D&D 5E D&D 5E Does flanking grant advantage ?

[Halivar]

What if you added a feature to every creature meant to be faced as a solo encounter like: "On Guard: This creature is ferociously alert in combat and is a worthy opponent against even multiple attackers: it does not grant advantage for being flanked."

I love it. Consider it yoinked.

EDIT: One addendum: I would also extend this to certain protective spells, and exempt rogues with the class ability to gain advantage on flank. Maybe.

 

[Morlock]

It seems pretty silly that faking an attack is a better distraction than actually attempting to kill an enemy. That's the big problem there.

This.

ETA: conversely, it seems silly that an outflanked combatant should suffer advantage from both attackers flanking him; he should be able to concentrate on one and only suffer the other one to attack with advantage.

 

[Awesome Adam]

BOTH flankers are trying to kill the enemy, that's why they are so distracting.

In a meta-gaming way I understand what you are suggesting, but no one is going to ignore someone stabbing them in the back to concentrate on someone in front of them, and if they did, it would be terribly distracting getting stabbed in the back, giving the one in front of them advantage while they are screaming in pain.

 

[Sunseeker]

This.

ETA: conversely, it seems silly that an outflanked combatant should suffer advantage from both attackers flanking him; he should be able to concentrate on one and only suffer the other one to attack with advantage.

It's been a running beef with advantage. If you have two people who are relatively equal in a given task, one granting advantage to the other does absolutely nothing, unless for some reason one of them CANNOT make the check, in which case I'd question how they're able to Help in the first place. Giving up an attack to grant advantage isn't so bad for say, a high-level fighter who has multiple attacks, to say give the Rogue advantage (lets say both are level 11) that sneak attack damage is totally worth sacrificing an attack. But giving up your entire Attack Action is a bit pricey IMO.

Anyway, I wouldn't mind there being a variant Pack Tactics that a player could take as a feat to say, give them a +2 when THEY and only THEY flank with another ally.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The problem doesn't exist in that it's a DM call. The players don't get to decide "I'm flanking so give me my bonus". They can state the intent, but the DM gets to rule if and when Advantage is given. No need to specifically qualify if a monster can avoid being flanked, the situation will inform the DM. Maybe the monster is guarding it's young so it is hyper vigilant. Or maybe the monsters belly is full and it's groggy. Either way the PCs don't know, this is why we use DMs to make those calls.

The entire point of rules is to deal with common situations and reduce the need for DMs to make rulings.

If you're going to have to make a "DM call" every time a monster should be flanked, that seems like a good place for a rule. Even if you're thinking it should only be a DM call with "serious" monsters, it seems better to go with a rule as the baseline, and make calls only if necessary. Your game will run faster, the players won't be all "But is it flanked NOW?" "What about now?!" and so on, and everyone will have more fun.

 

[strider13x]

It not an issue at my table when I DM. My players tell me an intent and I make call. My players trust I am acting in the interest of fun and fairness. It appears to me when these discussions come up it arises more when that trust has eroded between players and DM. That's no fun and I don't play that way. No need to have a rule that can't be applied so unilaterally as flanking, to many variables.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It not an issue at my table when I DM. My players tell me an intent and I make call. My players trust I am acting in the interest of fun and fairness. It appears to me when these discussions come up it arises more when that trust has eroded between players and DM. That's no fun and I don't play that way. No need to have a rule that can't be applied so unilaterally as flanking, to many variables.

I have literally no idea what the bolded sentence means. Rules are there for utility and speed - if you don't want to make them, that's fine, but arguing with this particular one seems senseless in the extreme.

 

[Awesome Adam]

The flanking rule works as is. If you disagree with it, it is your prerogative as a DM not to use it. Declaring, that since you disagree with it, there is no need for it, is short sited, and a bit of a douche move.

 

[strider13x]

So I'm a douche? Wow, you Awesome Adam. Now I'm a douche.

 

[Reynard]

I have literally no idea what the bolded sentence means. Rules are there for utility and speed - if you don't want to make them, that's fine, but arguing with this particular one seems senseless in the extreme.

I think he is suggesting that a rule like flanking requires so much adjudication on the part of the DM in almost any instance it comes up is not a very useful rule and would be better left out. Of course, they did leave it out and replaced it with the "Help" rule instead, so there's that. The "Flanking" optional rule exists because they designers know some people like much more fiddly tactical play and for legacy reasons, but it is explicitly not the standard rule.