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

[Trurl]

Never played a long game of D&D without house rules. Short games yes but the longer the game the longer the list of house rules.

I would actually consider a by the book game inferior to a house ruled game unless everyone involved found the official rules for every situation that came up in game well done. Since players generally are crazy and constantly do things nobody could think of before hand(last night I had a pc fling his shield at a npc from atop a castle wall three hundred feet strait up, while the npc was just trying to walk out the gate) I would be amazed if house rules didn't become necessary.


If however everyone is fine with the official rules then great! I don't understand peoples desire to interfere with someone else's game.


If you are playing D&D with actual fish heads and home made playing cards and everyone is having a great time, you are playing D&D right!

What rule did you create for the shield drop?

 

[Hriston]

You could have just asked that, and skipped the bad socratic questioning.

But, to respond to your points, here, you're engaging in an excluded middle. If the DM implements his discretion in a manner that's indistinguishable (or nearly so) from the optional rule, that's a rule he's using, and one not apparent from the base rules. On the other hand, nothing in my response would imply that I would require that the DM provide, in advance, in-game rulings based on the emergent play. I can expect to be told about house rules in effect, and still be perfectly fine with the DM granting advantage in situations not covered explicitly by the rules as he sees fit. My line is where the latter becomes such a common ruling that it should be codified as a house rule.

I find it interesting that, in your view, ruling consistently on a common circumstance is not apparent in the rules and ought to be codified by a houserule or the adoption of an optional rule, whereas making an on-the-fly ruling on a circumstance that rarely comes up is seen as somehow more in line with the base rules. Or is this just more black and white thinking on my part?

 

[Flamestrike]

Ran it for my first session, ditched it afterwards.

Its trivially easy to get, devalues advantage in combat, and punishes the crap out of the PCs (particularlly the melee martials). You generally dont have more than 1 or 2 frontline PCs in any party, usually facing off against a 'heavy' and a half dozen or so mooks. It also adds a layer of complexity I dont need, and by nerfing it, it makes tracking posititon in ToTM easier, and does away with the 5' shuffle.

Youre already at a disadvantage facing multiple opponents in melee by copping twice the number of attacks and having to deal with twice the number of HP in return. I see no reason to make that worse.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

What if the DM told you only the base rules are being used, and when combat begins you find out the DM consistently grants advantage for tactical positioning in combat, including flanking of opponents? Would you complain that an undisclosed option/houserule is being used?

I would!

It would probably go like this:
Me: "Are you using only the standard rules?"
DM: "Yes."
Me: "Alright, cool, I'll join."
(later)
DM: "I grant advantage for flanking the opponent."
Me: "Hey you said you only use the standard rules! Flanking is an optional rule."
DM: "I just use the standard rule that allows me to grant advantage as I see fit."
Me: "Well, that's fine, but if you give it every time someone is getting flanked, then it ruins the game balance. Consider only giving it in extraordinary situations."

 

[Ovinomancer]

I find it interesting that, in your view, ruling consistently on a common circumstance is not apparent in the rules and ought to be codified by a houserule or the adoption of an optional rule, whereas making an on-the-fly ruling on a circumstance that rarely comes up is seen as somehow more in line with the base rules. Or is this just more black and white thinking on my part?

Just more black and white thinking on your part, with a side dose of creating strawman.

Here's some good advice: if you'd like to know how I think in a given situation, present the situation and ask me. Don't first assume you know what I think and then require me to defend it.

 

[Curmudjinn]

How is every page of this thread the exact same conversation..
It is about what flanking does. Not the ethics of using optional rules. Can we carry on now?

Maybe more alternate ideas for what flanking could do?

 

[Ovinomancer]

How is every page of this thread the exact same conversation..
It is about what flanking does. Not the ethics of using optional rules. Can we carry on now?

Maybe more alternate ideas for what flanking could do?

"What flanking does" is already a topic drift from what this thread was originally about. Don't you think it a bit, well, weird to demand we stay on the topic of the first topic drift so that we don't engage in topic drift?

 

[Hriston]

Just more black and white thinking on your part, with a side dose of creating strawman.

Okay, maybe there is no meaningful distinction except that one is more common than the other.

Here's some good advice: if you'd like to know how I think in a given situation, present the situation and ask me. Don't first assume you know what I think and then require me to defend it.

That's what I was trying to do before in an attempt to clarify your position. You seemed annoyed that I was asking you questions you felt you'd already answered.

 

[Hriston]

I would!

It would probably go like this:
Me: "Are you using only the standard rules?"
DM: "Yes."
Me: "Alright, cool, I'll join."
(later)
DM: "I grant advantage for flanking the opponent."
Me: "Hey you said you only use the standard rules! Flanking is an optional rule."
DM: "I just use the standard rule that allows me to grant advantage as I see fit."
Me: "Well, that's fine, but if you give it every time someone is getting flanked, then it ruins the game balance. Consider only giving it in extraordinary situations."

This seems like a problem with the frequency with which a given DM grants advantage for various situations. This will vary from table to table. For example, would you have a problem with a DM that gives advantage to social interaction checks when a character is having a conversation with a member of its own race?

 

[Arial Black]

I find it interesting that, in your view, ruling consistently on a common circumstance is not apparent in the rules and ought to be codified by a houserule or the adoption of an optional rule, whereas making an on-the-fly ruling on a circumstance that rarely comes up is seen as somehow more in line with the base rules. Or is this just more black and white thinking on my part?

There is an optional rule, a rule of which you are completely aware, that gives advantage to attack an opponent that you are flanking.

If I ask if you are using any optional rules in general, or ask if you are using the optional flanking rule in particular, and you say that you are not, I'd take that at face value.

Then, during play, you consistently give advantage for flanking, while still claiming that you are not using the optional flanking rule but just using your DM authority to judge things on the fly, but your judgement just happens to perfectly match the optional flanking rule every single time, can you understand why I'd accuse you of lying to my face?