Flanking House Rule: improved Crit range

[diplomancer]

I'll be starting a new campaign as a DM after a long while. I've decided not to go with the optional flanking rule from the DMG, but still think flanking should provide some benefit, both for verisimilutude and for the sake of a more interesting battlefield..

I've seen many DMs use a flat bonus (either +1 or +2), but I'm generally against those bonuses, agreeing with the general design decision of 5e of keeping those bonuses to a minimum

Then it struck me: how about an extra crit range? Critting with a 19 (or 18 if another feature already makes you crit with a 19) Yes, this will impact different classes differently, but I don't think this is an issue.

My main concern is the power level. Is it so powerful that every melee character will do it. Or so weak that no one will bother with it?

What are your thoughts?

[GeneralVryth]

I really like this. I don't think it's overpowered, and I do think it's something players will go for but will be forced to think about the costs to doing it (is it worth taking an OA). It especially helps Rogues (and Paladins oddly), which fits quite nicely to their theme.

[J-H]

The last thing the front-liners need against a mob of goblins/wolves/etc. is a 10% chance of getting hit for double damage. Especially at low levels, a 10% chance of getting hit for 4d4+4 is pretty deadly.

The flanking rules work against players far more than they work for them, unless you're only using small numbers of powerful monsters.

[GeneralVryth]

The last thing the front-liners need against a mob of goblins/wolves/etc. is a 10% chance of getting hit for double damage. Especially at low levels, a 10% chance of getting hit for 4d4+4 is pretty deadly.

The flanking rules work against players far more than they work for them, unless you're only using small numbers of powerful monsters.

You're right about the low levels bit. But statistically speaking this is probably the weakest bonus that can be given out (a crit would need to be adding at least 10 damage for this to even match +1 average damage on a 50% hit rate). And in my mind part of the point of flanking rules, is not only to give the PCs an edge but to give them things to worry about, it also helps increase the value of non-damage bonuses like moving an enemy.

[Psyren]

You're right about the low levels bit. But statistically speaking this is probably the weakest bonus that can be given out (a crit would need to be adding at least 10 damage for this to even match +1 average damage on a 50% hit rate). And in my mind part of the point of flanking rules, is not only to give the PCs an edge but to give them things to worry about, it also helps increase the value of non-damage bonuses like moving an enemy.

I think a +1 to hit from flanking, even if it results in more damage overall than +5% crit, would be preferable as it's less spiky/swingy.

[diplomancer]

If "concern about being flanked" becomes a tactical consideration, I see that as a win.

And crits are fun! Yes, even enemy crits.

[J-H]

If "concern about being flanked" becomes a tactical consideration, I see that as a win.

And crits are fun! Yes, even enemy crits.

I saw a 3rd or 4th level paladin get insta-killed by a crit from a Hill Giant once. Double his HP (+-) in one hit.

A standard 4-player party has a fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard.
The fighter is in melee. The rogue and cleric might be, but it depends on their build - and neither is likely to have an AC over about 18 aside from heavy armor clerics.

Net result is that life gets more dangerous for the non-wizard members of the party and stays about the same for the wizard. Does 5e benefit from something else making it harder to play a melee character? I suggest not.

[Skrum]

I will die on a hill defending flanking. Does it make melee combat more dangerous, yes. I see that as a feature. I love the tactics of it, I love having to think about it, and I love the danger of being exposed to a flank. It's all upside IMO.

As for the idea at hand: really cool! I would make the crit range pretty wide...like at least 18-20. "+1" crit range (like, 19-20) has only a 5% chance of changing the outcome. I personally don't think that's high enough chance - I want flanking to be a big deal. +2 crit range, 18-20, has a 10% chance of changing the outcome.

Let's do a little comparison....fighting against level appropriate threats, a PC needs roughly an 8 to hit. That's 65% chance to happen. In the stated flanking rules that grants advantage, that 65% chance jumps to 87%. So, flanking advantage has a roughly (very roughly) 22% chance to change the outcome of an attack.

