D&D 5E D&D 5E Does flanking grant advantage ?

[Ruin Explorer]

Come now, do we really need to qualify every statement with IMHO in order to avoid snark?

I think in this case, when he's arguing that it is a fact, and bases his entire thesis on this unsupported opinion, then, yes, one could stand to have clarity on that.

I'm not suggesting every statement needs such clarification, and I think it's pretty snarky to imply I am (oh, the irony!).

 

[Hriston]

[MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION], I'm glad you found my post amusing. Please feel free to share what you think is funny about it.

 

[Arial Black]

It's a standard rule that the DM can assign advantage to a roll for any circumstance the DM decides will have a significant effect on the roll's outcome. This can include situations in combat such as being flanked by opponents or opponents holding the higher ground. The optional flanking rule is merely a suggestion as to one way in which the DM can exercise his role as the granter of advantage and disadvantage and do it in a way that's consistent. This is a basic function of the DM in the standard rules, so the adoption of optional flanking doesn't change the way the standard rules function one iota. The DM in one of your standard games always has the ability to grant advantage and doesn't need an optional rule to do it for flanking.

Just because rule 0 says that DMs can do whatever they like, this doesn't mean that every possible optional rule they might use is therefore a 'standard' rule by definition.

 

[Hriston]

Just because rule 0 says that DMs can do whatever they like, this doesn't mean that every possible optional rule they might use is therefore a 'standard' rule by definition.

I'm not invoking "rule 0". I'm invoking this rule from page 173 of the Player's Handbook:

"The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result."

This is one of three ways you can gain advantage or disadvantage under the standard rules.

 

[Hriston]

First of all: Don't care so much about min-maxing. It shouldn't about highest damage output, but more about what leads to the most fun. Help really doesn't need to increase the damage, as it makes combat more interesting, less damage is fine too.

If you are in combat with my monsters, they are either trying to kill you, capture you, or drive you away. Doing as much damage as possible is usually the best way to accomplish these goals. When the monsters try to achieve their goals to the best of their abilities, that's more fun for me and those I play with.

Second: The rest is all about balancing so that combat is more fun to play. For this, you should first realize that even with just normal attacks, when you are fighting X enemies, it's usually the best strategy to gank up on one, so there are less enemies left that can damage you on their turn. Spreading up attacks on the other hand is already rarely useful. If you add the flanking rule to this now, then focusing on a single enemy gets even better. So in the end combat will lose a lot of strategical decision because all on one enemy will be what everyone does.

You shouldn't care so much about "balance" in combat. Combat is deadly. If you make it so, the players will be more likely to take a balanced approach to all three pillars of the game.

Help is a substitute in so far, that it allows you to narrate something as flanking without actually making the attack even better. Help is a lot more interesting because in many situations it's worse but in some situations it's actually better and there are nice synergies with other skills (buffs etc.). Using help as substitute for flanking makes combat consequently much more balanced and interesting.
That's why I'm saying it's a good substitute for flanking.

But it's already part of the rules, so it can't be introduced as a substitute for anything. Allow me to illustrate. If I was following a recipe that called for butter and olive oil, I could substitute more butter for the olive oil. But if I want flanking to have a mechanical effect in the game, I can't add more Help action to make that happen without making a considerable houserule to alter the way Help functions. Flanking creatures already have access to the Help action if they want to use it. Optional flanking is an addition that adds something to the game. You're not suggesting anything to add in its place.

You see the good thing about being free to give advantage as DM rather than binding it to a fixed situation is, that I can grant it sometimes and sometimes not. It allows me to reward good narration. I could decide to not give advantage when someone just says "I attack X from the side", but decide to grant advantage for a really clever situational idea the player comes up with to gain advantage on the next attack.
Using the optional flanking rules takes away from that freedom. You suddenly have to almost always give advantage to attacks. You can no longer award good ideas very well and in the long run, it will make combat more boring, because players won't feel motivated to come up with clever ideas.

I was unaware that making inconsistent rulings was an ideal, but to each his/her own.

Feel free to laugh [MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION]. I realize pressing the laugh button may be one of the only forms of communication available to you.

 

[Curmudjinn]

I was unaware that making inconsistent rulings was an ideal, but to each his/her own.

Feel free to laugh [MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION]. I realize pressing the laugh button may be one of the only forms of communication available to you.

Yet the situation mentioned wasn't based on inconsistency, but valid use of intellect, deemed appropriate by the DM. In both cases above, passive/aggressively insulting others is still insulting..

 

[Awesome Adam]

Even if you are using the flanking rule , the DM still has the final say if it does, or does not apply.

Just this weekend, at our gaming table, a dwarf tried to flank a HUGE hydra, and the DM said he was too insignificant a threat to distract the Hydra enough to grant a flanking bonus.

We used the rule. DM decided in this instance it was more interesting to not grant the bonus, and leave the solo creature a greater threat. No house rules needed, just what was in the core rulebook.

 

[Reynard]

Even if you are using the flanking rule , the DM still has the final say if it does, or does not apply.

Just this weekend, at our gaming table, a dwarf tried to flank a HUGE hydra, and the DM said he was too insignificant a threat to distract the Hydra enough to grant a flanking bonus.

We used the rule. DM decided in this instance it was more interesting to not grant the bonus, and leave the solo creature a greater threat. No house rules needed, just what was in the core rulebook.

First of all, using an optional rule IS a house rule. Second, applying that optional rule in such a way is definitely a house rule. I am not saying it is a wrong way to play or anything -- it actually sounds like a perfectly valid judgement call by the DM -- I am just flabbergasted by you insistance throughout this thread that you are not house ruling or otherwise playing a "non-standard" game.

 

[Hriston]

Yet the situation mentioned wasn't based on inconsistency, but valid use of intellect, deemed appropriate by the DM.

It was an argument against ruling consistently on specific types of action taken by creatures in favor of protecting the DM's ability to reward creative descriptions of such actions. I prefer to grant advantage for what creatures do rather than how their players describe it, but like I said, YMMV.

In both cases above, passive/aggressively insulting others is still insulting..

You're right, I should probably watch my tone. I do notice, however, that you aren't calling out laughing derisively at every post with which you disagree as insulting.

 

[Curmudjinn]

You're right, I should probably watch my tone. I do notice, however, that you aren't calling out laughing derisively at every post with which you disagree as insulting.

I didn't think it necessary, as you already did in your prior post.

As for the optional rule/house rule conversation, which is pretty much a ridiculous topic to care or fret about.. House rules are created by the table to modify a game beyond given rules within official sourcebooks. I would rule that using a sidebar optional rule isn't a houserule, as it is still provided by the rules. But that also doesn't mean it HAS to be used, like some DMs say, and force every letter down their table's throats. Now, using those optional rules out of context is, of course, a house ruling.

Everything isn't black and white. Some things are in the middle, but people like to think simple.