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

[Blue]

We use minis and a grid and don't use it.

Advantage is far to much of a bonus to get that easy.

 

[WarpedAcorn]

I run a game and my friend runs one, and we both use it. For his campaign its really only an advantage to the enemies since I am the only melee player. For my campaign is has usually helped out the party more since nearly everyone in melee.

I like the idea of the Flanking rule urging characters to move in smart ways and make more intelligent movement choices. Moving to flank becomes important for melee and moving to avoid being flanked becomes important for ranged. We also add to the Flanking rule my allowing movement around a target to provoke an AoO, so you can't run straight up to the enemy and then circle around, you have to move around and approach smartly...or take the potential hit to get a good set up going.

We had an excellent combat encounter last month with a Shield Guardian and a bunch of Animated Armors. Just about everyone was flanked at some point, but as the DM I felt that the attention to position and repositioning of the characters was something the table enjoyed and enhanced the encounter.

 

[Shiroiken]

I do not use it, because in 3E and 4E, combats often became "flanking chains" because everyone moved to flank. This just creates a linear combat that is very uninteresting. If I felt the need to use flanking, I would use the facing rules instead. More complicated, sure, but more dynamic too.

 

[Jester David]

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.

This is what I do. A generic non-stacking Tactical Advantage that grants a +1 for flanking, higher ground, an opponent on uneven floor, a sudden change of illumination, a cool move, etc.


Sent from my iPad using EN World mobile app

 

[MiraMels]

I think that appropriately enforcing the cover rules for ranged attack rolls will encourage the melee combatants to move around plenty.

Allies between you and your target grant the target half-cover, most map-and-minis DMs that I've played with forget about that.

 

[ccs]

Both the game I play in & the game I DM use flanking.
It hasn't phased the combat time or the amount of rules any of us need to remember.
We've even tinkered around with using it in our one PF game - though the DM there didn't like it.

 

[Shiroiken]

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?

I have not, nor played in a game with it. My earlier comment referred to the Flanking Chain, which was common enough in previous editions, and there is no reason to believe that 5E would be better in this regard (actually, as you point out with 2, it would make it worse).

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

You are also forgetting Bounded Accuracy. A +2 Bonus in 4E wasn't always significant, but with much lower AC, Advantage is even bigger than you might think. With 5E's movement (which I like, btw), a character should be able to get into flanking position against most enemies, unless the battlefield is constrained (passageways or enemies in formation). So you can get it easier, for a bigger bonus... not my cup of tea.

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?

Flanking is correctly an optional rule. There is nothing wrong with using it, but it changes several default aspects of the game. Several abilities that grant Advantage are suddenly less powerful, and anything that can cause Disadvantage is that much better (to negate the Advantage).

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?

As in a real battle, numbers matter a LOT in 5E. A "solo" monster is already at a significant disadvantage (even with Legendary Actions). Flanking will expand the numbers difference significantly. Conversely, a swarm of weaker creatures (say 4 CR less than the Party Level) become very lethal due to the ability to hit regularly.

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

Melee Rogues would, which is probably the only reasonable reason to add it. Personally, I'd rather it be a Rogue Ability, rather than a rule for everyone.

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.

Correct. Also, they don't want to shove either, since it will likely take the monster out of Flanking position. Like many optional rules (and houserules) this is better decided at the start of a campaign.

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

If you want to add Flanking, is is probably better. It doesn't discourage Advantage gaining mechanics and doesn't give the rogue free reign. You'll still need to use more creatures, rather than Solo and Elite monsters, because the +2 should still make for a significant increase in damage.

 

[Rhenny]

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.

I like this approach. It is a little something, but not as grand as advantage, which as others have said, would step on the toes of classes and monsters that gain advantage from others when an ally is within 5'.

 

[SkidAce]

Melee Rogues would, which is probably the only reasonable reason to add it. Personally, I'd rather it be a Rogue Ability, rather than a rule for everyone.

Just as a note, the rogue can already get its sneak attack damage as long as another ally is within 5 feet of the target.

You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll.

 

[The Human Target]

Nope. We prefer combat as simple as possible so it moves as fast as possible. Less rules to memorize/look up the better.

Do you just flip a coin?

Heads PCs win here's some treasure, tails roll up some new characters?