Now, what is the nature of the change. Advantage changes misses into hits. Bigger crit chance changes hits into critical hits. Rogues and paladins will love this. Other classes? I think they'd rather change misses into hits TBH.

So, after thinking it through, I think bonus to hit (in some form) is the superior version of flanking. But advantage has a lot of problems in terms of how it interacts with other features, and you said you don't like numerical bonuses. So, crit range is better than nothing. But I would recommend at least +2, if not +3 crit range. Less than that, and it doesn't feel like it'll have enough impact to have the desired result.

[Solusek]

Flanking doesn't work well in 5e because there is no way for a single person to mitigate being flanked with these game rules. in 3.0 at least people couldn't walk circles around their opponent. They were limited to a 5 foot step or they drew a AOO. It at least took a bit of work to maintain a flank in the system where flanking was first introduced to D&D.

The back and forth turn nature of the game also makes it a bit silly. In a real melee skirmish the outnumbered party will give up ground to prevent someone from circling around to their backside. When you get to move 30+ feet in a turn without the opponent being able to move at all it makes it trivial to just walk around them to the rear position and make an attack. That is silly and doesn't show a lot of verisimilitude in itself.

[Skrum]

Flanking doesn't work well in 5e because there is no way for a single person to mitigate being flanked with these game rules. in 3.0 at least people couldn't walk circles around their opponent. They were limited to a 5 foot step or they drew a AOO. It at least took a bit of work to maintain a flank in the system where flanking was first introduced to D&D.

The back and forth turn nature of the game also makes it a bit silly. In a real melee skirmish the outnumbered party will give up ground to prevent someone from circling around to their backside. When you get to move 30+ feet in a turn without the opponent being able to move at all it makes it trivial to just walk around them to the rear position and make an attack. That is silly and doesn't show a lot of verisimilitude in itself.

I would agree more if all fights took place in the infamous Featureless Plane. But they don't. Walls, pillars, statues, rocks, trees, spell effects, etc. can all serve to avoid being flanked, as well as working in tandem with party members.

I mean, I do think the game would be improved by OA's being triggered on a per square basis rather than leaving reach, but in practice there's plenty of ways to mitigate flanking even with RAW OA's. And as I said above, the way flanking changes combat tactics is varied and positive.

[Kane0]

Best flanking I've seen in ages!

[Mastikator]

I'll be starting a new campaign as a DM after a long while. I've decided not to go with the optional flanking rule from the DMG, but still think flanking should provide some benefit, both for verisimilutude and for the sake of a more interesting battlefield..

I've seen many DMs use a flat bonus (either +1 or +2), but I'm generally against those bonuses, agreeing with the general design decision of 5e of keeping those bonuses to a minimum

Then it struck me: how about an extra crit range? Critting with a 19 (or 18 if another feature already makes you crit with a 19) Yes, this will impact different classes differently, but I don't think this is an issue.

My main concern is the power level. Is it so powerful that every melee character will do it. Or so weak that no one will bother with it?

What are your thoughts?

Some pitfalls I foresee:


The usual flanking pitfalls of conga-lines when using flanking rules.
It may trick players into thinking that this somehow makes crit-fishing a viable tactic.
The usual pitfalls of house-rules: players just forget them, or misremember them.



Some notes:

As a DM it's entirely within your power to make battlefields more interesting by putting interesting things on the battlefield, no need for a house rule but it does cost you more prep time.
If you're looking for positional tactical play just between PCs and monsters then I suggest taking note from BG3, make shove a bonus action. Some class features and feats give shove as a bonus action, you could turn those into free actions (shield shove as a free action from shield master, for example).

Overall:

A stacking crit range bonus is better than advantage for flanking. You get something and it doesn't step on other class's toes.

[JonBeowulf]

Flanking doesn't work well in 5e because there is no way for a single person to mitigate being flanked with these game rules. in 3.0 at least people couldn't walk circles around their opponent. They were limited to a 5 foot step or they drew a AOO. It at least took a bit of work to maintain a flank in the system where flanking was first introduced to D&D.

