and spellcasters can take care of their business in relative safety. Again unless the DM is purposely trying to unbalance the encounter by throwing huge number of nothing but melee monsters at the party, I'm not sure I'd be all that concerned about this issue.

[RifleAvenger]

A big part of the problem is that flanking only helps melee attackers, and usually only when they have superior numbers. This complicates balancing encounters as the Challenge and XP award for various creatures are not made with the use of flanking in mind.
CR is a wash to begin with though. 20 goblins clustered on an open field isn't equal to 20 goblins spread out with access to cover and obscurement. Too many things that can't be boiled down to hit, damage, HP, or AC aren't figured into CR at all.

On the reverse, assume little creatures that can easily flank have +4 to hit and recalculate their CR that way.

-------------

I favor a +1 or +2 for flanking instead, and I also favor having adv and disadv cancel on a one to one basis. My table also recently voted for a partial reversion to Pathfinder AoO rules, so I'll see how that goes. Should make flanking harder without special movement options.

[GorogIrongut]

I see your point. Enemy usually outnumbers players, but if the DM is just tossing melee grunts at the party those are usually one of the easiest encounters to beat, unless the DM is throwing in way more numbers than called for. A pair of melee characters, even if outnumbered by monsters can still flank individual monsters one at a time taking them out more quickly, and the ranged and spellcasters can take care of their business in relative safety. Again unless the DM is purposely trying to unbalance the encounter by throwing huge number of nothing but melee monsters at the party, I'm not sure I'd be all that concerned about this issue.

I've always found that flanking makes mooks more dangerous to normal melee characters. And that after the first 5-10 of them, the remaining mooks go attack the spellcasters. Because the melee pc's are too swamped to protect them. Unless of course, your DM allows you to find a convenient bottleneck so that there's no way to get past the melee pc's. Which is fine once or twice...

[Tzun]

I've always found that flanking makes mooks more dangerous to normal melee characters. And that after the first 5-10 of them, the remaining mooks go attack the spellcasters. Because the melee pc's are too swamped to protect them. Unless of course, your DM allows you to find a convenient bottleneck so that there's no way to get past the melee pc's. Which is fine once or twice...

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because in my experience fighting melee monsters only are usually the easiest to defeat, unless the DM feels the need to throw a hundred at you in which case all I can say is I'm glad it's not a hundred ranged or spell casters. ;-)

[ZorroGames]

It's not in Adventurer's League, its a variant rule in the DMG:



I imagine there are a lot of people (like me) that feel the game is missing something without flanking rules, but they aren't a part of the game's mechanics officially.

Oh. Like not using feats or other optional rules. Got it. Reserving my opinion of war game mentality versus real life combat lest I trigger a certain person.

Carry on.

[Vorpalchicken]

Flanking was fine in other editions but I really don't like it for 5e. As mentioned, without more opportunity attack options it is too easy to achieve flanking.
And I believe the reward is too great but a +1 or 2 just adds more finicky math to the otherwise elegant 5e game.
So I don't use it when I run the game.

[MeeposFire]

I am liking the bonus action idea for this as it encourages team work that has a cost but not a huge one (caveat in my games TWF does not use a bonus action for various reasons).

I am also considering a slight damage bonus which is nice and worth getting but not as big generally as advantage.

[Theodoxus]

I changed flanking in my campaign. It grants an extra d4 to hit, and if you hit, whatever you rolled to hit, is added as damage. It's considered static, so it doesn't double on a crit. (The d4 to hit also stacks with other things that grant a boon, like Bless.)

[Akal Saris]

I loathe flanking in 5E. My game is just the DM and 2 players, and I can go 6+ combats in a row with my character being flanked every single battle. It's very tedious for me, especially since with a small party I don't have many opportunities to flank opponents, so it's much harder for my character to gain advantage.

[opaopajr]

Hi!

2) It simply breaks the core principle of 5e which is: unless you're hidden, your position is irrelevant.
I mean, if being aside does grant advantage, what should be done about someone completely behind? Shouldn't it be considered invisible?
All 5e relies on the idea that since rounds are just abstract representations of simultaneous actions, in "reality" everyone constantly looks around and manage to do it in a 360° fashion (which I find ridiculous, but hey I'm not the designer ^^).
And everything has been balanced around that, including and in priority the advantage/disadvangage system that gives such a strong benefit instead of some stackable +1 / +2.


:smallsmile: My quibble with an otherwise great contribution: positioning is NOT irrelevant in 5e. It's just frequently ignored. :smalltongue:

Concealment (this is where invisibility goes, along with Line of Sight) and Cover (this is where +2 or +5 AC goes) are wholly involved in positioning. Further, Reach, Range, and OAs are very much interested in positioning. All of those components can further be placed within another broader category called Formation Tactics.

The issue is a lot of very familiar Earthly Formation Tactics are not defined yet. There is already a bit of a Shield Wall with multiple Protection Style standing next to each other, but it is not explicit. And people DO miss that element, where party coordination is rewarded.

