Flanking and Overcrowding (could use some second opinions...)

Hey everyone. I want to add a little more tactical depth to character positions in combat. I don't, however, like the existing flanking rules in the DMG. I was thinking of using this instead. I would appreciate some second opinions...

Flanking and Overcrowding (Failed Effort)
If two allied creatures are engaged in melee on opposite sides of a lone creature that is at least one size smaller than them, the allies both gain advantage on their melee attack rolls against that creature. If a third ally or more stands adjacent to the creature, regardless of whether it stands alone, however, all of the allies suffer disadvantage to their attack rolls against that creature.

If three allied creatures are engaged in melee against a lone creature of the same size as them and at least two of the allies stand on opposite sides of the creature, all three allies gain advantage on their melee attack rolls against that creature. If a fourth ally or more stands adjacent to the same target, regardless of whether it stands alone, however, all the allies suffer disadvantage to their attack rolls against that creature.

If four or five allies are engaged in melee against a lone creature one size larger than them and at least four of the allies stand on opposite sides of the creature, the allies all gain advantage on their melee attacks against the creature. If a sixth ally or more stands adjacent to the same target, regardless of whether it stands alone, however, all the allies suffer disadvantage on their attack rolls against that creature.

For the purpose of flanking and overcrowding, small and medium creatures are considered to be of the same size.

Flanking (Effort 2)
Use the flanking rules from the DMG, page 251, with the following caveat: a creature standing adjacent to an ally who is no more than one size smaller than it cannot be flanked.

Overcrowding (Effort 2)
If more than half the squares/hexes adjacent to a creature are occupied, the creature and all creatures adjacent to it suffer disadvantage on attack rolls. Natural weapons, unarmed attacks, and attacks made with light weapons ignore this penalty.

It's probably worth trying out at the table for three sessions and then reevaluating. It looks to me to be too fiddly in the abstract. I would reasonably expect a lot more cross-talk on who needs to stand where and I'm not sure that actually achieves the desired goal or, if it does achieve the goal, it does so at the cost of time per turn which really adds up in a session (and over the course of an adventure or campaign).

You might achieve more focus on tactical positioning if you introduced terrain that grants a benefit or hindrance instead and include that in some challenges and not others.

One large and two medium creatures engaging a large creature. The large and one medium are on opposing sides.
Without revising your notes, can you tell if they have advantage or disadvantage?

Cyber-Dave said:

Flanking and Overcrowding
If two allied creatures are engaged in melee on opposite sides of a lone creature that is at least one size smaller than them, the allies both gain advantage on their melee attack rolls against that creature. If a third ally or more stands adjacent to the creature, regardless of whether it stands alone, however, all of the allies suffer disadvantage to their attack rolls against that creature.

Click to expand...

Dislike. There's no reason that surronding an enemy should make it harder to hit, regardless of size. Also, any flanking rule that gives advantage for simply getting into position is, in my opinion, too good. So you have a mix of too good with an attempt to compensate via a weird, doesn't-make-sense-to-me modifier that is really disempowering. Sorry, but- yuck.

Cyber-Dave said:

If three allied creatures are engaged in melee against a lone creature of the same size as them and at least two of the allies stand on opposite sides of the creature, all three allies gain advantage on their melee attack rolls against that creature. If a fourth ally or more stands adjacent to the same target, regardless of whether it stands alone, however, all the allies suffer disadvantage to their attack rolls against that creature.

If four or five allies are engaged in melee against a lone creature one size larger than them and at least four of the allies stand on opposite sides of the creature, the allies all gain advantage on their melee attacks against the creature. If a sixth ally or more stands adjacent to the same target, regardless of whether it stands alone, however, all the allies suffer disadvantage on their attack rolls against that creature.

For the purpose of flanking and overcrowding, small and medium creatures are considered to be of the same size.

Click to expand...

Also, this is way too fiddly for my taste. One of 5e's greatest strengths is the fact that it's smooth and simple.

All that said, it's a matter of taste. You might try it, but I don't see this as being any better than the default flanking rules, just weirder and substantially harder to keep track of.

Krachek said:

One large and two medium creatures engaging a large creature. The large and one medium are on opposing sides.
Without revising your notes, can you tell if they have advantage or disadvantage?

Click to expand...

I would rule yes, but I see your point.

the Jester said:

...stuff...

Click to expand...