The back and forth turn nature of the game also makes it a bit silly. In a real melee skirmish the outnumbered party will give up ground to prevent someone from circling around to their backside. When you get to move 30+ feet in a turn without the opponent being able to move at all it makes it trivial to just walk around them to the rear position and make an attack. That is silly and doesn't show a lot of verisimilitude in itself.

I don't do flanking in my games for this very thing. I think it's stupid that going later in initiative order gives you a tactical advantage (moving after everyone else grants more opportunities for flanking). Rewarding slow-acting PCs for being slow is not something I want. If I'm a player... sure, I'll take whatever advantage you want to give me. As a DM, nope. You built a slow dude so be a slow dude.

[Skrum]

I don't do flanking in my games for this very thing. I think it's stupid that going later in initiative order gives you a tactical advantage (moving after everyone else grants more opportunities for flanking). Rewarding slow-acting PCs for being slow is not something I want. If I'm a player... sure, I'll take whatever advantage you want to give me. As a DM, nope. You built a slow dude so be a slow dude.

Losing initiative is a huge disadvantage though. Honestly this dynamic is *another* point in favor of flanking; losing initiative is awful, so at least get some benefit in a better chance of flanking on the first turn.

I think you are really underestimating how big a penalty it is to be a turn behind everyone.

[Witty Username]

If I had to drop flanking or turn by turn initiative, I think I would try dropping turn by turn initiative first.

On the monster end I do simultaneous movement, for speed of play but it does mean things like flanking are pretty easy to set up (assuming landscape allows).

On the player end, I want to experiment with sided initiative. As long as everyone gets time, I don't see a meaningful issue. And it makes planning less of an issue.

[Skrum]

On the player end, I want to experiment with sided initiative. As long as everyone gets time, I don't see a meaningful issue. And it makes planning less of an issue.

My favorite initiative variant I've used is "automatic alternative turns." The encounters were taking place in an arena, and the two sides would roll initiative as normal but turns would sort by team 1 team 2 team 1 team 2 (etc). So the actually order would be (highest roll from team 1)(highest roll from team 2)(second highest roll from team 1)(second highest roll from team 2). This ensured that neither team, NPC or PC, would get blitzed due to bad initiative. The teams started about 60 ft from each other, so it felt pretty necessary.

I've heard of tables using sided initiative, and letting the players essentially coordinate their turns to a very high degree. Not a fan. At all. Especially in tough combats, there's already a tendency for the powergamer types to start edging in on other people's turns with side talk, suggestions, demands, etc. Making everyone's turn one giant action would exacerbate that enormously.

[Selion]

It's not bad, as long as you are aware that you are favoring some classes more then others.

Rogues and paladins, for example, benefit a lot from improved crit range, because they multiply sneak-attack/smite dice, and usually they have access to this feature just with multiclassing (palas with the infamous hexadin, for rogues is harder to achieve, they need 3 fighter levels)

[J-H]

Losing initiative is a huge disadvantage though. Honestly this dynamic is *another* point in favor of flanking; losing initiative is awful, so at least get some benefit in a better chance of flanking on the first turn.

I think you are really underestimating how big a penalty it is to be a turn behind everyone.

It depends on your battlefield and player. For a melee fighter-type, going later in initiative is usually good, as it means enemies have gotten close enough to move to and attack. If you "win" initiative and the enemies are 60' away, all you can do with your turn is move up and dodge or throw a ranged weapon, or dash away from the party and right up next to them and do nothing. If you "lose" initiative, the enemies move closer and then you can get in range to attack them on your first turn.

[JonBeowulf]

Losing initiative is a huge disadvantage though. Honestly this dynamic is *another* point in favor of flanking; losing initiative is awful, so at least get some benefit in a better chance of flanking on the first turn.

I think you are really underestimating how big a penalty it is to be a turn behind everyone.

