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

[Fanaelialae]

Except Charging in 5e kind of does look like the 4e one... and that is where it is called a charge

Which exactly proves my point. You're starting from a position that 5e charge must be the same as 4e charge.

If we start from a position that in 5e a charge is move and attack, then the feat is just a better charge. The feat is someone who is an expert at charging, and can go farther and hit harder. And they still have the option to do it the normal way if that benefits them more.

I mean, someone could make the criticism of 4e that you can't charge without a power, dismissing the basic charge because it only allows a basic attack and therefore doesn't conform to their arbitrary definition of a charge. People have made exactly those kinds of arguments to make all sorts of criticisms of 4e. That doesn't mean their assessment would be accurate though.

 

[Fanaelialae]

No it's not just that. The numerical reasons for charge being valuable in 3.5 are missing from 5e. With resistance being half damage you are almost if not always better off with multiple (weapondie+mods+stat)*ManyAttacks than one big attack that tries to pile all of that into one attack both for raw damage as well as more chances to hit/crit. Back in 3.5that hit it many times strategy excelled at normal creatures where the hit it with a freight train carrying a mountain strategy was weakest. But as soon as you had a monster on the field with things like dr5 dr10 or more those two strategies shift position.

Spoiler: 3.5 stock charge action

View attachment 120700
View attachment 120701

but a character who specializes in hitting something with a mountain once per round is going to have feats that further increase the damage of that one attack so it will really make a big difference. 5e left out both the variety of ways to notably improve a charge as well as the reasons to want a charge.

Even if you do take the feat it's a gigantic trap that only looks good if you don't think about it.
View attachment 120706

I have yet to see anything in 5e that causes enough of a power disparity for me to label it a trap option.

 

[dave2008]

Problem with that line of reasoning is that system differences aside, the gaping voids built into 5e is that3.5 & 4e were much smore similar to each other in terms of things like support for tactical combat on a grid, the presence subjectivity in equipment, & the presence of significant varied choice during character advancement.

But they are only gaping holes if you want tactical combat.

People are arguing both 3.5 and 4e against some of 5e's half baked failings because both of those systems provide ample evidence for why some of those failings should have been entirely predictable and rather inexcusable. Resorting to "but 3e is different from 4e" lines of reasoning is a poor choice when they both contain an example of similarly functioning tactical combat systems that 5e left on the cutting room floor early on.

But I am not talking about that. I don't know 3e, I am resorting to 5e is different from 3e and 4e. And that is fine, they clearly didn't want certain aspects to be the same. You can rail on that until your blue in the face, but that won't change the minds of people who are happy with 5e as it is.

Given your professed inexperience with how tactical combat worked in some past editions & musings on removing the few remaining AoOs in 5e over problems created or exacerbated by the lack of AoO supported tactical combat I'd like to suggest that your seeming position of 5e AoOs are fine because 5e is different from past editions might be somewhat internally inconsistent or worse.

Your jumping to conclusions about my table, which is frankly...well I can't think of a kind way to say it so I will leave it at that.

Listen, I and my group started with 1e back in the '80s, we transitioned to 4e when it cam out, and then to 5e when it came out. We have enjoyed and had a good time with each edition. We have made house-rules and changes with each edition. We don't need 5e to be the tactical game that 4e is. If we want that style, we can still go play 4e.

I don't know why you feel the need to argue the tactical superiority of 4e (or 3e) to 5e, I've already said you are correct. What you don't seem to understand is that we don't need a more tactical game. We already have that in 4e, we enjoy 5e for its less is more approach.

Now, I am basically done with this discussion as you just seem to want to rant about a system that clearly doesn't have what you want. And I AGREE WITH YOU on that point! I know you seem to think your ranting will help change the game, but you continue to ignore the people who like it as it is. To that point, adding the things you want doesn't necessarily make it better for everyone, and it could in fact make it worse for some.

 

[Garthanos]

If we start from a position that in 5e a charge is move and attack,

I do not see that called a charge anywhere and with a move called out as ones walking speed it is a mismatch in this edition that prides itself on use of natural language if I do take your definition apparently made up on the spot. (This is a really minor thing guys).

It is not "rushing as to an attack" which is a natural language definition its sauntering

 

[Garthanos]

But they are only gaping holes if you want tactical combat.

But we get told this edition has tactical modules ... and ... sigh

 

[dave2008]

But we get told this edition has tactical modules ... and ... sigh

Not by me. 5e has tactical options, but they do not rise to the level of a full fledged module. Nor do the options have the breadth and depth of 4e, and they are clearly not what you are looking for. However, they are enough for some.

To be clear, 5e doesn't have any "modules" tactical or otherwise.

 

[squibbles]

Wow! That was a lot more posts than I expected.

Replying to just the ones on the 1st page:

Is this in addition to, or instead of Flanking giving advantage to attackers?

