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

[Shiroiken]

Which just encourages PCs to gang up on 1 creature at a time, and kicks legendary creatures (generally encountered solo) in the gonads.

IME, that happens already, because focus fire is an optimal strategy. Like critical hits, this will harm the PCs far more than enemies, as more often the PCs are outnumbered and most groups usually have a mix of melee and ranged characters (my suggestion only works if you're adjacent too), so the best they'll get is +2 attack.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The rule:

"If a creature is within 5 feet of two hostile creatures of its size or larger, it is flanked. A flanked creature has disadvantage when attacking a target that is not also flanked."

My conceptual justification is that flanked creatures would need to invest more effort in being defensive and, therefore, have more difficulty attacking. My hope, mechanically, is that it makes positioning more meaningful but not overpowering.

Do you like the rule and, if not, what rule do you use instead and why is it preferable?

As with most flanking rules, this will make solo monsters easier to take down. A creature that can't hit isn't much of a threat. Although creatures that rely on saving throws for their attacks will be largely unaffected.

This also makes it very dangerous for a rogue to get surrounded, since that would make it impossible for them to sneak attack. Of course, unless they're completely surrounded this is fairly easy for a rogue to escape, so it may be a non issue in most cases.

Finally, consider that there are a number of abilities that confer disadvantage on attacks, such as the bard's Vicious Mockery or the battle master fighter's Distracting Strike. An easy source of disadvantage devalues those abilities.

 

[Nebulous]

What if “flanked” was the inverse of cover? You are flanked if there are at least two hostile creatures within 5 feet of you and suffer -2 to AC and Dex saves. You are surrounded if there is a hostile creature in each space within 5 feet of you and you suffer -5 to AC and Dex saves.

I really like that actually. 5e wanted to shy away from any fiddly math bits at all, but I think in moderation they're extremely useful.

 

[Garthanos]

@squibbles Your idea would probably work fine if your goal is to make your players dramatically harder to hit.The problem with flanking in 5e is that flanking is just one piece of a whole to tactical combat & it leaves out the other pieces. Take

4e would in places be worse and in places be less of a problem than the 3.x version. An example of worse nobody needs a feat to do as many opportunity attacks on as many somebodies as not being careful as they can reach when they move past. However the key point is you add to the decisions about movement what powers the characters use many Melee characters may have abilities that allow them to sometimes be careful as part of an attack movement and others that allow them to be even more bold to gain benefit and nobody can constantly shift their speed (disengage while moving large distances all the time). For 4e these create decision points about what makes this tactical. Am I doing a brash assault to effectively gain an opportunity attack in trade for one and intentionally granting advantage to gain bonus damage yourself. Is my Warlord enhancing his ability to inspire an ally by taking a bunch of opportunity attacks while running to save his ally am I willing to exert and use this effort to achieve more mobility right now knowing i may not having it in me later when i need it. A barbarian might do a salmon leap that allowed one to make a surprise move to backflip beyond the enemy line but that wasn't going to work again and again and it might be best to do it when he knew it would benefit. In other words the things that encourage/enable mobility may cost special cost resources or have their own benefits tied to them or other things etc etc etc. Some feats allow one to have better armor against opportunity attacks. In other words choice and resources and estimations of risk make the results highly variable.

 

[dave2008]

"If a creature is within 5 feet of two hostile creatures of its size or larger, it is flanked. A flanked creature has disadvantage when attacking a target that is not also flanked."

I just want to make sure I understand. So if Eric is fighting two orcs (both within 5 feet of him) he has disadvantage on the orcs (because they are not flanked), but if Eric is joined by Sara, now they don't have disadvantage because everyone is flanked? Is that correct?

How does this work in a 2 on 3 situation?

 

[dave2008]

so 5e has no opportunity attacks?

@tetrasodium , I keep seeing you say this, but 5e does have opportunity attacks, which I assume you know, so what do you mean by this?

In case you don't know, it is page 195 of the PHB, under "Opportunity Attacks"

 

[dave2008]

4e would in places be worse and in places be less of a problem than the 3.x version. An example of worse nobody needs a feat to do as many opportunity attacks on as many somebodies...

Yep, that is one area were 5e OA improved by limiting it to one. Personally, I think in my next campaign I make go the PF2e route and take them away completely, except for fighters (class feature), and then offer a feat for other classes.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yep, that is one area were 5e OA improved by limiting it to one. Personally, I think in my next campaign I make go the PF2e route and take them away completely, except for fighters (class feature), and then offer a feat for other classes.

This will mess with a significant number of class features (presuming you're also removing it from monsters unless they have a very specific Fighter-ish "lockdown"-type deal) and even other Feats (War Caster, for example) and spells (Dissonant Whispers is a junk spell if OA isn't a default thing, for example). 5E isn't PF2, and it isn't balanced on the assumption that you can just run past people or flee with no consequences whatsoever. You'll basically just be directly nerfing every single melee class/subclass in the entire game, except Fighter ones. As you don't get Feats without sacrificing stats in 5E, it's also a huge cost you're suggesting.

 

[dave2008]

This will mess with a significant number of class features (presuming you're also removing it from monsters unless they have a very specific Fighter-ish "lockdown"-type deal) and even other Feats (War Caster, for example) and spells (Dissonant Whispers is a junk spell if OA isn't a default thing, for example). 5E isn't PF2, and it isn't balanced on the assumption that you can just run past people or flee with no consequences whatsoever. You'll basically just be directly nerfing every single melee class/subclass in the entire game, except Fighter ones. As you don't get Feats without sacrificing stats in 5E, it's also a huge cost you're suggesting.

Yes, that is what I am looking for, in general, thank you for confirming. However, this isn't our only house rule, so it would be part of a number of changes.

EDIT: PS, there are no ASIs in our game - only Feats

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What if “flanked” was the inverse of cover? You are flanked if there are at least two hostile creatures within 5 feet of you and suffer -2 to AC and Dex saves. You are surrounded if there is a hostile creature in each space within 5 feet of you and you suffer -5 to AC and Dex saves.

These aren't bad suggestions, but -5 AC and DEX saves is so mathematically similar to attackers having Advantage, and you having Disadvantage on DEX saves, that you might as well go that way. It also prevents you "doubling up" the benefit from Advantage accrued other ways (though does have the mechanical ugliness that the -2 to AC from the other flank is slightly superior if the attacker otherwise has Advantage, hmmm).

I think as a result I'd probably just only go with the -2 version as the other one is a corner-case scenario, and just makes summoners who pick the "lots of small monsters/objects" options for their spells more powerful.