Flanking Question

[deljzc]

I had a pretty simple question on flanking:

Are you flanked if one of the players around you is holding a range weapon?

The combat round went like this:

1. Goblin shoots arrow
2. PC moves to Goblin and attacks w/ melee attack (misses)
3. Hobgoblin moves behind PC and attacks w/ melee attack

Is the Hobgoblins attack done with flanking bonus (whatever you decide that is)? Is the PC flanked even though the Goblin is only holding a short bow?

Inquiring minds want to know....

deljzc

[nickl_2000]

RAW? Yes, you are flanking even if it's with a ranged weapon or no weapon at all (NOTE: this is RAW for an optional rule, so you mileage may vary on what RAW actually means in this case)

"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."

The rule in the DMG says nothing about needing to have a weapon at all, just having the placement of the people on the grid.




Now, my opinion and how we play it at our table. You are only eligible for flanking if both people are threatening the creature in between, which means that both have a melee weapon in hand and can hit with it.

[Expected]

I didn't know the part about it being advantage on melee attacks while flanking; I thought it also granted advantage for ranged attacks (actual advantage with CBX and a straight roll without)--I'm glad I didn't try to do this with a CBX Battle Master Fighter.

[J-H]

The flanking for advantage rule is generally considered to be a bad idea and overpowered. It also makes several important class features, like Reckless Attack and Pack Tactics, completely useless.

[Keravath]

Now, my opinion and how we play it at our table. You are only eligible for flanking if both people are threatening the creature in between, which means that both have a melee weapon in hand and can hit with it.

I'm just curious what is not threatening about a person aiming a bow at you from 5' away? Or a character ready to use their fists to attack or grapple? It seems to me that from the perspective of being a distraction and a target that you need to pay attention to, any other attacker within 5' on both sides of the target would likely be sufficient to satisfy the conditions for flanking.

Just to clarify, I think your house rule is fine, you can play how you like at your table. However, I don't see the reasoning behind it. A monk not holding a weapon can't flank. A monster not holding a weapon can't flank. A creature holding a ranged weapon can't flank even though they can attack the adjacent target. What about a character with the Xbow expert feat? They have no penalty for firing at adjacent targets. Why is a crossbow less threatening or distracting than a dagger even though it does more damage? Why is a character with a sheathed weapon, which can be drawn as a free item interaction, less of an issue than one with the weapon already drawn?

Basically, in my opinion, flanking is caused by having targets on opposite sides that split the attention of the defender making it more difficult for the defender to protect themselves. This doesn't require the flankers to have a melee weapon drawn. In addition, any of the flanking example can make an opportunity attack either using an unarmed attack or an improvised weapon attack even if they aren't armed with a melee weapon so each of the flankers is still "threatening" the defender whether they have a melee weapon or not so I am not sure I see the point or reasoning behind the house rule.

[nickl_2000]

I'm just curious what is not threatening about a person aiming a bow at you from 5' away? Or a character ready to use their fists to attack or grapple? It seems to me that from the perspective of being a distraction and a target that you need to pay attention to, any other attacker within 5' on both sides of the target would likely be sufficient to satisfy the conditions for flanking.

Just to clarify, I think your house rule is fine, you can play how you like at your table. However, I don't see the reasoning behind it. A monk not holding a weapon can't flank. A monster not holding a weapon can't flank. A creature holding a ranged weapon can't flank even though they can attack the adjacent target. What about a character with the Xbow expert feat? They have no penalty for firing at adjacent targets. Why is a crossbow less threatening or distracting than a dagger even though it does more damage? Why is a character with a sheathed weapon, which can be drawn as a free item interaction, less of an issue than one with the weapon already drawn?

Basically, in my opinion, flanking is caused by having targets on opposite sides that split the attention of the defender making it more difficult for the defender to protect themselves. This doesn't require the flankers to have a melee weapon drawn. In addition, any of the flanking example can make an opportunity attack either using an unarmed attack or an improvised weapon attack even if they aren't armed with a melee weapon so each of the flankers is still "threatening" the defender whether they have a melee weapon or not so I am not sure I see the point or reasoning behind the house rule.

For the case of a Monk, monster, or someone with tavern Brawler they would always be considered to be wielding a melee weapon for our table. Effectively if a weapon could not be used for an attack of opportunity, then it is not considered legal for flanking.

I can see your point, but it's just the way that it shaped at our table. Also, we have weakened flanking bonus to only give a +1 to attack rather than give full advantage (and if you have advantage from another source you don't get the +1). It's not perfect, but it works pretty well for us.