It is instead of flanking giving advantage to attackers.

I'd suggest changing the size restriction. Being flanked by halflings or goblins is still a threat, and still makes defending yourself/fighting back harder.

Yes, that's true, I included that caveat for this reason:

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.

For dragons, giants, and other big solo monsters, flanking would not be an issue. And it makes conceptual sense--dragons and giants have a longer than human reach and don't need to defend themselves from being stabbed in the same that, say, a duelist would.

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?

Yes, if Sara moves into a position within 5 feet of both orcs, that's correct.

If she moves within 5 feet of only one orc, only that orc will be flanked--which means that Eric would be able to attack the flanked orc without disadvantage, but would still have disadvantage against the other orc.

Similarly, the flanked orc would have disadvantage when attacking Sara, but not when attacking Eric.

I realize that's a bit cludgey and doesn't model real fighting particularly well, but I wanted to add a countermeasure for the flanking penalty without making the rule too complicated. I'm open to suggestions.

My suggested would be to add - When flanked, the creature also has 3/4 cover. This would add decision point to the attackers if they have any ranged friends trying to take advantage.

I like this suggestion. It's not to complicated an extension and it adds depth.

So, new 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 and has 3/4 cover against effects originating 30 feet away or farther."

 

[dave2008]

Wow! That was a lot more posts than I expected.

Well we got off topic quick. You can pretty much ignore the posts by me, @Garthanos, and @tetrasodium , we went off on a tangent not relevant to the topic. There are some other good ideas you haven't responded to yet though (by other people).

 

[dave2008]

Wow! That was a lot more posts than I expected.

Replying to just the ones on the 1st page:



It is instead of flanking giving advantage to attackers.



Yes, that's true, I included that caveat for this reason:


For dragons, giants, and other big solo monsters, flanking would not be an issue. And it makes conceptual sense--dragons and giants have a longer than human reach and don't need to defend themselves from being stabbed in the same that, say, a duelist would.



Yes, if Sara moves into a position within 5 feet of both orcs, that's correct.

If she moves within 5 feet of only one orc, only that orc will be flanked--which means that Eric would be able to attack the flanked orc without disadvantage, but would still have disadvantage against the other orc.

Similarly, the flanked orc would have disadvantage when attacking Sara, but not when attacking Eric.

I realize that's a bit cludgey and doesn't model real fighting particularly well, but I wanted to add a countermeasure for the flanking penalty without making the rule too complicated. I'm open to suggestions.



I like this suggestion. It's not to complicated an extension and it adds depth.

So, new 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 and has 3/4 cover against effects originating 30 feet away or farther."

Why 30', wouldn't the cover issue apply even if your 10' away?

 

[tetrasodium]

But they are only gaping holes if you want tactical combat.


But I am not talking about that. I don't know 3e, I am resorting to 5e is different from 3e and 4e. And that is fine, they clearly didn't want certain aspects to be the same. You can rail on that until your blue in the face, but that won't change the minds of people who are happy with 5e as it is.

Your jumping to conclusions about my table, which is frankly...well I can't think of a kind way to say it so I will leave it at that.

Listen, I and my group started with 1e back in the '80s, we transitioned to 4e when it cam out, and then to 5e when it came out. We have enjoyed and had a good time with each edition. We have made house-rules and changes with each edition. We don't need 5e to be the tactical game that 4e is. If we want that style, we can still go play 4e.

I don't know why you feel the need to argue the tactical superiority of 4e (or 3e) to 5e, I've already said you are correct. What you don't seem to understand is that we don't need a more tactical game. We already have that in 4e, we enjoy 5e for its less is more approach.

Now, I am basically done with this discussion as you just seem to want to rant about a system that clearly doesn't have what you want. And I AGREE WITH YOU on that point! I know you seem to think your ranting will help change the game, but you continue to ignore the people who like it as it is. To that point, adding the things you want doesn't necessarily make it better for everyone, and it could in fact make it worse for some.

The opening bolded bit of your post invalidates everything else that comes after it. Wotc realized that tactical combat was important to a complete game and included a rather sizable chunk of pagespace to a pair of bad faith efforts that only serve to highlight the disdain for it built into 5e,

Spoiler: Specifically

That whole section is written as if those rules are isolated unrelated things rather than part of a whole unified system or subsystem of the game. Instead of fleshing out that system they wrote around two thirds of a page for this design outline for a video game

Spoiler: perfect for a cpu

But a living breathing gm is very different than a computer so they continued that badwrongfun view of tactical combat and tried to make the speed factor computer game outline into a more robust system with these five freaking pages. Since your resorting to popularity, there is no question that the response that particular UA was... less than enthusiastic when it got released.


It's great that the tactical void of 5e "works" for you, but when it works so well that your thinking of removing it. That calls into question if the incomplete system works in a constructive way and why you seem to be arguing that ignoring a completed tactical combat system would not also work for you.