I played TT Battletech for several years and saw firsthand that going last can be a huge plus if you're a solid tactician. The Paladin Misty Stepping into the middle of the map and smiting with advantage... not something I want to see. Add in "anything you can do, they can do" and PCs can start dropping pretty quickly when 6 bugbears engage the frontline.

Not that I'm against PC death. Adventuring in 5e is not all that dangerous compared to previous editions.

[Kane0]

Do remember though that in BT you still get your turn even if the units going before you would destroy you, since the resolution phase occurs for everyone after movement and attacking. Not so in D&D, where if you are last in initiative and happen to get crit by a bugbear that beat you in initiative you might not get your turn.

That said, I still vastly prefer a +1 to crit range over +1 to hit or *shudder* advantage. I might just pass this by my DM.

[Theodoxus]

@OP, since you're the DM, one option would be to have different flanking rules for monsters and PCs. Let the players use the crit range adjustment, but if your monsters aren't hitting enough, opt for a to hit bonus, or even DMG standard advantage. There could be in-universe reasons if you need them, but this would add another level of tactical thinking for the players.

Re: Initiative, my current DM uses what he calls 'popcorn' - whomever rolls highest goes first, but the rest of the rolls are meaningless. Whomever goes first, once their turn is done, declares the next to go. The wise players make sure the DMs turn is in the middle somewhere, otherwise the DM will go last, and then first the following round, really putting on the hurt. I'm not sure if our table is unique, but Skrum's warning about powerplayers and wheeling dealing to set up optimal tactical play has yet to rear its head. There might be some silent pleading going on across the table, but we never voice our opinion - whomever has initiative to grant, is allowed to make that choice based on their own reading of the situation.

Re: BattleTech, I've run a few D&D games where damage is assigned at the end of the round. It does definiately have a different feel, and Death Saves HAVE to be a thing, or else you could end up with half your party dead without realizing it. I'm not sure what my current table would think about it. But I might re-incorporate the rule in my OSR build.

[stoutstien]

@OP, since you're the DM, one option would be to have different flanking rules for monsters and PCs. Let the players use the crit range adjustment, but if your monsters aren't hitting enough, opt for a to hit bonus, or even DMG standard advantage. There could be in-universe reasons if you need them, but this would add another level of tactical thinking for the players.

Re: Initiative, my current DM uses what he calls 'popcorn' - whomever rolls highest goes first, but the rest of the rolls are meaningless. Whomever goes first, once their turn is done, declares the next to go. The wise players make sure the DMs turn is in the middle somewhere, otherwise the DM will go last, and then first the following round, really putting on the hurt. I'm not sure if our table is unique, but Skrum's warning about powerplayers and wheeling dealing to set up optimal tactical play has yet to rear its head. There might be some silent pleading going on across the table, but we never voice our opinion - whomever has initiative to grant, is allowed to make that choice based on their own reading of the situation.

Re: BattleTech, I've run a few D&D games where damage is assigned at the end of the round. It does definiately have a different feel, and Death Saves HAVE to be a thing, or else you could end up with half your party dead without realizing it. I'm not sure what my current table would think about it. But I might re-incorporate the rule in my OSR build.

I would also recommend not using the same rules for flanking for PCs as NPCs. NPCs already have featured built-in, like packing or Martial advantage, to represent them being able capitalize on brief windows where adversaries are distracted.

Now flaking itself is kind of tricky. It wants to make positioning more impactful but at the same time it also makes it harder for the traditional front liners to be sticky because now there's another reason to avoid them.

My current solution is flanking is a pseudo move action. As long as the player is in a position and has the means to do so (you actually have to be able to be a threat so no familiar flanking) then you can spend half your movement to restrict the target's movement by the same amount unless they take the disengage action.

Its nice because leaves plenty of opportunity to build off of it. Bunch of introducing a feat that allows you to flank more than one target at a time.

[Yakk]

A big problem with the base D&D Flanking is that it causes the congo-line.

I mean, the base D&D flanking also interferes with other kinds of advantage mechanics. But that isn't the big problem.

If the bonus from Flanking based off base D&D Flanking trigger is big enough to be worth keeping track of, you get a congo-line. If it isn't big enough, it isn't worth keeping track of and wastes time.

