D&D 5E 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"

[Satyrn]

I use the flanking variant rule from the DMG, and have never found the slightest reason not to.

Am I alone in this?

Well, presumably the rest of your table is with you.



But yeah, my table tried flanking and dropped it after one session.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I don't really like flanking. The 'Help' action works well and is a bit more cinematic.

You can describe it as dancing around the enemy using acrobatics to distract, using intimidation to put an enemy off-guard, or shove them with athletics. Maybe you poor a drink over their head. Maybe you offer inspiring words to your ally.

That's why they got rid of modifiers and just made Advantage. So you could be free to use your imagination and let the table decide if your action gives you some kind of ... advantage.

The other reason I don't like flanking rules is because they changed the rules of Attacks of Opportunities. It's way too easy to get in to flanking position now because there's no risk for moving more than 5 feet when you are next to an enemy.

 

[gyor]

I've been running 5E on a consistent basis for several groups since it was officially released. Now that I'm basically leaving 5E, I'm looking at a few things that never quite worked for my groups and me.

1) Backgrounds. They just don't contribute enough to the character's abilities and feel tacked on.
2) Inspiration. Half-baked idea that is literally never remembered. Unless you have people always fishing for bonuses in annoying ways.
3) Treasure Hordes. This is in the DMG, and there is actually a recommended schedule for awarding magic items and treasure. Too bad no official products ever used these guidelines.
4) Advantage/Disadvantage. +5/-5 is too big of a modifier for most conditions. Flanking is lethal against the PCs (so we didn't use it).
5) Bonded Accuracy. A good idea in practice, except that it turns monsters into bags of hit points.

What did I miss?

So in other words 5e just doesn't work for you at all because bounded accuracy and advantage/disadvantage is at the very heart of the system.

 

[Oofta]

I use the flanking variant rule from the DMG, and have never found the slightest reason not to.

Am I alone in this?

Alone? No. In the minority? Probably.

 

[Parmandur]

Off-topic, but this phrase startled me. 4e is already "back when" and "years ago"? Amazing.

That's like "Those of us who remember the Obama administration..."

4E has been out of print for longer than it was in print. A minority of D&D players at this point even ever played it, I'd wager.

 

[Laurefindel]

As for missed opportunities, a few more things come to my mind.

Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning damage. It looks like 5e devs wanted to go somewhere with that, or wanted to keep a door opened for a further "module" of the ruleset, but never got very far with the concept of B/P/S damage. There was an opportunity to remove this concept from the game entirely - or to have B/P/S interact more with AC - but the final result feels like the leftovers of a good idea that didn't take off, or the incomplete implementation of a good concept.

Another missed opportunity was to give a more prominent and distinct role to the Investigation skill to 1) dial back the disproportional importance of the Perception skill and 2) give poor Intelligence a good reason to exist for all but wizard characters (ok, bit of an exaggeration here, but still... poor intelligence). Passive investigation, as suggested by the Observant feat, sounds like a cool concept, but one I've never seen being used in any game, including those I DM.

If class symmetry is/was a goal, there was a missed opportunity to have warlocks use INT as their caster ability. Then we'd have two INT casters (wizards and warlocks), two WIS casters (clerics and druids) and two CHA casters (bards and sorcerers). It would have fit so well! I know this is more aesthetic than anything really, but I like symmetry.

Going further with class symmetry, there are six non(full)caster classes, each with a (somewhat) defining key ability: fighter (STR), rogue (DEX), barbarian (CON), monk (WIS), paladin (CHA). Again Intelligence is left out, which *could* have matched a certain design of the ranger. Again, probably very low on the design goals list, but they *did* have the opportunity to make it so. Makes me sad. I like symmetry.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Alone? No. In the minority? Probably.

Well, presumably the rest of your table is with you.



But yeah, my table tried flanking and dropped it after one session.

Ok, but why? It works fine, adds depth to combat, makes positioning matter without bogging anything down...what did you experience with it that we haven’t, over several years of playing 5e?

 

[Oofta]

Ok, but why? It works fine, adds depth to combat, makes positioning matter without bogging anything down...what did you experience with it that we haven’t, over several years of playing 5e?

In general it benefits medium or smaller monsters more than the PCs and gives too much of an advantage to PCs versus larger monsters.

In addition, it lowers the perceived value of other way of getting advantage. Why bother knocking prone/attacking from hidden/helping/etc if it's so easy to get? Last but not least, it's just another thing to track.

There's nothing wrong with doing it, it just has too many drawbacks for a lot of groups.

 

[Satyrn]

Ok, but why? It works fine, adds depth to combat, makes positioning matter without bogging anything down...what did you experience with it that we haven’t, over several years of playing 5e?

I think we mostly felt that it made positioning matter less, that it encouraged the melee types to stick together too much. Without flanking, we get spaced out more, attacking different foes in different corners of the battlefield. As a melee focused player I definitely prefer that result. It's less tactical, sure, but it feels more Xena-esque.

 

[5ekyu]

Ok, but why? It works fine, adds depth to combat, makes positioning matter without bogging anything down...what did you experience with it that we haven’t, over several years of playing 5e?

We gave it up because it puts way too much benefit into one single formation pattern thats at odds with the general rules on how perception and reaction works.

If two guts working together in front or front and side, they can only advantage by one using help action. But if they are exactly opposite, its free? Makes no real sense if one assumes characters are active and moving within their hex/square as is normally done.

At the very least, it would have made better sense and balance if flanking allowed you to HELP the other as a bonus action. That way you at least get a sense of an action being made, time being spent.

Not as big a fan of static positioning over fluid changing situations.