D&D 5E Flanking

[KarinsDad]

Because then you'd get another d4 irrespective of positioning?

Sure. But which PC would cast a spell to get an additional D4 when the PCs can already get that with flank? It seems overkill except in the most extreme of cases which means that those spells will rarely be cast. It just messes up the balance of the system when DMs start throwing in a bunch of willy nilly bonuses here and there.

So far, it is not really that hard to hit in 5E (unless you roll super crappy like I do ). Most PCs can hit somewhere between 60% and 80% of the time at level one. The spells make sense boosting this by an average 12.5%. Having both a spell and a house rule boosting it by an average of 25% seems way overkill.

Also, the chances of hitting PCs tends to be lower than hitting NPCs (because of better PC armor, even for the lightly armored PCs). Giving this ability to NPCs can make the game even swingier.

See ccookie's post.

 

[Runny]

I still like the four to one gang up giving advantage. It properly models the benefits of a mob imo

 

[Joe Liker]

I still like the four to one gang up giving advantage. It properly models the benefits of a mob imo

The benefits of a mob are that you and a bunch of friends are all beating down the same poor schmuck. Do you really need more than that?

How about the fact that you don't all have to attack the guy you're surrounding? Some of you can attack while others use the Help action to grant advantage.

In fact, it seems to me, the Help action is the flanking bonus people here seem to be looking for. It can emulate the situation where the guy in "front" keeps the monster occupied while the guy in "back" attacks with advantage. In essence, since there's not technically facing in the game, the Helper creates a temporary facing situation by keeping the enemy's attention.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

As I said before we felt that since the character helping didn't get an attack seemed like to much of a penalty and didn't necessity make sense.

I also don't think that attacking one person flanking you provoked an opportunity attack. You have to leave the reach to provoke an opportunity attack. If you're flanked then you are adjacent with two or more combatants, which means you are within reach of all of them and can attack any of them without leaving the tech l tech of the others.

So I'm still not entirely sold on any solution, not convinced that there isn't an elegant answer.

Again, I think the term flanking is perhaps the wrong one. The idea for me is still that two or more opponents against one should have an advantage. Everybody is always moving, but that also means that for a creature that's surrounded, somebody is always at your back.

My earlier suggestion was that if two or more were surrounding a target, and the first hit the target, they could use help as a bonus action to grant advantage to the other. That uses the help mechanic, requires a successful hit which would draw the target away from the ally, and doesn't grant advantage to the character who strikes first.

Which is another reason I like the tactic, it encourages teamwork.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Li Shenron]

The benefits of a mob are that you and a bunch of friends are all beating down the same poor schmuck. Do you really need more than that?

I certainly don't need more than that!

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, I think the term flanking is perhaps the wrong one. The idea for me is still that two or more opponents against one should have an advantage. Everybody is always moving, but that also means that for a creature that's surrounded, somebody is always at your back.

Not in a real fight in real life as per my earlier example.

And the advantage that they already have is that they will knock you unconscious twice as fast.

Which is another reason I like the tactic, it encourages teamwork.

Teamwork is already encouraged. It's called focus fire.

The problem with a Flanking bonus is that the counter to it, the 5 foot step, no longer exists in the game. A foe cannot back up into the corner to avoid the flank without using Disengage or taking at least one OA.

One really has to look at rules in the big picture mode and not be convinced that old style earlier edition rules really make sense for this edition.

In 1E, one had to have 4 opponents on him in order for one of them to get a flank bonus. It was assumed that a PC (or NPC) could keep 3 foes in front of himself at all times (just by backing away, slipping to the side, etc.). It's only in latter editions where flank started coming into play, but in most of those editions, the shift or 5' step also came into play.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I once saw an actual fight at a park. 6 guys were trying to beat up one guy who happened to be a martial artist. They never got flank on him. He hit them. They hit him. But he constantly moved, never staying in a single place for an instant. Kicking, punching, running, retreating. I never saw the outcome of the fight (he was on the other side of a waterway and went out of view), but I do know that for a real melee fighter in the real world who has room to maneuver, flank is very difficult to get.

D&D does not have this "constant move" capability of real life, so RPG flank shouldn't mean much of anything from a plausibility POV. It's not like the NPC is just going to stand there and have one guy in front of him and one guy behind him.

Actually, that's why I've gotten away from the mini game on the table. I'll use minis as a visual aid, but not a combat resolution system. Using minis essentially eliminates the constant motion of combat, where TotM lets you describe a combat in real terms, with lots of motion.

Just because everybody was moving around doesn't mean that they were never able to flank him. The game uses the term flank, and specified that you had to be on opposite sides of the target, but the reality is that multiple trained opponents targeting the same opponent can work together and set up opportunities that give them an advantage. And I think it would be very difficult (at least by observing one fight) to determine if any of them found it easier to hit him because there were more of them. To hit one person requires him to turn his focus, however quickly, to that opponent. In that moment an opponent on the other side has an opportunity that would not be there if it was a one-on-one fight. That's why two or more against one is usually viewed as an unfair fight.

D&D isn't the best combat simulation to account for all of the variables. So why try to include one of those variables? Well, we include cover, because it's easy to determine and has a measurable effect. I think that flanking is another tactic that fits that description. And since it's already described for rogues, and any creature with pack tactics, it also has precedence in this version of the rules.

