Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="unobserved" data-source="post: 4272032" data-attributes="member: 63104">By the rules, two characters must be completely opposite of an medium or small enemy to flank them which makes sense for two characters flanking, but in the case of three characters a setup of the following:_C _M C Cresults in none of the (C)haracters flanking the (M)onster, despite the fact that it would be impossible for the monster to face any of them without leaving themselves exposed to at least one other (probably two) characters.Similarly in the following: C MC C only the characters at the top and the bottom would be considered to be flanking the opponent. If the monster chooses to face the PC on the right, you could make the argument that he is then only showing his vulnerable "sides" and not his "back" to the other two PC's. But how is that different from the monster facing sideways when flanked by only two PC's (top and bottom), or even facing one PC head-on when flanked by only two PC's (this only showing his back to one PC).Is anyone else considering to house-rule some of these seemingly "odd" interpretations of the flanking? Would the additional +2 to hit really be unbalancing in these situations?Why can't 3 characters flank a medium sized creature? Why can only two flank them and one of them just attack him like normal? I suppose the desired effect could be achieved if all of the characters constantly spent their move action to shift so that at the start of your turn you would either attack with flanking and then shift to allow someone else to start their turn with flanking or vice versa, but it just seems like a lot of extra shifting for not that great a reason.</blockquote>

Verification