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

[aco175]

I think I prefer having a Flanked target take a -2 penalty to AC instead of giving any bonus or advantage to the attackers.

This game already has plenty of buffs, but not nearly enough debuffs IMO.

I'm kind of the opposite from a DM perspective. The +2 to hit puts the responsibility on the players to add that to their roll where the -2AC puts it on the DM to remember and tell each player what his new AC is. Say PC 1 and 2 are flanking and you tell them that the monster's AC is 16, since they are flanking. Another player may hear you and think they are aiming for a 16 while shooting at the monster and now you need to tell each player what the AC is depending on who's turn and if they are flanking. I tend to just tell the monster's AC after the PCs attack it to allow them to determine if they hit.

This could work if all attackers are flanking as opposed to only those in melee combat. If more than one PC is attacking a monster then everyone gets flanking. You can go either way with +2 for PCs or -2 for monster. I tend to find that the players like to get bonuses and I as the DM do not like to keep track of more things that I could give to the players to track.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm kind of the opposite from a DM perspective. The +2 to hit puts the responsibility on the players to add that to their roll where the -2AC puts it on the DM to remember and tell each player what his new AC is. Say PC 1 and 2 are flanking and you tell them that the monster's AC is 16, since they are flanking. Another player may hear you and think they are aiming for a 16 while shooting at the monster and now you need to tell each player what the AC is depending on who's turn and if they are flanking. I tend to just tell the monster's AC after the PCs attack it to allow them to determine if they hit.

This could work if all attackers are flanking as opposed to only those in melee combat. If more than one PC is attacking a monster then everyone gets flanking. You can go either way with +2 for PCs or -2 for monster. I tend to find that the players like to get bonuses and I as the DM do not like to keep track of more things that I could give to the players to track.

Ime its usually very rare that the GM tells a party the ac of opponents. There is also words like "plus your flanked" for the specific situation you describe

 

[aco175]

Ime its usually very rare that the GM tells a party the ac of opponents. There is also words like "plus your flanked" for the specific situation you describe

Telling them early just does away with the back and forth of players telling you what they hit and going back and forth until they know the AC is a 16 for example. I tend to tell them on the 2nd round. There is still a bit of suspense on the first round when the players tells you "I hit a 17", and you tell them that they miss. By the 3rd round, they all know they need an 18.

 

[Nebulous]

I still like my idea of the +1 damage if you're flanking, +2 at the next tier. It's simple and it works in my game so far. A DM could even tweak it to +2 damage at low level, but that would drastically up PC mortality. I guess it depends on much emphasis you want to put on the concept of being surrounded.

 

[Nebulous]

Telling them early just does away with the back and forth of players telling you what they hit and going back and forth until they know the AC is a 16 for example. I tend to tell them on the 2nd round. There is still a bit of suspense on the first round when the players tells you "I hit a 17", and you tell them that they miss. By the 3rd round, they all know they need an 18.

I always love their expressions when they say, "I rolled a 19!" and I say, "Well, you missed."

 

[Nebulous]

Ime its usually very rare that the GM tells a party the ac of opponents. There is also words like "plus your flanked" for the specific situation you describe

I rarely tell them, but by simple deduction they figure it out in a round or two. But there's always the enemy with a Shield or Parry reaction that can drastically change their AC.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I rarely tell them, but by simple deduction they figure it out in a round or two. But there's always the enemy with a Shield or Parry reaction that can drastically change their AC.

I always tell them after a round or two, because they'd figure it out anyway. I'm really just confirming to speed things along.

 

[Blue]

How about you may sacrifice advantage from flanking on one foe to remove an enemies advantage from flanking you ....

Represents shifting attention could even be seen as a subtle reflection of facing.

I was referring to the OP, which gave no Advantage to foes flanking you, but rather gave you Disadvantage on attacks when you were attacked. So this isn't applicable.

 

[tetrasodium]

I rarely tell them, but by simple deduction they figure it out in a round or two. But there's always the enemy with a Shield or Parry reaction that can drastically change their AC.

Yep it's not hard for them to narrow it down, but doing so adds suspense and any situational modifiers or things like you mention can throw a wrench in doing that

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Personally, my latest fusion of the two is to let my 5e players select 4e powers instead of a feat.

I think you will bw interested in this, this, and this then, and perhaps also this.