D&D 5E A Simple Flanking Rule, What Do You think?

[jgsugden]

Advantage and disadvantage are too strong of an effect for flanking. It is too easy to achieve.

To that end, I appled the following house rule - one of very few in my games - for 5E:

When a creature is flanked, it provokes an OA when it moves unless it disengages. That creature may elect to ignore a creature for purposes of flanking until the end of the current turn. If it does so, that creature may take a special OA that does not require a reaction when the election is made.

Flanking becomes a lockdown technique rather than an omnipresent advantage situation.

 

[Garthanos]

Again it depends. I find spellcasters are locked into their spells and as a DM I am wary about house ruling spells.

Being able to adjust say a teleportation ritual by use of the Arcana skill in 4e should not have been well something to be leary about

However, I let martial characters try and do all kinds of crazy things, because I intuitively understand martial characters.

That assumed understanding usually from my experience with DMs results in characters less able than football players and archery contestants when the wizards are warping reality

Crazy things ends up being jump 12 feet when their strength says 10 and the like instead of anything like the legendary characters whom the casters are already MORE powerful than because that is what the rules say.

I do not even trust me to balance improvisationally against the huge number of spells and talents of magical characters (unless i have a base line starting point that is not what the football player does)... I have poked around on here and dm DC selection for common trope behaviors in fiction ranges from impossible to easy based on a very minor difference in assumed timing by the DMs involved.

To me a game that fails to provide a common ground wrt these things is failing part of its job. That is why flavor text about 10x as difficult is an important thing. That is it trying to set that assumption.

 

[Garthanos]

Hmm context it is A game with extremely extremely loose guidelines about conflict resolution It was actually very interesting because it was still tactical but at the same time it was a lot of deciding by the DM and I wanted better language between the player and DM.

That is one of the things the codification brings to the table ... a language where by the player can say this is important. I will risk this or conversely I will not. I will spend this resource is also language about strategy and now vs later. Having individualized abilities to reduce a given kind of danger in different players is lost.

The Character gaining an ability to move 30 feat amongst enemies in 4e without risk is a huge thing and represents application of extraordinary abilities ... its passe in 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

I agree, I don't remember it actually ever coming up in the 4 years we played 4e. But I am a designer by nature (and profession - but not games), so it bothered me from a design perspective. It didn't bother my players, that is why we never house ruled it.

Note the 10x as difficult would be unlikely to affect me as a DM but could as a player AND it bothers me from a design assumption its exactly contrary and implies it may be an excuse for having more potent magic than anything reasonable I could actually improvise for non-casters. They gave themselves permission to break it.

 

[dave2008]

Being able to adjust say a teleportation ritual by use of the Arcana skill in 4e should not have been well something to be leary about

Not sure what you mean, it has been to long since I played 4e. However, what I mean is magic can do anything, so how do I apply the limits? I understand the limits of the human body and generally reality, so it is easier to improve those things I truly understand.

That assumed understanding usually from my experience with DMs results in characters less able than football players and archery contestants when the wizards are warping reality

Crazy things ends up being jump 12 feet when their strength says 8 and the like instead of anything like the legendary characters whom the casters are already MORE powerful than because that is what the rules say.

Every group is different. My guys were big into Conan, Kung Fu and Ninja movies in the 80s so that was a lot of inspiration. Things like "cloud of daggers" were a thing in our games before they were a power in 4e. They also try a lot things like bouncing of walls to climb or get around foes, swing on things, ricochet shots and throws, cleaving, pushing, shoving, even throwing creatures. We had one giant character that loved to use his enemies as weapons.

I will say the warlord (4e) idea was new to us, but of course no one ever took that class so I didn't get to see it in action.

I do not even trust me to balance improvisationally against the huge number of spells and talents of magical characters (unless i have a base line starting point that is not what the football player does)... I have poked around on here and dm DC selection for common trope behaviors in fiction ranges from impossible to easy based on a very minor difference in assumed timing by the DMs involved.

DMG 42 helps in 4e and 5e actually has even better resources in the DMG, but they are more spread out. But it obviously varies from table to table.

To me a game that fails to provide a common ground wrt these things is failing part of its job. That is why flavor text about 10x as difficult is an important thing. That is it trying to set that assumption.

I don't understand what your saying, sorry!

I agree a common ground makes things easier for some. The issue is how to add all of the tactical rules you want and leave them out for those that don't want them. If I can get my 5e Immortals rules finished, and no one has done it yet, I do plan to make a tactical 5e supplement. I just haven't decided how much surgery I want to do yet.

 

[dave2008]

Note the 10x as difficult would be unlikely to affect me as a DM but could as a player AND it bothers me from a design assumption its exactly contrary and implies it may be an excuse for having more potent magic than anything reasonable I could actually improvise for non-casters. They gave themselves permission to break it.

Ya, that shows our differences in design perspective I think.

 

[dave2008]

The Character gaining an ability to move 30 feat amongst enemies in 4e without risk is a huge thing and represents application of extraordinary abilities ... its passe in 5e.

I'm missing something, you can't do that normally in 5e. Maybe I am missing something, but you still get OA that interrupt movement in 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm missing something, you can't do that normally in 5e. .

oh look I disengaged...

Disengage
If you take the Disengage action, your Movement doesn’t provoke Opportunity Attacks for the rest of the turn.

Seems like only if your enemy is a specialist that changes that... how many monsters have sentinel ability?

 

[dave2008]

oh look I disengaged...

Disengage
If you take the Disengage action, your Movement doesn’t provoke Opportunity Attacks for the rest of the turn.

OK, we made Disengage cost movement (like a 4e shift), sorry I forgot that! By RAW it cost your action, so it is not no cost - still requires a choice. Still, I prefer our house rule (and a few others) to RAW.

 

[Garthanos]

There is standing evidence if you make too long winded of arguments @tetrasodium people will not parse them.

OK, we made Disengage cost movement (like a 4e shift), sorry I forgot that! By RAW it cost your action, so it is not no cost

It is a cost but bland and homogenous not nearly as descriptive as individuated abilities ie not really very interesting and tadah the point of this sub thread makes obtaining flanking pretty trivial.