D&D 5E "The problem with 5e" is the best feature - advantage

[tetrasodium]

FWIW, we use flanking rules and have no issues with them. I'm just pointing out that if you have issues with it, don't use it. shrug

Anyway, I love how you focused on that after my recent posts. I'll let others continue any discussion with you on this topic. Have a nice day.

I've used them too, but the fact that they "function" doesn't change the problem. Look at the first five words in the flanking rule. If a table is one that can say they "regularly use miniatures" & wants to add rules to make positioning matter by attaching a bonus/penalty to good & bad positioning, there needs to be more involved than having enough movement to circle around into flanking position, but they removed the shift/5 foot step & nearly everything that can provoke an AoO so a player could literally dash then cunning action dash again to circle a baddie like they were the flash or something without being subjected to an AoO. It takes deliberate effort to miss the mark so badly that they would waste page space that could be used for nearly anything else with a flanking rule that amounts to "you could choose to change the attack roll from 1d20+mods to 2d20k1+mods in nearly all situations if you want"

 

[Don Durito]

I've concluded that flanking really doesn't work in 5e. You can reduce the bonus to +2 like in previous editions but it's still too easy to get - although if you pull it back to +2 it doesn't matter that much.

I was missing 'charge' last night (not really sure why that was removed), and will probably put that back in (can't see any reason not to - it has some difficulties with totm but lots of 5e rules have bigger problems) but didn't want to do it in the middle of a combat.

I think one of the issues is that they simplified the core without magic - and then added magic back in. This creates a weird disconnect where melee combat is simplified to allow for totm but spells all still have highly specific rules and spherical diameters that revert back beyond even the simplifications of 4e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've concluded that flanking really doesn't work in 5e. You can reduce the bonus to +2 like in previous editions but it's still too easy to get - although if you pull it back to +2 it doesn't matter that much.

I was missing 'charge' last night (not really sure why that was removed), and will probably put that back in (can't see any reason not to - it has some difficulties with totm but lots of 5e rules have bigger problems) but didn't want to do it in the middle of a combat.

I think one of the issues is that they simplified the core without magic - and then added magic back in. This creates a weird disconnect where melee combat is simplified to allow for totm but spells all still have highly specific rules and spherical diameters that revert back beyond even the simplifications of 4e.

As is all too often the case, magic screws everything up. And I say this as someone who loves magic!

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW Concerning FLANKING:

I think an easy fix for flanking is via the Help action, but if you are in a "flanking" position, you can Help (i.e. grant advantage) using your bonus action instead of your action.

Alternatively, you could even make it so you can spend your reaction when an ally attacks to grant them advantage when you are flanking a common opponent. This has the added benefit of only being able to grant advantage to an ally for one attack since (normally) you only have one reaction per round.

Actually, I like the latter option more. It makes sense thematically, "Oh, Bob is about to attack, I will use my reaction to distract the target!"

Just some thoughts.

 

[tetrasodium]

FWIW Concerning FLANKING:

I think an easy fix for flanking is via the Help action, but if you are in a "flanking" position, you can Help (i.e. grant advantage) using your bonus action instead of your action.

Alternatively, you could even make it so you can spend your reaction when an ally attacks to grant them advantage when you are flanking a common opponent.

Actually, I like the latter option more. It makes sense thematically, "Oh, Bob is about to attack, I will use my reaction to distract the target!"

Just some thoughts.

no that doesn't do much because of two reasons. A: short of twf builds most melee types don't have a bonus action they use let alone one to use every round so you still have flanking come down to "do I have an extra 15 feet of movement ye or no" and have not attached any meaningful cost to getting into flanking position. 5e does a lot of that kind of thing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

no that doesn't do much because of two reasons. A: short of twf builds most melee types don't have a bonus action they use let alone one to use every round so you still have flanking come down to "do I have an extra 15 feet of movement ye or no" and have not attached any meaningful cost to getting into flanking position. 5e does a lot of that kind of thing.

Did you even read the second, alternatively... part of my post?

Think some more about it. It helps a lot.

Sorry, I forgot to address: as for a meaningful cost to get into flanking position? What do you want, you use your movement. It is no different than lacking a "meaningful cost" to engage an enemy.

 

[TwoSix]

I used to be against flanking giving advantage, but now I'm for it. Why? Because it's a simple way to give melee a leg up against ranged attackers that pretty much everyone is familiar with.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I used to be against flanking giving advantage, but now I'm for it. Why? Because it's a simple way to give melee a leg up against ranged attackers that pretty much everyone is familiar with.

I see your point, but frankly IMO hitting in 5E is so easy (usually 60-70% or better chance to hit), that with advantage it is even worse (85-90% or so!). For myself, I don't like games where things become near automatic.

Now, with some of our other house-rules in effect, the chance of hitting is reduced to about 40-50%, so advantage is still very impactful, but not quite as bad.

My preference now as this thread has discussed it would be to allow flanking to grant advantage to one attack by your ally, not all of them. shrug

 

[TwoSix]

I see your point, but frankly IMO hitting in 5E is so easy (usually 60-70% or better chance to hit), that with advantage it is even worse (85-90% or so!). For myself, I don't like games where things become near automatic.

Bug or feature, I guess. Combat can take a while at higher levels, so I'm happy with anything that provides some juice to offense. Enemies with ACs in the 20s are not uncommon in my games, so my players aren't seeing 70% hit rates all that often.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Bug or feature, I guess. Combat can take a while at higher levels, so I'm happy with anything that provides some juice to offense. Enemies with ACs in the 20s are not uncommon in my games, so my players aren't seeing 70% hit rates all that often.

ACs in the 20s? How high, though? I mean at tier 3 the average AC for monsters is about 17-18 and even in tier 4 you get about 19-20. The most powerful dragons are only AC 22 and AC 25 is the top IME barring magical items or something?

At tier 3 we typically have +4-5 proficiency as well as ability, so say +9 average. Notwithstanding magical weapons, another +1 or 2 maybe, or features or spells, getting a +11-13 is pretty easy. With AC averaging maybe 18, that only requires a 5-7 to hit on the d20, hence the 70% hit chance.

At tier 4, bonuses are only slightly higher in total, maybe +12-14 overall, but ACs are averaging maybe 20? So, here a roll of 6-8 is needed, which makes hitting well better than 50/50.

So, how or what are you doing to get ACs in the 20s as "not uncommon" at those levels?