So I say fix the trigger for Flanking instead of (or in addition to) the effect.

The trigger is "you attack while someone is on the far side of the target". I propose instead "you threaten a flank when someone is on the far side of the target" and if they *end* their turn while someone threatens a flank, then they are flanked and take the penalty.

This moves flanking from being something that makes combat static (because it is so easy to get that trying to escape it is pointless: if you move, they just reestablish the flank on their turn - and escaping gives your foes extra attacks), to something that encourages mobile combat (because you can avoid ever being flanked by moving).

You still want to threaten a flank, because it forces a foe to escape, which in turn can grant you extra attacks. But we get a dynamic moving battle field instead of a static congo line. And when repositioning, you can try to give your foes a worst spot to threaten a flank from.

[Mastikator]

A big problem with the base D&D Flanking isn't that it causes the congo-line.

I mean, the base D&D flanking also interferes with other kinds of advantage mechanics. But that isn't the big problem.

If the bonus from Flanking based off base D&D Flanking trigger is big enough to be worth keeping track of, you get a congo-line. If it isn't big enough, it isn't worth keeping track of and wastes time.

So I say fix the trigger for Flanking instead of (or in addition to) the effect.

The trigger is "you attack while someone is on the far side of the target". I propose instead "you threaten a flank when someone is on the far side of the target" and if they *end* their turn while someone threatens a flank, then they are flanked and take the penalty.

This moves flanking from being something that makes combat static (because it is so easy to get that trying to escape it is pointless: if you move, they just reestablish the flank on their turn - and escaping gives your foes extra attacks), to something that encourages mobile combat (because you can avoid ever being flanked by moving).

You still want to threaten a flank, because it forces a foe to escape, which in turn can grant you extra attacks. But we get a dynamic moving battle field instead of a static congo line. And when repositioning, you can try to give your foes a worst spot to threaten a flank from.

This might actually be the best version I've seen.

[Yakk]

This might actually be the best version I've seen.
Well, I got an is/isn't backwards. Oops. And it doesn't actually give what the consequences of being flanked is.

The "punishment" should be substantial - not a mere "1 point increased crit range" or "+1" or "+2" to hit - because we want to pay for the tracking effort. Advantage *may* be enough, but you could go further - like "every hit crits", or "you get to roll a flank die" (a die that acts like advantage, but stacks with advantage).

[Theodoxus]

Well, I got an is/isn't backwards. Oops. And it doesn't actually give what the consequences of being flanked is.

The "punishment" should be substantial - not a mere "1 point increased crit range" or "+1" or "+2" to hit - because we want to pay for the tracking effort. Advantage *may* be enough, but you could go further - like "every hit crits", or "you get to roll a flank die" (a die that acts like advantage, but stacks with advantage).

Since it's all homerules at this point, I'd start with the DMG premise granting advantage, and then if flanking still isn't chased enough by the players (or ignored when your monsters do it) then up the benefits. And I'd probably go Advantage, Advantage + Crit ranger, Advantage + Crit ranger + '+1 Hit', and then increase the to hit bonus until you're getting everyone clamoring to flank - and then tone it back down a point or two. Could also do Advantage + Hit without a bump in crit range to see if that's sufficient, but really, me personally, would be trying to stick a flank with just Advantage and Crit Range boons.

ETA: I came up with this wording for the new flank:
"Flanking: When you start your turn in a flanking position ( when an enemy is threatened by two or more friendly characters on opposite sides or corners), you have both Advantage on melee attacks, and the Critical Range of the attacks are increased by 1 step."

[Mastikator]

Well, I got an is/isn't backwards. Oops. And it doesn't actually give what the consequences of being flanked is.

The "punishment" should be substantial - not a mere "1 point increased crit range" or "+1" or "+2" to hit - because we want to pay for the tracking effort. Advantage *may* be enough, but you could go further - like "every hit crits", or "you get to roll a flank die" (a die that acts like advantage, but stacks with advantage).

