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

[hejtmane]

I do not use the rule; I am not oppose to it but since I do not have grids and miniatures it is not worth using.

That I think is the dividing line because it is so hard to keep track of combat now I write mini notes on my paper on changes as the battle goes so way to much to track without miniatures.

 

[hejtmane]

No, but I come from an era where almost everything that needed a roll came down to an attack roll or ability check*--two very simple mechanics without worrying about a bunch of modifiers. Wanted to leap from the balcony, swing on the chandelier, and land on the opposite side of the room? Dex check. Want to try to disarm or trip the opponent? Attack roll and then make the opponent make a dex check. Want to distract the target by taunting? Cha check. Want to attack wildly for extra damage? Penalty to your attack roll (something like -1 to hit for every +2 damage). Things like that. And with advantage in 5e, it's a really simple single rule that can apply to a lot of scenarios.


*ability checks back then were roll a d20 and get your ability score or lower to succeed. No math involved.

I do miss that from the old days

 

[Skyscraper]

Thanks to all for all the replies and the intelligent discussion.

After having read everything here, I'll opt for proposing to my table that we use a +1 tactical attack bonus that will be awarded for gaining any type of favorable conditions: flanking will be one, but also higher ground, and anything else the players or DM might come up with during the game. This bonus will not be limited to melee combat; for example, I think that an archer perched over enemies might have a better time firing at them (I'll have to think about this though - is it simply because there is no cover, or is the overlooking position actually favorable? Any thoughts?)

The arguments that won me over are that advantage when flanking would become too easy to obtain, for such a mathematically big advantage. It appears further likely to change the combat mechanics in battles where the number of protagonists on each side are relatively different. Finally, it trivializes certain PC and monster powers, feats and options to some extent.

I have read all the comments from those that use advantage and find it works well. My interpretation of these posts is that I don't think that granting advantage when flanking is a dealbreaker. Both sides benefit from it and as such it is fair. Also, it offers some advantages. It increases odds of hitting opponents so it probably speeds up combat. Also it would incentivise players and DMs to move creatures to flank, probably increasing mobility on the battle map. So there are clear upsides that stand out in this thread.

However, I do not feel like the price being paid if worth it for the reasons stated above. I feel that the small +1 tactical attack bonus incentive might work along the same way to gain the main result that the flanking rule also gets: mobility of creatures on the battle map. We'll see how this pans out in practice.

 

[iserith]

I don't use this in my games and quickly lose interest in games that do implement this rule. It makes advantage too easy to achieve and it's too big a bonus for so little effort or cost.

 

[machineelf]

No, I don't use it, and I find that 5e offers plenty enough rules to make combat interesting and dynamic, even though the rules are quite simple. You can duck and cover behind something, stand up, shoot an arrow, and take cover again. You can move toward the enemy using a dodge action, making it harder for enemies to attack you as you move forward. You can use an assist action to give a teammate advantage on their attack.

You can really do anything you want, and there will be an ability check to see of you succeed. Jump over a table in a tavern and smash a chair over the head of a large, burly half-orc who started a fight? Go for it. There are enough abilities and situations that grant advantage already that add to the dynamism of combat. And if you grant advantage to flanking all the time, you might make certain special abilities, like rogue's sneak attack, less special, and at the same time you will train your players to think in "accounting" grid-battle more than dynamic story-telling battle.

I use that word, "accounting," a lot to explain my central thesis that roleplaying is all about telling a story with your players, and that the rules should serve that purpose, and not become the master. The grid, too, if you use it in battle, should also serve the story and not take the spotlight away from the story. When players concern themselves always with trying to position themselves on the grid just perfectly for flanking, it cheapens the storytelling of the battle scenes. (Plus the PCs in 5e are plenty powerful enough without extra flanking advantage.)

 

[Anakzar]

Game I was playing in had a moon druid that the DM allowed to summon 8 flying poisonous snakes. So he was always saying they flanked the target/targets and was micro-managing his snakes (they fly in and attack them fly up out of reach, fly-by).... slowed things wayyy down. His turn would take 3-4 times as long as everyone else's. Due to him rolling each snake individually and rolling separately twice for each attack.

When I took over I tried to take away his flanking but he got all pissy... I had just informed him that I was going to roll on or choose what form the summon spell took instead of him getting to choose. Anyhow a few sessions later I just gave up on the whole campaign... mostly due to the moon druid's constant trying to game the system... and having 3 other players come to me and complain.

 

[thalmin]

While I have been using flanking, I am now reconsidering. I had not thought about how it devalued certain abilities.

 

[machineelf]

While I have been using flanking, I am now reconsidering. I had not thought about how it devalued certain abilities.

Yeah. And I find that another thing the rule does is it makes everyone have to pay attention to it and abide by it, or miss out. It becomes too big and too important of a rule, in that regard. If you have a flanking rule, you almost force yourself to use grids instead of theater of the mind, and your players learn very quickly that they must try to flank in every battle against every opponent. You might think they love the rule because they are always flanking, but they may just always be flanking because they know they have to.

I played in a game that used flanking rules, and the first session I played with these guys and I didn't flank, one guy started telling me how I needed to flank, or else I'm not adding enough to pull my weight, essentially. The battle just devolved into a power-gamer grid tactical situation, with no regard for how my character would actually choose to fight. It lost the storytelling element and the dynamic battle element for me.

 

[Mercule]

Nope. I'm burnt out on rules complexity and having to look things up. I'm actually seriously considering switching to Fate, but using D&D sources to fuel my game, just to simplify the rules framework.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The one 'homebrew 5e' table at our FLGS does and it seems to go over well - they also use a battlemat & minis. The AL tables, IDK, when I run 5e I don't use it as a rule, but could rule advantage applies situationally, depending on how the players describe coordinating their attacks. The Help action is otherwise a 5e-standard-legal way of modeling such a thing, if not a terribly enticing one, mechanically.