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

[dave2008]

It's great that the tactical void of 5e "works" for you, but when it works so well that your thinking of removing it. That calls into question if the incomplete system works in a constructive way and why you seem to be arguing that ignoring a completed tactical combat system would not also work for you.

That is not what I said, and definitely not what I intended. I don't make house rules in a vacuum. We make them as a group, together. I said I was thinking about it, but my group has expressed no interest at this time. I also said the reason was probably because I was being to vicious with them. That being said, the real reason I am pondering it is I think fighters are under powered and I wanted to give them a boost and I liked how that is a unique fighter feature in PF2e. It really has nothing to do with 5e, just my wandering mind, musing over some PF2e innovations.

Now please stop trying to convince me I am not enjoying the game that I enjoy. I am not trying to convince you 5e can do everything you want or that it is tactically equal to 3e or 4e.

 

[squibbles]

Thinking on this some more, I don't think this is a good rule unless you want slower combats.

This makes it fairly easy for many of the combatants on the field to have disadvantage. Even in a common 2v2 fight where everyone is standing adjacent to each other, everyone has disadvantage. That's likely to cause encounters to drag.

It would make combat somewhat slower, but the exception for attacking flanked targets would prevent a 2v2 everyone has advantage vs everyone issue.

Why 30', wouldn't the cover issue apply even if your 10' away?

It might. I didn't want to include a facing component or strain verisimilitude too much, so I picked an arbitrary number.

 

[Blue]

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.

Do you like the rule and, if not, what rule do you use instead and why is it preferable?

1. 5e already does it's worst when the action economy is off kilter, such as a solo foe. This makes it even more unbalanced.

2. It forces the assumption that the person will be more defensive. That is not true for many. Do not tell me how to run my PC. Do not tell me as a DM that mindless undead are more protective.

3. It also makes the assumption the person will pay attention to both combatants. If one is a kobold and the other a dragon, the dragon could have my full attention as opposed to the kobold changing my offense.

In general, any rules that assume the flanked will change behavior can find cases they are not true (mindless, mind controlled, confused, etc.)

Plus while the flaw with solos and other disparate action economy encounters exists, this actively does the opposite of what I want in combats. Not through any flaw of it's own, but because of the context it's being put in where flanking is easier when you have more people than the enemy.

 

[Nebulous]

Not by me. 5e has tactical options, but they do not rise to the level of a full fledged module. Nor do the options have the breadth and depth of 4e, and they are clearly not what you are looking for. However, they are enough for some.

To be clear, 5e doesn't have any "modules" tactical or otherwise.

I was expecting something along the lines of 3e Unearthed Arcana which would be a big official rules book of options to slap on your 5e to fundamentally change it in many ways.

 

[dave2008]

I was expecting something along the lines of 3e Unearthed Arcana which would be a big official rules book of options to slap on your 5e to fundamentally change it in many ways.

That would be nice, and it could still happen, but it seems unlikely any time soon - if at all.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think I prefer having a Flanked target take a -2 penalty to AC instead of giving any bonus or advantage to the attackers.

This game already has plenty of buffs, but not nearly enough debuffs IMO.

 

[OB1]

It might. I didn't want to include a facing component or strain verisimilitude too much, so I picked an arbitrary number.

Agree with @dave2008 on not limiting to shots from 30' away. As to verisimilitude, I'd argue that two attackers pressing in on a single enemy position would mean the ranged attacker needs to be much more careful with her shot to avoid hitting a friendly, thus the 3/4 cover even if the shooter is on one side and the two attackers on the other side.

 

[tetrasodium]

I was expecting something along the lines of 3e Unearthed Arcana which would be a big official rules book of options to slap on your 5e to fundamentally change it in many ways.

They could probably do a lot of improvements with a book like how unearthed arcana did for 3.5 or but seem pretty cold on the idea whenever it comes up. People mention phb2 every so often but that was really more focused on some newclasses/new spells & feats/etc and we get a lot of that kinda stuff than providing 3.5 with new dials & levers that could be adjusted. PHB2 did have some new houserules & such that could be used but nothing like unearthed arcana did. I was hoping that laeral silverhand's explorer's kit might have been that sorta thing but it turned out to be a dice thing

Spoiler: Unearted Arcana ToC

Spoiler: pbh2 ToC

 

[dave2008]

They could probably do a lot of improvements with a book like how unearthed arcana did for 3.5 or but seem pretty cold on the idea whenever it comes up. People mention phb2 every so often but that was really more focused on some newclasses/new spells & feats/etc and we get a lot of that kinda stuff than providing 3.5 with new dials & levers that could be adjusted. PHB2 did have some new houserules & such that could be used but nothing like unearthed arcana did. I was hoping that laeral silverhand's explorer's kit might have been that sorta thing but it turned out to be a dice thing

Spoiler: Unearted Arcana ToC

View attachment 120727

Spoiler: pbh2 ToC

View attachment 120728

I think that would be a great idea for D&D too; however, I don't think it is happening soon. If PF2e starts taking a chunk or if 5e stops growing, such a book becomes more probable.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think that would be a great idea for D&D too; however, I don't think it is happening soon. If PF2e starts taking a chunk or if 5e stops growing, such a book becomes more probable.

Never know, maybe some of it will come sooner than later.