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

[dave2008]

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.

I disagree, you're just using a different definition of the term "charge." I don't disagree that 4e provides more tactical rules, not trying to argue that.

 

[dave2008]

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.

You may be correct for yourself, but not at my table. Heck, we don't even have a healer, and death is at 0!

 

[tetrasodium]

I disagree, you just using a different definition of the term "charge." I don't disagree that 4e provides more tactical rules, not trying to argue that.

I was talking about 3.5 and it seems the only part of your post that applies to what I wrote is...
"I disagree"
To that complete failure at providing even the faintest shred an argument.... um... ok.... It's possible that post 71 was a mistake that you corrected in post 72, but even then you still failed to provide any sort of argument relating to 5e other than "I've gota houserule that only applies to some of those points/problems with 5e"

 

[dave2008]

I was talking about 3.5 and it seems the only part of your post that applies to what I wrote is...
"I disagree"
To that complete failure at providing even the faintest shred an argument.... um... ok....

I was not discussing this with you, it was with @Garthanos and we were discussing 4e not 3.5e.

And as I have stated many times I agree 5e does not have the tactical options of 4e (I guess 3e to, but I didn't play that edition). I am not trying to argue that point and never have. What I disagree with is that it is a universal problem. It is only a problem for those who want more tactical options / rules.

EDIT: To clarify, I am not trying to argue anything. I am just discussing and giving my perspective. I don't have any desire to convince you or @Garthanos that my position is correct, or better, or whatever. It is just another viewpoint and we should all appreciate that their are multiple valid viewpoints about a silly little game that I, and I assume we, enjoy.

EDIT EDIT: I see i accidentally quote you as well - my error on that.

 

[Charlaquin]

I really like that actually. 5e wanted to shy away from any fiddly math bits at all, but I think in moderation they're extremely useful.

+ or - 2 or 5 does exist in 5e here and there. Cover is one example, advantage and disadvantage on passive checks is another. They’re rare but they exist, and I think flanking is a good place to employ them.

 

[Charlaquin]

These aren't bad suggestions, but -5 AC and DEX saves is so mathematically similar to attackers having Advantage, and you having Disadvantage on DEX saves, that you might as well go that way. It also prevents you "doubling up" the benefit from Advantage accrued other ways (though does have the mechanical ugliness that the -2 to AC from the other flank is slightly superior if the attacker otherwise has Advantage, hmmm).

I think as a result I'd probably just only go with the -2 version as the other one is a corner-case scenario, and just makes summoners who pick the "lots of small monsters/objects" options for their spells more powerful.

True. I only suggested the -5 for surrounded to parallel 3/4 cover, but if it doesn’t work, it’s not necessary.

 

[Nebulous]

+ or - 2 or 5 does exist in 5e here and there. Cover is one example, advantage and disadvantage on passive checks is another. They’re rare but they exist, and I think flanking is a good place to employ them.

Yes, I might ask my group if they want to try that instead of the +1 damage. Both are easy enough to implement. But just the -2 to AC and Dex, as pointed out the -5 is just Disadvantage again

 

[Charlaquin]

the -5 is just Disadvantage again

It’s not really though. Fist of all, it can be stacked with advantage/disadvantage. Second of all, it’s a flat modifier while advantage/disadvantage is a bell curve. “Advantage is roughly worth +5” gets thrown around a lot, but it’s only actually worth that much when you need a 10 on the die. The farther from that the target number is, the less the impact of advantage/disadvantage, while a static +5 is the same impact regardless of target number. And 3/4 cover serves as an example of a place where clearly the devs felt +5 was appropriate over disadvantage. I’m not sure if -5 AC and Dex for being surrounded is necessary, but it’s definitely not equivalent of attacks against you having advantage and disadvantage on Dex saves.

 

[tetrasodium]

I was not discussing this with you, it was with @Garthanos and we were discussing 4e not 3.5e.

And as I have stated many times I agree 5e does not have the tactical options of 4e (I guess 3e to, but I didn't play that edition). I am not trying to argue that point and never have. What I disagree with is that it is a universal problem. It is only a problem for those who want more tactical options / rules.

EDIT: To clarify, I am not trying to argue anything. I am just discussing and giving my perspective. I don't have any desire to convince you or @Garthanos that my position is correct, or better, or whatever. It is just another viewpoint and we should all appreciate that their are multiple valid viewpoints about a silly little game that I, and I assume we, enjoy.

EDIT EDIT: I see i accidentally quote you as well - my error on that.

Problem with that line of reasoning is that system differences aside, the gaping voids built into 5e is that3.5 & 4e were much smore similar to each other in terms of things like support for tactical combat on a grid, the presence subjectivity in equipment, & the presence of significant varied choice during character advancement.

For 5e wotc just said "complicated bad", made a list of everything anyone ever said may have been complicated with very little if any consideration to what benefits those things provide, & wrote the system in ways that make it excessively difficult to put many of those things back in.

People are arguing both 3.5 and 4e against some of 5e's half baked failings because both of those systems provide ample evidence for why some of those failings should have been entirely predictable and rather inexcusable. Resorting to "but 3e is different from 4e" lines of reasoning is a poor choice when they both contain an example of similarly functioning tactical combat systems that 5e left on the cutting room floor early on.

Given your professed inexperience with how tactical combat worked in some past editions & musings on removing the few remaining AoOs in 5e over problems created or exacerbated by the lack of AoO supported tactical combat I'd like to suggest that your seeming position of 5e AoOs are fine because 5e is different from past editions might be somewhat internally inconsistent or worse.

 

[OB1]

The rule:

"If a creature is within 5 feet of two hostile creatures of its size or larger, it is flanked. A flanked creature has disadvantage when attacking a target that is not also flanked."

My conceptual justification is that flanked creatures would need to invest more effort in being defensive and, therefore, have more difficulty attacking. My hope, mechanically, is that it makes positioning more meaningful but not overpowering.

I like this concept. Adds some strategy to the willingness to take OAs to get out of the situation.

My suggested would be to add - When flanked, the creature also has 3/4 cover. This would add decision point to the attackers if they have any ranged friends trying to take advantage.

I would also consider allowing three hostile creatures one size smaller than the target or four hostile creatures two sizes smaller than the target to impose the condition.

FWIW - the rules already allow you to do your suggestion, as the DM can grant disadvantage when she deems the situation warrants it. So this isn't really a house rule, it's just an application of the advantage/disadvantage rules already in place.