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

[iserith]

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 know it wasn't a point you raised, but as to whether this is a thing in "real life" or not, I would say it's largely irrelevant. The more important questions in my view are (1) Does this achieve the goal of adding interesting tactical choices? and (2) Will this make the play experience better? If the answer to either of those questions are "No," then I say toss it. An in-world justification can always be added later if it's even needed.

 

[iserith]

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

I'm picturing a scene where one player tells another player not to move his or her character there because it will screw up an upcoming attack and to move elsewhere. Then someone suggests readying the attack for when the other character moves away. Then someone else chimes to say just to attack the goblin then we're all good. Then someone else brings up another thing to consider and on and on until the DM starts seriously thinking about implementing a shot clock or XP penalty for interrupting other peoples' turns and/or praying for a sudden death related to a congenital disorder to avoid hearing this unending debate.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm picturing a scene where one player tells another player not to move his or her character there because it will screw up an upcoming attack and to move elsewhere. Then someone suggests readying the attack for when the other character moves away. Then someone else chimes to say just to attack the goblin then we're all good. Then someone else brings up another thing to consider and on and on until the DM starts seriously thinking about implementing a shot clock or XP penalty for interrupting other peoples' turns and/or praying for a sudden death related to a congenital disorder to avoid hearing this unending debate.

It is a risk/guarantee, as you noted in the first reply here, no matter how the rule gets finalized since it depends on where the other players are positioned.

I do like how much less of that talk happens at my table without flanking rules and the like. We do still remind each other that "hey, if you stand next to the fighter with the Protection fighting style, he can protect you," although that's much nicer because a player choosing not to heed the rsminder is only "negatively" affecting himself.

It would be cool if we could think of away to create a flanking/overcrowding rule that worked that way.

 

[iserith]

It is a risk/guarantee, as you noted in the first reply here, no matter how the rule gets finalized since it depends on where the other players are positioned.

I do like how much less of that talk happens at my table without flanking rules and the like. We do still remind each other that "hey, if you stand next to the fighter with the Protection fighting style, he can protect you," although that's much nicer because a player choosing not to heed the rsminder is only "negatively" affecting himself.

It would be cool if we could think of away to create a flanking/overcrowding rule that worked that way.

I'd probably look to a different means of achieving the same desired goal, as noted. With advantage and disadvantage being so useful or problematic, players may reasonably spend a lot of time stepping on each other's toes trying to position to gain the best advantage for themselves while avoiding putting someone else at a disadvantage. It necessarily leads in my view to an uptick in cross-talk which may be undesirable. It would certainly be the case for me even though my players are pretty good about not doing that. And it's not the cross-talk that is problematic in my view but the debate. The game can't move forward until it's resolved. For me, that's a huge problem.

I would seem also that the overcrowding rule in some way is meant to address the issue of "clumping" or "conga lines" which was a feature of D&D 4e play if I recall correctly and about which many people complained. I'm not sure if that's a reason the OP would like to create an disincentive for "overcrowding," but it would make sense. The problem here starts with giving a bonus for flanking at all, of course.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

I actually have a rule at my table: talking when it is someone elses turn uses your reaction. Talking for more than 6 seconds (DM judges) uses up your next action.

 

[iserith]

I actually have a rule at my table: talking when it is someone elses turn uses your reaction. Talking for more than 6 seconds (DM judges) uses up your next action.

Yes, as I somewhat jokingly mentioned a few posts back, rules like this are something DMs often implement to deal with this troublesome issue. While it can work at some tables, I think it doesn't address the underlying issue of either (1) simple rudeness or (2) impetus to debate tactical moves. To my mind, adding more tactical rules, especially fiddly ones, increases that desire to jump in and say something to gain a benefit or avoid a penalty. I prefer to correct the issue "upstream" than add another rule to deal with what is effectively reasonable human behavior in my opinion.

 

[Cyber-Dave]

I get your concern Iserith. Personally, I find that I have the most fun when I manage to both a) have a game that requires tactical consideration but b) keeps out of character talk to a minimum at the table. There is no way to have tactical consideration without providing the desire to say something to gain a benefit or avoid a penalty. I am cool with people doing that... I just make them pay for it with a reaction (and what they say has to be in character). It might not work though. I plan to play-test the current iteration before I make a final judgement.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Are you using squares which are less than five feet across?

One of the reasons why D&D settled on the five-foot square is so that everyone would have room to maneuver, and you wouldn't have to deal with trying to model interference by allies. If someone is surrounded by eight enemies, then each of those enemies still have five feet between themself and the nearest ally (give or take).

I could see it if you were limiting the effect to reach weapons, or large creatures; but this is also a game where you can use a longsword while grappling someone, and you can still wield a pike effectively against someone who is grappling you. Adding in this rule for overcrowding would be inconsistent with that level of abstraction.

 

[ad_hoc]

Rules like Flanking destroy tactical depth.

It just becomes the default way to get advantage (thus invalidating everything else). 5e just isn't built for it.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I've found the action economy in and of itself provides incentive to avoid being flanked. And having a Rogue or wolf Totem Barbarian in the party provide good incentive to flank.