Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 6966145" data-attributes="member: 48518">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.</blockquote>

Verification