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

[Morrus]

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.

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

This is not appropriate behaviour on EN World. Cut it out, please, both of you, or take it somewhere else.

 

[Morlock]

I know I said this already, but I scanned the rules since then.

When a creature can’t see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it. If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses.

Assuming this is the only rule about attacking from behind (excluding specific cases like sneak attack), I think the optional rule for flanking is too much. Using the optional rule, a flanked character suffers two attackers with advantage. Without the optional rule, a character facing one attacker in front, with another behind, suffers only one attacker with advantage. Seems to me that IRL I'd rather be flanked by two guys I can see than give one a wide open attack on my back.

I wouldn't use it. Alternatively, I could see the flanked character getting to choose one flanking attacker who doesn't get advantage.

 

[zaratan]

I know I said this already, but I scanned the rules since then.



Assuming this is the only rule about attacking from behind (excluding specific cases like sneak attack), I think the optional rule for flanking is too much. Using the optional rule, a flanked character suffers two attackers with advantage. Without the optional rule, a character facing one attacker in front, with another behind, suffers only one attacker with advantage. Seems to me that IRL I'd rather be flanked by two guys I can see than give one a wide open attack on my back.

I wouldn't use it. Alternatively, I could see the flanked character getting to choose one flanking attacker who doesn't get advantage.

There is the facing optional rule, I think this need some adjusts but is more interesting than flank. But a little complex for new player (like my table).
I'll probably add this in the future.

 

[Curmudjinn]

I would rather use a houserule that stated "When two or more combatants flank a target, those combatants gain +1AC against that target until it is no longer flanked."

As someone who was training in basic swordplay through karate, years ago, my experiences show that it would be harder to hit your opponents with your attention divided, but you are more-actively defending now, so you really aren't easier to hit.

 

[Reynard]

I would rather use a houserule that stated "When two or more combatants flank a target, those combatants gain +1AC against that target until it is no longer flanked."

As someone who was training in basic swordplay through karate, years ago, my experiences show that it would be harder to hit your opponents with your attention divided, but you are more-actively defending now, so you really aren't easier to hit.

D&D rules really aren't designed to simulate much of anything resembling reality, though. If anything, they are designed to simulate whatever version of fantasy combat is en vogue at the time. I would be inclined to avoid trying to tie D&D combat rules to "realism" because, after all, that is how Rolemaster was born.

 

[Curmudjinn]

While I do agree with you, the small AC boost is, IMO, is more balanced when combined with other mechanics.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

Interesting. I've never seen flanking require any significant adjudication, even in ToM (it requires literally none in grid-based, so that couldn't even be argued), so that doesn't seem like a convincing argument at all. The balance argument is infinitely more convincing.

I was wondering if he was referring the additional rule for monsters that had been proposed - that's what he appeared to be saying, but it's hard to be sure.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The problem is not fairness. The problem is that it renders anything that gives advantage obsolete.

You are missing out on a large portion of the game.

I'll agree with this sentiment. While this is solidly in the realm of "play what you like," I know that I personally like to know the consequences of choices before I make them when possible. It allows me to more effectively make the right choices for me from the get-go.

In the spirit of "this is what I'd like to know":

Advantage on attacks is primarily handed out by special class features. If you make it extremely easy to gain outside of those class features, you highly devalue those features. Yes, compared to most other ways of gaining advantage (even things that anyone can do like shoving someone prone), flanking is extremely easy. It doesn't even use up an action.

On the other hand, if you are going for a more old-school feel and you limit play to the classes and subclasses straight out of the Basic Rules document, then adopting something like the Flanking rules from the DMG might work out fine. The core 4 classes and most basic subclasses don't really have features to grant advantage on attacks (other than spells), so it isn't competing with class abilities.

 

[Reynard]

One interesting consequence of the way opportunity attacks work in 5E is that if you do include the optional flanking rules and use the grid or some other form of table tracking, there is a lot more movement. it still doesn't necessarily "cost" anything since movement is free in 5E, but it does add a kinetic energy to play. 3.x with its punishing movement rules often resulted in characters standing stock still once they got into position, unless a character was built specifically to be able to move.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I agree with ad_hoc, the main problem with the flanking rule is that advantage doesn't stack. This doesn't ruin the balance between PC vs mob but it does ruin the balance between different feats.

I would never use flanking rules, but I would narrate it if someone uses the help action. Like if PC A says "I want to distract the enemy so PC B can flank it" and then PC B attacks, then I'll narrate it as flanking and grant advantage, but in reality that was just the help action.