[deljzc]

Thanks for all the answers.

I'm sure we will homebrew an answer at our table, but they all wanted me to check here and see what some of the answers were.

We already play flanking at only +2, only applies to 2nd attackers onward and large, huge and gargantuan targets take more people to become "flanked" (each increases by one).

I like the idea of only counting flanking if the flankers have melee or ability to make "opportunity attacks". I think that just makes the most sense.

del

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Thanks for all the answers.

I'm sure we will homebrew an answer at our table, but they all wanted me to check here and see what some of the answers were.

We already play flanking at only +2, only applies to 2nd attackers onward and large, huge and gargantuan targets take more people to become "flanked" (each increases by one).

I like the idea of only counting flanking if the flankers have melee or ability to make "opportunity attacks". I think that just makes the most sense.

del

Do you consider the ability to deal unarmed strick and natural weapon as an option for melee attacks in order to activate flanking?

[deljzc]

Do you consider the ability to deal unarmed strick and natural weapon as an option for melee attacks in order to activate flanking?

I probably have flanking change constantly depending on what happens.

In the specific case above, in that sequence, the Hobgoblin does not get a bonus for flanking.

But let's go the 2nd round:

Initiative is rolled the round proceeds as follows:

1. PC attacks Hobgoblin, hits but does not kill it.
2. Hobgoblin attacks (with no flanking) PC and misses.
3. Goblin decides to drop his bow and grapple PC. This attack WOULD be with flanking so I would argue +2 to hit.

I'm kind of thinking flanking isn't something established at the beginning of each round but can come/go during the round depending on how the action and sequence of events are happening. If the PC's hit killed the Hobgoblin, then there wouldn't be flanking anymore.

Maybe the minute the Goblin goes from having a bow to being unarmed he triggers flanking but not until his turn and he gets to use his actions to change the situation.

Every attack in sequence asks the question, "is this a flanking attack" and the condition of everything else prior to that in the round and the conditions AT THE MOMENT decide the flanking condition.

I'm sure this will get me in trouble somewhere, but that's probably how I will run the table and see what happens.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I probably have flanking change constantly depending on what happens.

In the specific case above, in that sequence, the Hobgoblin does not get a bonus for flanking.

But let's go the 2nd round:

Initiative is rolled the round proceeds as follows:

1. PC attacks Hobgoblin, hits but does not kill it.
2. Hobgoblin attacks (with no flanking) PC and misses.
3. Goblin decides to drop his bow and grapple PC. This attack WOULD be with flanking so I would argue +2 to hit.

I'm kind of thinking flanking isn't something established at the beginning of each round but can come/go during the round depending on how the action and sequence of events are happening. If the PC's hit killed the Hobgoblin, then there wouldn't be flanking anymore.

Maybe the minute the Goblin goes from having a bow to being unarmed he triggers flanking but not until his turn and he gets to use his actions to change the situation.

Every attack in sequence asks the question, "is this a flanking attack" and the condition of everything else prior to that in the round and the conditions AT THE MOMENT decide the flanking condition.

I'm sure this will get me in trouble somewhere, but that's probably how I will run the table and see what happens.

But what if the Goblin try to kick the PC instead of dropping the bow?
After all you can do unarmed attacks with every part of your body. Will he get flanking for this attack? If not, why is it different from the grapple?

Basically I am asking: why will having a bow in hand prevent flanking?

[deljzc]

Maybe I'm defining flanking as every attack AFTER the first in a round from a flank position gets the bonus. That kind of makes more sense to me rather that where people are standing on the battlefield. It's not so much where the Goblin is standing but the fact it is not a threat that first round, thus allowing the Hobgoblin attack not to be with flanking. In the following rounds, when both become threats with their actions, flanking kicks in.

And the attacks have to be melee attacks. No flanking bonuses on ranged attacks even if done inside the 5' area w/ disadvantage.

So the first melee attack against any target is no bonus. The 2nd attack, if from a flank position, gets the bonus and so on.

In the RAW, it seems everyone gets the bonus but most people have agreed that is overpowered w/ advantage.

Again, I have to run a few battles with it like this to see. I don't think it's too difficult to understand. And there still are opportunity attacks to prevent crazy movement around opponents. Although, I guess there is no opportunity attack if you say you move around an opponent just to get flanking (since you never leave their reach).

Nothing is in stone. If you don't like the way I'm interpreting it, don't use it. Just discussion and opinion. Flanking is an optional rule with only 1-2 paragraphs in the DM Guide. I'm expanding the conversation.