You can still reward such play in an abstracted game because D&D already did it with older editions. The challenge is how to integrate it into 5e, without making it too unwieldy or exception-based design. Protection Styles cooperating as a Shield Wall variant is a good example of emergent Tactical Formation gameplay -- but people still want more, and old 'stand-by's, too.

[HiveStriker]

:smallsmile: My quibble with an otherwise great contribution: positioning is NOT irrelevant in 5e. It's just frequently ignored. :smalltongue:

Concealment (this is where invisibility goes, along with Line of Sight) and Cover (this is where +2 or +5 AC goes) are wholly involved in positioning. Further, Reach, Range, and OAs are very much interested in positioning. All of those components can further be placed within another broader category called Formation Tactics.

The issue is a lot of very familiar Earthly Formation Tactics are not defined yet. There is already a bit of a Shield Wall with multiple Protection Style standing next to each other, but it is not explicit. And people DO miss that element, where party coordination is rewarded.

You can still reward such play in an abstracted game because D&D already did it with older editions. The challenge is how to integrate it into 5e, without making it too unwieldy or exception-based design. Protection Styles cooperating as a Shield Wall variant is a good example of emergent Tactical Formation gameplay -- but people still want more, and old 'stand-by's, too.
You're right, my formulation was less than optimal.
I was focused on the "I can see you aspect" when writing my post. ^^
Thanks for reminding the thread of all that (indeed, I see few games where people actually take cover provided by other creatures into account, and even less people that count objects in-between opponents as cover for melee attacks, which is still RAW).

[Theodoxus]

You're right, my formulation was less than optimal.
I was focused on the "I can see you aspect" when writing my post. ^^
Thanks for reminding the thread of all that (indeed, I see few games where people actually take cover provided by other creatures into account, and even less people that count objects in-between opponents as cover for melee attacks, which is still RAW).

It would help if the cover and concealment rules were clearer. It's odd, when you see posts talking about how effective +1 AC is (TWF threads, best Fighting Style threads, etc) yet no one talks about how OP Cover is in comparison. 3/4 cover is a "free' Shield spell that costs nothing other than the opportunity cost of finding or manufacturing it...

[opaopajr]

No prob, HiveStriker! :smallcool: Your intent was positive in trying to bring light to what is failing about this DMG optional rule. This topic is part complaint but also part lament, and i think we as a community can spitball some better design!

And I am still enamored with bendkings' Flanking version. It adds little bookkeeping to remember -- still grants ADV -- while adding a quick, limiting "X for Y" clause (Bonus Act for Just That Ally). I wish we could brainstorm more Tactical Formation benefits in this format.

I am thinking about AD&D 2e having Polearm Parry. It sacrifices one of your attacks to Parry an attack targeting your 1st Rank ally. Perhaps add a clause onto Protection Style?

Protection Style: [same old PHB text.] Also, when a creature within your Reach attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a weapon with Reach.

(:smallbiggrin: Yes, it allows whip. I am thoroughly amused and will allow it.)

It instantly makes tight polearm formations a real annoyance.

So we have an example of both Bonus Action and Reaction as a design asset to improve tactical formations! Let's explore answers better suited to us than relying on WotC! :smallcool:

[KorvinStarmast]

Flanking breaks the game. Don't use flanking rules.Aye. Flat bonuses to attack break bounded accuracy. Flanking/advantage offers a +4 or +5 flat bonus.

Yes. I don't use the optional flanking rules or the optional critical failure rules. My games are the better for both.We used optional flanking once. Never again. And it absolutely does not work for ToTM games, which 5e is supposed to be.
Flanking comes in the weird place where wanting to reward good tactics and wanting to keep the game streamlined are at odds. Aye. And it adds fiddly bits that the game doesn't need.
The last game I ran, I was convinced that the flanking rules were a standard part of the rules by a veteran player that had played in other games using them. I'm not sure that the player realized they were an optional rule, and I discovered that they were optional rules after we had already used them for a few sessions. That game has ended, and I'm now preparing a new one that will not be using the flanking rules. It helps to read the manual when some one comes up with something like that. Go over it together. :smallsmile: We had to do this with scroll rules a few times.

We discussed using +1 or +2 flanks for the last campaign I ran, but I pointed out "the monsters will normally outnumber you and intelligent monsters will get flanking benefits just like you do" and that pretty much ended that. Yeah, our excursion into flanking ended up with a lot of PCs at 0 HP when we were not in confined/indoor spaces.

It also semi-imposes {purged} facing rules, which i don't like. Yes, it adds facing and fiddly bits that 5e was trying to get away from.

I don't like the + to hit rule because it feels to me that 5e is very sensitive on how much bonus you give to attack rolls. You are correct.

IMAO, it's not only that, advantage is too much, but another simplification for 5th edition was that you can move freely in someone's threatened zone without any cost. That too. If someone gets to flank, then I get to make an opportunity attack on anyone entering my reach ... which adds complexity ...

While swarms of mooks should be a problem, this game assumes a party of 3-5 characters, and not all of t hem are martials. In the original game where we had parties of 5-9 with great frequency, and a lot of our battle was in caves and narrow passages, the facing was now and again a change in tactical situation.

5e and flanking: a bad fit.