D&D 5E Do you use the flanking rule?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Nope. There are other ways to model cooperative tactics, and with advantage/disadvantage being binary in 5E, giving out advantage merely for flanking is too damaging to my ability (as a DM) to model tactical situations. It's too large an effect to make ubiquitous.

If I did want to model flanking, I'd feel compelled to incorporate an element of choice. Having a kobold at your back should not grant the dragon in front of you advantage--it should be possible to ignore the kobold and focus on the dragon. One way to do this would be to say that all foes except one get advantage against you; you choose the one.

But that's still too much impact for my taste. Instead, cooperative tactics in 5E involve things like one guy knocking the target prone one with one his attacks, then both him and his buddy beating on the target at advantage; and the buddy Disarms the enemy and tosses his weapon away.

 

[alienux]

I don't use it in my games. I've just never cared for it before, and I have no interest in using it now.

 

[TwoSix]

We currently do, but I'm going to take it out when my DM turn comes around. Makes it too easy to gain advantage, and makes a lot of other strategies for gaining advantage less advantageous.

 

[Skyscraper]

Thanks for all the comments.

Additional questions, if I may:

1) those that do not use flanking for the stated reasons (added complexity appears to be the most common in the few answers up to now), have you tried playing with it? Or has a decision been taken on the perceived consequence of the rule?

2) those that do use flanking: it seems to me that in 4E, flanking had a lesser scope for the following reasons:
- a creature could not move around an enemy it was engaged with without provoking an OA, consequently getting into a flanking position was more difficult
- flanking granted a +2 bonus, which is muss less than the advantage it now grants

So do you find that flanking happens very often, and/or becomes an important decider for battles? I.e. is advantage very frequent due to flanking? Do you then perceive it as the norm, as opposed to the exception that it is under the default rules?

Also, does using tougher solo or a low-number (2-3) of creatures require these creatures to be stronger to make up for the flanking?

Do rogues benefit from a very significant boost with this rule?

I am discussing with my players about introducing flanking. However the fighter in our group is a shield bearer and has a feat that allows him to push an opponent to the ground, and further attacks against the prone enemy are then made with advantage. It seems to me that if advantage can be had more easily, this fighter's feat choice would become less interesting.

What about using a +2 attack bonus instead of advantage?

 

[jrowland]

I play via Fantasy Grounds, so basically mini's + battlegrid. Previous campaing (Princes of the Apocalypse) we used it. While it does go both for and against players, I found it somewhat trivialized other sources of Advantage. It was often easier to flank. Thats not a problem, per se, but it does mean players will likely not choose things like Faerie Fire, for example. As a result, I found it made the game too tactically focused (grid and minis) when there were not a lot of tactical options in the game (compare 4E grid play vs 5e, eg).

This go around (hodge podge of Storm Kings and Tyranny of Dragons) the rule is "3 or more 'flankers' on a target for advantage". So getting mobbed/surrounded grants Adv, but a simple flank does not. So far we like it. It mostly helps monsters (since they can usually 'spare' 3 or more per target) and marginally helps PCs who are now using some of their class feature more to gain Adv.

We've with held judgement on Large or larger creatures until we encounter them...but I think we will go for something like
S/M = 3+
L = 5+
H = 7+
etc.
Tiny = adv when occupying same space

 

[abirdcall]

My table used it for 1 session. When we first started playing 5e half the group requested it so we tried it out.

It ruined the game so we stopped using it.

2 things happen - Anything that provides advantage to attacks is redundant and thus worthless. This applies to both written abilities and creativity in the game. Also, everyone hits a lot. Combat is very fast. Crits happen much more frequently so it is a TPK waiting to happen.

 

[MiraMels]

Oh gods no,
no if my players want advantage in combat, they can Help, Hide, or Improvise.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

No, there are enough ways to gain advantage and it would lessen t he impact of some of the monsters who have that as a special ability, like kobalds. Plus our combats have players moving around enough and are interesting enough as it is, plus they are fast.

 

[pdzoch]

We used it in 4e. But we dropped it in 5e. There are too many other ways to earn advantage in the game now that the flanking rule it a bit superfluous. Dropping flanking actually encourages the use of the help action in combat.

 

[Skyscraper]

Good stuff. Thanks for all the replies.

I'm now down to thinking about perhaps granting a simple +1 bonus for flanking or other tactical advantage (stepping up on a table, upper ground, opponent near a pit or other threat). Just a little something to push creatures to move about the battlefield a bit more.