D&D 5E Flanking

How about +2 damage instead of advantage, nice to have but not big enough to be a necessity. Also keeps Barbarian, Rogue and advantage granting abilities in mind. The biggest plus simplicity.

Eubani said:

How about +2 damage instead of advantage, nice to have but not big enough to be a necessity. Also keeps Barbarian, Rogue and advantage granting abilities in mind. The biggest plus simplicity.

Click to expand...

advantage on the damage die/dice or reroll 1s & 2s is another way would feel monstrous to the player every time they see some low damage rolls jump but in the end not really do anything that random luck couldn't accomplish. GWF & such would still be great for being able to do it without flanking, but the lack of risk/cost in achieving a flanking position beyond "I have X feet of movement left" is still a problem

One thing worth remembering is that the accuracy previous editions allowed you to gain by flanking is already built into 5E characters by default - so even the +2 may be too much.

If you want to use flanking it might be necessary to lift monster AC by perhaps 1 point. (Or 2 if you really want to emphasise it)

I find any flanking rule is already baked into certain monster attacks (pack tactics, etc). For pcs, I’m not a fan. For one thing, I don’t like my D&D games to become technical war game simulations. If players want to flank, they should use aide option to grant another ally advantage. I like to think of it like a feint or distraction that allows the other to attack more effectively. It rarely comes up in our games and i think that helps our combats move more quickly. Not having flanking does’t bother me.

We use it and do not have much problem with it. Could be better, but as abstract movement and fighting, the whole system could be better.

You could grant an extra attack against the flanked opponent. Math may work out the same though with maybe hitting 2 times instead of once with rolling 2d20.

Flanking. You need position ("opposing sides of your target") and use your reaction to grant your ally advantage on one attack.

Since it requires your reaction, you can only do it once per round for only one ally for only one attack. Nicely removes granting advantage on every attack.... Works well enough for me.

We tried it and quickly abandoned the optional Flanking rule because (1) it was too easy for anyone to get Advantage, (2) infringed on several class and monster abilities (e.g. pack tactics) and (3) wasn't so fun when the DM threw a large pack of enemies at the PCs. There's already problems when you're surrounded: more chances to get hit, harder to run away, harder to move to another square without provoking AOO.

I also tend to avoid more counting of modifiers during combat. It's what turned 3E and Pathfinder combats into multi-hour slogs at higher levels.

That said, you could look at it a different way while keeping it simple. Remove the ability to Disengage without provoking AOO from all opponents if flanked.

Charlaquin said:

I actually really like the Facing rule, provided the Mark rule is also in play. That also allows you to make use of tactical positioning to gain advantage, but it takes more work to get that advantage than flanking.

Click to expand...

I've actually never thought to try combining those two rules like that, I really like the idea ! I think I'll have to try that in my current game. Thanks !

Don Durito said:

One thing worth remembering is that the accuracy previous editions allowed you to gain by flanking is already built into 5E characters by default - so even the +2 may be too much.

Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain that to me, especially because the DMG has optional rules where flanking grants advantage. Advantage is essentially always better unless your character is horrible at melee. Either the game is built to account for characters getting circumstantial bonuses like advantage or bless or magic weapons, or the entire combat system is broken.

Seriously, look at the percentages for d20+2 vs d20 advantage, remembering that a natural 20 is always a success. D20+2 is only better when you need the d20+2 roll to be a 19, 20, or 21 to hit, which is like AC 23-25 at level 1 and like AC 28-30 at level 10. Even then I'm not sure if the higher crit rate of advantage doesn't mean it's still better. This is not a scenario we realistically need to care about.

I think flanking being +2 is perfectly fine. However, I would also probably say that flanking counts as advantage, too, so it's spoiled by (and spoils) disadvantage and it doesn't stack with (and is superceded by) advantage. That's a lot more fiddley, but I think it's a good compromise to prevent bonus hunting.

Bacon Bits said:

You're going to have to explain that to me, especially because the DMG has optional rules where flanking grants advantage. Advantage is essentially always better unless your character is horrible at melee. Either the game is built to account for characters getting circumstantial bonuses like advantage or bless or magic weapons, or the entire combat system is broken.

Seriously, look at the percentages for d20+2 vs d20 advantage, remembering that a natural 20 is always a success. D20+2 is only better when you need the d20+2 roll to be a 19, 20, or 21 to hit, which is like AC 23-25 at level 1 and like AC 28-30 at level 10. Even then I'm not sure if the higher crit rate of advantage doesn't mean it's still better. This is not a scenario we realistically need to care about.

I think flanking being +2 is perfectly fine. However, I would also probably say that flanking counts as advantage, too, so it's spoiled by (and spoils) disadvantage and it doesn't stack with (and is superceded by) advantage. That's a lot more fiddley, but I think it's a good compromise to prevent bonus hunting.

Click to expand...

The hit chance is what 65 to 70% in 5E? So a +2 will take it up to 75-80%. (I was specifically talking about using +2 for flanking rather than advantage as has been discussed in the thread - I pretty much think Advantage is a non starter unless you increase monster AC by even more - and probably reduce their attacks as well)

This is a difference in feel. In 4E you really wanted flanking to get off your powers with some reliability - in 3E you wanted it for iterative attacks or at lower levels just to be confident of hitting. In 5E you're already pretty confident of hitting - so flanking isn't needed for that purpose. Plus 5E gives warriors multi-attacks so that even when they do miss it's mitigated because their damage is spread out amongst multiple attacks. Make the hit chance too high and you'll start losing some of the tension of combat (one may argue that 5E has already gone a little too far in this direction).

And remember this is not just for PCs (who probably won't complain - at least in the short term - about hitting too often). If I'm trying to play the Sword and Board fighter with Sentinel who tanks for the party I'm going to run into problems if the limited amount of power I have to pump my defences due to bounded accuracy is reduced by enemies getting a +2 to hit). My experience is that these kinds of characters already get hit more in 5E then in previous editions.