Yea. I don't know that I like it myself. It is fiddley, which I don't like. By making it less fiddley, I will make it too complex. I'll probably toss it without even giving it a try at the table, to be honest. That being said, however, you are wrong that surrounding an enemy should not make it harder to hit. Too many people attacking a single target get in each other's way. They make it harder, not easier, to fight effectivly. It is a real world concept. I'm not particularly adept at combat myself, but some friends of mine who have practiced various martial arts have said that 4 or more people attacking the same target tend to become a liability rather than a boon. That's where I got the concept from. I also like the fact that position can both be used to gain advantage or to stop other people from gaining advantage (by having two allies fight back to back). It's cinematic in a way I like. Unfortunatly, the fiddley quality I detest, and I have not thought of an elegent way to get rid of that quality.

I find that granting advantage for flanking trivializes advantage and makes it too easy to obtain. As such, I would not offer it up as a benefit for flanking.

However, I do like that flanking to provide some benefit. As such, I instituted the following rule for flanking to make it a 'lockdown' technique that returns a bit of battlefield control to the game that was stripped in the move from 4E to 5E:

A flanked creature that voluntarily moves out of the flanked position provokes opportunity attacks from all enemies adjacent to it when it moved from the flank.

I also have a rule that allows a creature that is being flanked to ignore some of the creatures flanking it to avoid provoking OAs from all adjacent enemies, but doing so allows those ignored creatures to immediately make OAs with advantage - and if they hit, they crit. If you're flanked by a Stone Giant and a Goblin, you can ignore the goblin and put all your attention on the Stone Giant to avoid provoking an OA if you move. The goblin may nail you the best way it can... but that is nothing compared to what a Stone Giant might do to you on an OA.

Cyber-Dave said:

Yea. I don't know that I like it myself. It is fiddley, which I don't like. By making it less fiddley, I will make it too complex

Click to expand...

To make it less fiddly, with little complexity, this might work for you:

1) flankers get advantage.
2) If at least half the squares surrounding a creature are occupied, all attackers suffer disadvantage.

Regarding 2, I'm suggesting that both allies and enemies surrounding the target will hinder attacks. The only complexity comes in counting occupied & unoccupier squares adjacent to the target creature . . . and you gotta decide if walls and other objects count as occupying a square, or whether those squares should be considered at all.

Also, you might aquickly find that "more tyan half the squares are occupied" is a better condition for overcrowded.

Satyrn said:

To make it less fiddly, with little complexity, this might work for you:

1) flankers get advantage.
2) If at least half the squares surrounding a creature are occupied, all attackers suffer disadvantage.

Regarding 2, I'm suggesting that both allies and enemies surrounding the target will hinder attacks. The only complexity comes in counting occupied & unoccupier squares adjacent to the target creature . . . and you gotta decide if walls and other objects count as occupying a square, or whether those squares should be considered at all.

Also, you might aquickly find that "more tyan half the squares are occupied" is a better condition for overcrowded.

Click to expand...

I love it... it is much better than what I had. I still want to make a few adjustments, so I think I will say something like this:

Flanking
Use the flanking rules from the DMG, page 251, with the following caveat: a creature standing adjacent to an ally who is no more than one size smaller than it cannot be flanked.

Overcrowding
If more than half the squares/hexes adjacent to a creature are occupied, the creature and all creatures adjacent to it suffer disadvantage on attack rolls. Natural weapons, unarmed attacks, and attacks made with light weapons ignore this penalty.

Cyber-Dave said:

I love it... it is much better than what I had. I still want to make a few adjustments, so I think I will say something like this:

Flanking
Use the flanking rules from the DMG, page 251, with the following caveat: a creature standing adjacent to an ally who is no more than one size smaller than it cannot be flanked.

Overcrowding
If more than half the squares/hexes adjacent to a creature are occupied, the creature and all creatures adjacent to it suffer disadvantage on attack rolls against that creature. Natural weapons, unarmed attacks, and attacks made with light weapons ignore this penalty.

Click to expand...

The changes make perfect sense to me . . . with the one change I added (in bold). I'm picturing a scene where an orc is surrounded by five PCs (labelled P on my crude diagram), where 4 of those PCs are on the orc's left while the 5th PC is on the orc's right side.

Then rather than attacking the overcrowded orc, PC #5 attacks the goblin (g) flanking him. I wouldn't want the attack on the goblin to be at disadvantage just because PC #5 is overcrowding the orc.

PP
POPg
P