I'd probably go with adding your proficiency bonus to damage from melee attacks. Another option is that when you crit you apply triple dice rather than double (and anything that adds dice on crit add triple of that as well). More damage is more fun than more accurate.

[Amnestic]

Wouldn't "A flanked target cannot grant flanking" counteract conga-line issues?

[Theodoxus]

Wouldn't "A flanked target cannot grant flanking" counteract conga-line issues?

I think the conga line they're talking about is like this: A, and C-Z are goblins. B is the PC they're running a line on.


|A B C, D, E, F.... Y, Z

"A" is stationary. B hasn't taken a turn yet to get out of Dodge. C through Z run in, take a swing (with whatever flanking mechanic you choose) and run out. Sure, B can take an OA on C if they want, but everyone else is free to run in and out at whim until their turn is over.

You're saying somewhere in that line, Player B+ moves between the goblins, say, between C and D:

|A B C B+ D, E, F...

Thus, with your ruling B can't flank with B+ against C, because they're being flanked. C can't flank with D, because they're being flanked...

Sure, it'll shut down the congra line, and negate the PCs from granting flank too... we're back to everyone attacking normally within a fog cloud... yay?

[Amnestic]

My understanding of conga line flanking is that it ended up with something like this, with friendlies as letters, enemies as numbers:

A-1-B-2-C-3-D-4-E

A static line of people all flanking each other, bounded by whichever side is slightly more numerous, and incentivised to stay still to maintain their flanks.

But if "Flanked can't give flanking" it means whoever initiates the flanks first marks off one of them, requiring two people to counter it. If A and B start, then 2 and 3 need to surround A, to save 1:

2
A-1-B
3

Or 1 is forced to move around, shifting out of the line, which is what people are after with more 'active' movement.

[Darth Credence]

Wouldn't "A flanked target cannot grant flanking" counteract conga-line issues?


I think the conga line they're talking about is like this: A, and C-Z are goblins. B is the PC they're running a line on.


|A B C, D, E, F.... Y, Z

"A" is stationary. B hasn't taken a turn yet to get out of Dodge. C through Z run in, take a swing (with whatever flanking mechanic you choose) and run out. Sure, B can take an OA on C if they want, but everyone else is free to run in and out at whim until their turn is over.

You're saying somewhere in that line, Player B+ moves between the goblins, say, between C and D:

|A B C B+ D, E, F...

Thus, with your ruling B can't flank with B+ against C, because they're being flanked. C can't flank with D, because they're being flanked...

Sure, it'll shut down the congra line, and negate the PCs from granting flank too... we're back to everyone attacking normally within a fog cloud... yay?

I think I'm picturing Amnestic's suggestion differently (and I'm changing nomenclature to G for goblins, P for players). [ETA - I see from their post that I am also picturing things differently from them, so this is more a me thing.]I'm seeing you have P1. G1 moves next to them and attacks, no bonus. G2 moves in attacks with flanking, then moves and gets an OA at them. Then every other goblin moves past, taking an attack with advantage.

With the suggestion that you cannot flank if flanked, the move by P2 would be to flank G1. Then you have P2-G1-P1, and no goblins coming in can flank either P1 or P2 with G1, because G1 is "flanked" (they would not get bonuses, either, if a goblin came in and flanked them, but they would still prevent the others, so I put quotes). They would have to get a new goblin to hold position to allow for a flank. Then that one could be flanked, eliminating that one from flanking others.

I don't think it eliminates conga line concerns, as at most tables all goblins would be going at once so a PC wouldn't have an opportunity to take a blocking position until a conga line has already run. If you had enough PCs, you could arrange yourselves in a way that would prevent anyone from ever flanking you, like a testudo, but it would also be fireball formation. I do think it has some merit, simply because it makes sense that if you are flanking someone, they would be foolish to look away from you to concentrate on flanking someone else. If I was trying to be more "realistic", I could make a case for adding this to my game, but since I tend not to want to get too far in the weeds, I don't think it would be worth the effort.