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

[Parmandur]

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 don't want depth in combat, nor do I want positioning to matter.

Ergo, forego a variant rule that would add fidiliness.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Knocking a creature down allows advantage without an ally’s help, and makes it harder for the enemy to escape you. And Helping is rarely better than using your action, anyway, unless you’ve made a character that has little if any at-will combat efficacy.

Then again, we still do it sometimes use Help in combat to give advantage to ranged characters. We also allow using it to let a character impose Disad on an opportunity attack, making it easier for them to escape.

But also, Advantage isn’t a game breaking difference. It’s nice. I’ve never really found it easy to flank dragons and other big monster consistently, as well. They move a lot. And they either have allies, legendary actions, or both.

Not sure what you mean by something to track, btw. I pretty much assume that we’re discussing games with a map, otherwise variant rules that rely on positioning are just...I mean, I guess some people use positioning and facing in TTOM games, but that seems like an absurd choice to me. I don’t even use distinctly defined range and speed when running TTOM.

Anyway, in a map game, there isn’t any tracking for flanking. It’s right there. You look at the board, and either roll with adv or don’t. It’s literally as much tracking as seeing if you’re in melee with someone.

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.

Fair enough. I find that it makes positioning more important, because you have to keep deadly enemies from flanking, too. For us, it leads to just as much “Xena”, but I can see how it might go the other way.

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.

Well, tbf, flanking can encourage fluid positioning, simply by the DM moving enemies, and using forced movement on PCs, and employing environmental hazards, obstacles, etc.

Anyway, IRL flanking an enemy makes it very hard for them to defend themselves. Nearly impossible. Flanking giving advantage without having to do anything extra makes complete sense.

I don't want depth in combat, nor do I want positioning to matter.

Ergo, forego a variant rule that would add fidiliness.

Fair enough! I don’t grok the preference, but obv the right way to play is the one you and your table enjoy.

 

[Gadget]

IMHO, the optional flanking rule make advantage too easy to obtain, though that is not universal across all possible situations. It also devalues other spells and abilities, and situations that grant advantage.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I also found that the flanking rules make advantage too easy to obtain. It's--IME, of course--an excessive benefit.

It also--again IME--reduces creativity and interesting maneuvers in combat. People don't try funky ideas or the like if advantage is that easy to gain. Even beyond that, as pointed out above, it encourages a single style of melee fighting, so that all combats begin to look the same.

Just never, ever worked for us.

 

[Sadras]

It also--again IME--reduces creativity and interesting maneuvers in combat. People don't try funky ideas or the like if advantage is that easy to gain. Even beyond that, as pointed out above, it encourages a single style of melee fighting, so that all combats begin to look the same.

Really good point. But how does one fix this? I mean you cannot have 3 people attacking the same guy and get no benefit from it, right? Have you managed to come up with a solution?

 

[André Soares]

Really good point. But how does one fix this? I mean you cannot have 3 people attacking the same guy and get no benefit from it, right? Have you managed to come up with a solution?

I think the inherit beneffit of the numbers game is enough, because, if the enemy is weaker, or less combat oriented than the characters it will be beaten to a pulp. If they are a better fighter than the characters (Higher AC, attack bonus, combat abilitties...) the characters will have a harder time. The advantages and disavantages are already acounted in the Stat Block for the crature.

 

[Laurefindel]

Really good point. But how does one fix this? I mean you cannot have 3 people attacking the same guy and get no benefit from it, right? Have you managed to come up with a solution?

In my games when I DM, I grant advantage to players and enemies when the opponent is surrounded and can no longer move to cover its back. This means that most of the times, the "flanked opponent" can manoeuvre its way out of this predicament, or two PCs can fight back-to-back to cover each other's flank. But there are times when the players (or enemies) have their speed reduced to 0, or facing opponents twice as fast as they are, or swarmed by many opponents and aren't adjacent to another ally, column, tree, or wall, where I will grant "flanking" advantage.

We mostly play theatre of the mind style, so its mostly part of the narration saying "enemies are trying to flank you, you need to manoeuvre in way to deny them that". If I was playing with a grid, I'd say when a creature is surrounded by enemies and do not have an empty space to move into at the beginning of the enemy's turn; it is flanked.

 

[Oofta]

Really good point. But how does one fix this? I mean you cannot have 3 people attacking the same guy and get no benefit from it, right? Have you managed to come up with a solution?

If all three people attacking the same guy all have advantage, then you've effectively given them pack tactics. In addition, flanking has always been a bit odd - only people on opposite sides get any benefit. So two out of three get a bonus but the third guy doesn't? Then add in ranged attacks. Shouldn't the archer have a better chance of hitting someone who's defending themselves from multiple attackers, but then what about his allies getting in the way and accidentally hitting one of them?

Focusing fire is generally it's own benefit from a tactical perspective.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

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.

I love this and, since flanking is a variant rule anyways, I might suggest this to our group. We've been using the variant flanking rules and I really don't like it. Also, this gives characters that don't have bonus actions something they can do.

The help action is more cinematic than straight flanking anyways. If a player wants to do a Help action, I make them describe what they're doing because it has to make sense.

I had one group who would use a familiar to do the Help action by having the familiar sit on a person's shoulder....I just don't see how that would be helpful.


On another note, I also don't like how they put all the eggs in one basket regarding Perception. As it is, I use Investigation and Perception similarly to how "search" and "spot" were used in 3.5. Investigation is used to figure out how to disable traps and look for secret doors.

 

[5ekyu]

I love this and, since flanking is a variant rule anyways, I might suggest this to our group. We've been using the variant flanking rules and I really don't like it. Also, this gives characters that don't have bonus actions something they can do.

The help action is more cinematic than straight flanking anyways. If a player wants to do a Help action, I make them describe what they're doing because it has to make sense.

I had one group who would use a familiar to do the Help action by having the familiar sit on a person's shoulder....I just don't see how that would be helpful.


On another note, I also don't like how they put all the eggs in one basket regarding Perception. As it is, I use Investigation and Perception similarly to how "search" and "spot" were used in 3.5. Investigation is used to figure out how to disable traps and look for secret doors.

Yes - exactly - flanking is just grid on map - help is descriptive actions and choices -and so the rule we prefer to see in play.

Glad you liked the BA suggestion.

enjoy.