D&D 5E A Simple Flanking Rule, What Do You think?

[Fanaelialae]

The larger thing in consideration is the rules for evading taking opportunity attacks while obtaining that or the other benefits movement can grant which opportunity attacks balance like charging.

It is kind of insane charging is behind a feat pay wall.

In 5e you can move and still make your full attacks. Describe it as a charge if you prefer. Want a really strong charge attack? Take the feat. IOW, charging is not behind a "feat pay wall". But you can take a feat to be better at charging.

 

[Garthanos]

Anyone can charge in 5e. Move + attack.

No everyone can do that in 4e too... Your charge is slow and purposeful the attack at the end potentially complex for anyone capable of complex attacks including sneak attacks and so on.
The 4e charge is potentially a move + a dash and attack with a benefit.
it is an encouragement to move a little like flanking is.
Additionally there were many abilities that keyed off of that. ...like class at-wills that turn that attack with movement into even more because it is an attack with movement and feats that boost that charge effect further.

5e you need a bloody feat to charge.

 

[Garthanos]

In 5e you can move and still make your full attacks.

Describing slow and purposeful movement as a charge seems kind of funny

 

[Fanaelialae]

No everyone can do that in 4e too... Your charge is slow and purposeful the attack at the end potentially complex including sneak attacks and so on.
The 4e charge is potentially a move + a dash and attack with a benefit.
it is an encouragement to move a little like flanking is.
Additionally there were many abilities that keyed off of that. ...like class at-wills that turn that attack with movement into even more because it is an attack with movement and feats that boost that charge effect further.

5e you need a bloody feat to charge.

IIRC, in 4e you can move and make a basic attack as a charge. But there are powers that allow you better versions of charge.

In 5e you can also move and attack. If you want a better version, take the feat.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So don't make it slow and purposeful. Make it rapid and reckless.

You could even narrate it thus: "I begin walking slowly and purposefully toward the orcs, but then I start thinking about how bitter I am about 5e, and how angry I am that nobody wants to play 4e with me anymore, getting progressively faster and more furious the whole time, until by the time I get to the orc I am a veritable juggernaut of rage and frustration."

The imagination is a wonderful thing.

 

[Garthanos]

IIRC, in 4e you can move and make a basic attack as a charge. But there are powers that allow you better versions of charge.

You are giving up subtlety on that attack in 4e because its at the end of a charge.. you can move twice as far on a turn you charge and gain a bonus on the end result of that charge.
Static in comparison in 5e.

In 5e you can also move and attack. If you want a better version, take the feat.

5e characters are edging along carefully whatever you want to call it numerically you are walking over and attacking.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You are giving up subtlety on that attack in 4e because its at the end of a charge.. you can move twice as far on a turn you charge and gain a bonus on the end result of that charge.
Static in comparison in 5e.

5e characters are edging along carefully whatever you want to call it numerically you are walking over and attacking.

Yeah, sure, if you start from a position that 5e charge must look like 4e charge then you're completely correct. Of course, this is the same as a great many of the criticisms levied against 4e so I don't really agree with that line of thinking. Each edition ought to be judged on its own merits and internal functions.

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, sure, if you start from a position that 5e charge must look like 4e charge then you're completely correct.

Except Charging in 5e kind of does look like the 4e one... and that is where it is called a charge

 

[tetrasodium]

Not IME. I'm actually think about getting rid of OA completely because my players have become reluctant to run by or away from enemies because of OAs. Maybe I'm to punishing though. Now, I do get it in terms of Disegnage as @Garthanos pointed out. However, we house ruled disengage almost immediately and I had forgotten about that.

Based on experience of past editions where AoOs were something that imposed meaningful gravity on combat positioning/over extending choices, the lack of those choices causes that never retreat never worry disregard. Take that example earlier where Scott gets hit by 4 AoOs just by spending an action to dig a potion out from any pack but hewards handy haversack and still needs to endure a second round of attacks before he can get a bunch more AoOs drinking that potion. Players would balance their advance against the knowledge that:

• Negative HP need to be healed one by one & you die instantly at -10, it doesn't simply go away if you are at 1hp & get hit for maxhp-1 so they do something & maybe pull back long before they look like the black knight from holy grail/
• There was no 30foot swift/bonus action first level spell a healer could toss out to instantly allow you to take another hit up to one point below your max hp even if healing word only gives 2 hp so you needed to be careful to make sure heal capable types could reach you if healing was needed.
• Without healing word, no healer was likely to charge through an army of AoO after AoO just to cast cure critical wounds on leroy jenkins so he could mindlessly attack till he's down again & said healer was certainly going to have the group backing him up when it comes time to berate leroy on the finer artsof stretegy & not wasting resources.

The problem you are seeing is caused by or exacerbated by 5e's boneheaded failure to include a completed tactical combat system for play on a grid.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, sure, if you start from a position that 5e charge must look like 4e charge then you're completely correct. Of course, this is the same as a great many of the criticisms levied against 4e so I don't really agree with that line of thinking. Each edition ought to be judged on its own merits and internal functions.

No it's not just that. The numerical reasons for charge being valuable in 3.5 are missing from 5e. With resistance being half damage you are almost if not always better off with multiple (weapondie+mods+stat)*ManyAttacks than one big attack that tries to pile all of that into one attack both for raw damage as well as more chances to hit/crit. Back in 3.5that hit it many times strategy excelled at normal creatures where the hit it with a freight train carrying a mountain strategy was weakest. But as soon as you had a monster on the field with things like dr5 dr10 or more those two strategies shift position.

Spoiler: 3.5 stock charge action

but a character who specializes in hitting something with a mountain once per round is going to have feats that further increase the damage of that one attack so it will really make a big difference. 5e left out both the variety of ways to notably improve a charge as well as the reasons to want a charge.

Even if you do take the feat it's a gigantic trap that only looks good if you don't think about it.