So far, my players want a flanking tactic/rule. So that's why I'm trying to accommodate them. The help rule works fine, but we felt it was a bit restrictive in that the helping character couldn't attack at all that round. Which also didn't make a lot of sense, because if you weren't really a threat that round, then they could focus on the other PC. I also don't want to take away the benefit that some creatures have, which is why I added the restriction that you couldn't be near any other hostile creatures.

I haven't really run into any real issue with the rule as we've been playing it. But I also enjoy these types of discussions, and since a number of people think it's too powerful it makes me think some more...

So here are the questions that I guess I'd like to answer (at least for myself):

If everything else is evenly matched, does an attacker have an advantage when they outnumber their opponent in direct melee combat?

If so, what's the advantage?

Is it easier to hit them?

Is it easier to cause more damage?

Does it give you more opportunities to attack?

Do all of the attackers gain the benefits, or just one?

Do you need special training to gain the benefits? Remembering that all PC's are trained in combat, that is they have proficiency, but do you need a special ability like a feat?

Here's an interesting article: http://www.wikihow.com/Fight-off-Multiple-Opponents

One thing that I find particularly interesting (and may be what you actually saw in the fight) is to keep backing away to prevent them from surrounding you. So one option would be to use the same mechanism as Pack Tactics and/or Martial Advantage (which is basically sneak attack). I could go with a feat that would allow its use, in which case only the character with the feat gains the benefit. I might also add an option to the Mobile feat to avoid being flanked, or perhaps grant a Dex save.

That would be the second option, to allow anybody to use the tactic, but that it requires an opposed Dexterity check to gain the benefit.

I'm at a stage where if the benefit isn't really worthwhile, then there's not much point in creating the rule. Both Martial Advantage and Pack Tactics make it worthwhile. If the tactic can't provide a similar benefit, then I'll probably just scrap it.

Ilbranteloth

 

[The_Gneech]

Somebody being flanked is already pinned down in terms of movement, unable to avoid opportunity attacks for getting out unless they disengage. Adding advantage just for flanking is OP, IMO. Being in flanking position already opens up your rogue's sneak attacks. If you want flanking to also enable your bruiser to land his big blow, you use the "Help" action. That's what it's for!

Adding advantage for flank means the PCs will surround and wail on your big baddies and kill them double-quick.

Adding advantage for flank means that mobs of kobolds will surround your squishy PC and kill them double-quick.

Adding advantage for flank nerfs archers and spellcasters.

It's a bad idea. Don't do it. The RAW already has you covered.

-The Gneech

 

[KarinsDad]

So here are the questions that I guess I'd like to answer (at least for myself):

If everything else is evenly matched, does an attacker have an advantage when they outnumber their opponent in direct melee combat?

If so, what's the advantage?

Is it easier to hit them?

Is it easier to cause more damage?

Does it give you more opportunities to attack?

Do all of the attackers gain the benefits, or just one?

Do you need special training to gain the benefits? Remembering that all PC's are trained in combat, that is they have proficiency, but do you need a special ability like a feat?

Actually, I did take martial arts for several years. A guy was taking his Black Belt test and the test was to fight two Brown Belt guys at the same time. He had never been taught how to do this, so he went back and forth attacking one, then attacking the other.

I was a much lower belt, but I was sitting there thinking "That's not how you do it, you grab one guy, keep him between yourself and the other guy, and beat the crap out of the nearest guy.".

Sure enough, after about 30 seconds or so, the master stopped the fight, went over and told him how to do it, and then he did much better. He had actually never sparred with two foes or been trained to fight two foes.

One thing that I find particularly interesting (and may be what you actually saw in the fight) is to keep backing away to prevent them from surrounding you. So one option would be to use the same mechanism as Pack Tactics and/or Martial Advantage (which is basically sneak attack). I could go with a feat that would allow its use, in which case only the character with the feat gains the benefit. I might also add an option to the Mobile feat to avoid being flanked, or perhaps grant a Dex save.

That would be the second option, to allow anybody to use the tactic, but that it requires an opposed Dexterity check to gain the benefit.

I'm at a stage where if the benefit isn't really worthwhile, then there's not much point in creating the rule. Both Martial Advantage and Pack Tactics make it worthwhile. If the tactic can't provide a similar benefit, then I'll probably just scrap it.

The assumption is that both sides fight to the best of their ability. When outnumbered, always try to position yourself so that as few guys as possible can attack you.

When done properly, too many foes can actually get in each others way and give themselves disadvantage.

So instead of figuring out if the two guys have "flank and advantage" or whether the one guy "positions himself to prevent one of the foes from attacking him", it's just easier to not worry about this kind of thing.

With miniatures, it's often impossible to stop the miniatures from flaking and also often impossible to position one foe between yourself and the other foe and keep them that way. That's an issue of how miniatures and one turn at a time works. It's has nothing to do with real world fighting where time is not segregated into individual turns.

 

[Tormyr]

If you want everyone who is flanking to have advantage, why not just have the first guy use the shove action as part of his attack to knock him prone? Then everyone who is "flanking" gets advantage on every attack.