Favorite Flanking Fixes in Five-E?

[CleverNickName]

At our last one-shot gaming session, my gaming group decided to try out the optional rules in the DMG for flanking. You know, where you get Advantage on attacks if you are flanking your target? Yeah. Turns out, those rules were significantly overpowered for our table.

The math seems to agree. According to the ten thousand iterations I just ran and averaged together in Excel, getting Advantage on a d20 roll is roughly equivalent to getting a +6.6 bonus. That's over twice the bonus of a legendary magical weapon, for simply standing in the right spot on the board. (EDIT: My math is wrong; it's roughly equivalent to a +3.3 bonus. See the agonizing threads below.)

Don't get me wrong, I think flanking should definitely give you an edge in melee. But my gut tells me that Advantage is just too good, and the math supports that gut feeling. If you agree, what are some of the fixes you've used in the past?

(I know and understand that some people don't mind the Advantage-for-Flanking rules in the DMG, and I don't want to ruin anyone's fun. To each their own. I'm just looking for ideas.)

 

[CleverNickName]

One idea was to just bring back the "+2 to hit" from 3rd Edition. That's certainly more appropriate than giving Advantage, but still a bit high considering the lower ACs of 5th Edition. Still, a step in the right direction...the premise is that flanking makes it harder for your target to defend against incoming attacks. Maybe lower it to +1?

Another idea I've seen is to give a +1 bonus to damage rolls. The premise here is that if you are flanking your target, you will be able to hit where it hurts the most. A bonus to damage is not as good as a bonus to hit, statistically-speaking, but I think that's a feature and not a bug.

And a third idea I've seen: you cannot make Opportunity Attacks while flanked. The premise is that being flanked takes up too much of your effort, and distracts you too much, for you to react that quickly.

Any others?

 

[Jester David]

I added a "Tactical Advantage" rule to my game. Whenever you are in a situation where you would have a slight strategic and tactical leg up on your opponent, you gained a +1. This included flanking, or having higher ground, or them being on loose terrain.
This allows flanking to be benefitial without being too good. And encourages people jumping up on tables and such. They do something cool... +1 to hit.

 

[dave2008]

in 4e you got a +2 bonus to hit Personally that seems to small to me. Ever tried to fight two people at once. It ain't like the movies I will tell you that. I thank advantage is actually more realistic

 

[Mistwell]

First, it's around a +5 not a +6.6.

Second, you could just use the partial cover rules as a model, and change it to a flat +2.

 

[CleverNickName]

I added a "Tactical Advantage" rule to my game. Whenever you are in a situation where you would have a slight strategic and tactical leg up on your opponent, you gained a +1. This included flanking, or having higher ground, or them being on loose terrain.
This allows flanking to be benefitial without being too good. And encourages people jumping up on tables and such. They do something cool... +1 to hit.

That's brilliant! The bonus is good and all, but I think I like it mostly because it encourages more interesting gameplay. Our table is still stuck in that same, boring, "five foot step to flank, full attack" mindset of 3rd Edition...that would be a great way to break them out of that rut.

I'll definitely have to test this one out.

 

[CleverNickName]

First, it's around a +5 not a +6.6.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong; help me check my spreadsheet.
Column 1 picks a number between 1 and 20 (inclusive).
Column 2 picks another number between 1 and 20 (inclusive).
Column 3 chooses the minimum value between the two.
Column 4 chooses the maximum value between the two.
Column 5 determines the difference between min and max.
I copy that across 10,000 rows, and average the results in Column 5. It gives me 6.6.

EDIT: Yep, my math is wrong. This is the average distance between two d20 rolls...but Advantage is the average distance between the higher roll and the median result.

TL;DR: Advantage is statistically equal to a +3.3 bonus.

 

[CleverNickName]

in 4e you got a +2 bonus to hit Personally that seems to small to me. Ever tried to fight two people at once. It ain't like the movies I will tell you that. I thank advantage is actually more realistic

This is what [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] was saying also. Getting a +2 to hit is not a bad solution, and it would feel very familiar to my group.

 

[Oofta]

The only issue with any flanking rules is that depending on your campaign and encounter style it will benefit the enemy more often than the PCs. Assuming of course that NPCs and monsters play by the same rules as the PCs which is something I always do.

I like the idea of the tactical advantage as well. Beyond that the differences in AC and bounded accuracy don't really matter. In both 3.5 and 5.0, a +1 is an additional 5% to hit a +2 is 10% to hit. As long as the tactical bonuses don't stack I don't see a big issue. If they stack, a person standing in a sandy pit that is flanked and lower than their enemies could really be SOL.

 

[iserith]

I think I would spend some time thinking about why I really want there to be a mechanical bonus to flanking in the first place and then see if that reveals something more basic I'm seeking from the game (such as more tactical options or whatever). At that point, other ideas to satisfy that need may present themselves, ideas that are better than the variant rule in the DMG or anything similar.