Favorite Flanking Fixes in Five-E?

[CleverNickName]

Ah crap, my math is wrong. Comparing the difference between two separate d20 rolls is not the same as Advantage. The average difference between the rolls will be 6.6, whether forward or backward, but it is the deviation from the average roll that I really want to measure. My bad.

I'll rework it and get back to you. But my gut tells me it'll still be higher than +2.

Edit: I see that others have already done the work for me. *facepalm* Yep, it's +3.3. Or to paraphrase one of the players in my group: "if I stand here, my dagger becomes Excalibur!"

 

[Harzel]

Not exactly. I am measuring the difference between two rolls. Then doing it again, and again, and again, ten thousand times. Then I find the average of that difference. Over thousands of iterations, that result approaches 6.6.

It's the same thing as if you sat at a table with two d20s, rolled them, and wrote down the difference between the two dice...ten thousand times...then added up all those results and divided the sum by ten thousand. It doesn't care which die has advantage or which has disadvantage, it's only looking at the raw result.

In my spreadsheet, the min, max stuff is to ensure I don't have negative results. I could have simply used the ABS(COL1-COL2) function now that I think about it. Your 3.3 result is just one half of the absolute distance between the positive and negative integers (which is 6.6).

Not meaning to pile on, but as others have mentioned, what you are calculating is actually the difference between rolling with advantage and rolling with disadvantage. Because the situation is symmetric, that result is exactly double the difference between rolling with advantage and rolling straight (one die). The average benefit of rolling with advantage is ~3.3.

 

[CleverNickName]

@CleverNickName

First, you don't need 10,000 columns, you need exactly 400: one for each of the 400 possible combinations, which have a perfectly even probability distribution.

Second, the math (or logic) error you made was to assume the benefit is equal to the delta between the two values. 50% of the time the higher value would have been the result even without Advantage, and thus there's no benefit.

Imagine two rolls with Advantage:
The first produces an 8 and a 16
The second produces a 10 and a 4

You might say, "That's an average of 7 (8 + 6 / 2) better!" But if we take the first number to be the result of the "first die", that is, the one you would have rolled if you didn't have Advantage, then it didn't help you on the second roll. So Advantage gave you a bonus of +8 in the first case and 0 in the second case, for an average bonus of 4 not 7.

If you integrate this across all 400 possible combinations, it's the same as just dividing your result in half.

EDIT: Yeah, this is effectively what Dausuul did.

Yep, to both of you. The realization came to me while I was chewing a bowl of salad. It was a fun exercise in statistics; I'm happy to have learned something. (Even if it came at the expense of my own ridicule on the Internet. )

 

[CleverNickName]

Not meaning to pile on, but as others have mentioned, what you are calculating is actually the difference between rolling with advantage and rolling with disadvantage. Because the situation is symmetric, that result is exactly double the difference between rolling with advantage and rolling straight (one die). The average benefit of rolling with advantage is ~3.3.

Okay okay, gosh! I get it alright?!

Just kidding, it's cool. We're cool.

Even so, getting a +3 bonus to all of your attack rolls for the whole turn, to say nothing of other class features that might trigger, simply for simply standing in the right spot on the battlemat? I still maintain that complaints about it being overpowered are well-defended, even if my Excel skills are indefensible.

 

[jgsugden]

At my table, a flanked creature provokes an OA if it moves (unless disengaging, etc...) Flanking is used to lock someone down in position. It works, but has a very different feel.

 

[77IM]

I find that flanking rules lead to very "shallow" tactics. Every fight is the same: you line up with a buddy and flank. YAWN.

Instead, introduce interesting terrain elements, like rope bridges that catch fire easily, or classics like pits of lava. Cast area spells that encourage PCs to move out of them, or "wall" spells that split up the group suboptimally. Use enemies who have auras. Do flanking the real old school way: Wave 2 of enemies appear from behind and start cutting into the squishies in the back row. Give the enemy troops a cleric and a wizard in THEIR back row.

That kind of variety can lead to MUCH more interesting tactical decision-making than just "oh hey I slot into the obvious flanking position."

 

[Harzel]

Okay okay, gosh! I get it alright?!

Just kidding, it's cool. We're cool.

Even so, getting a +3 bonus to all of your attack rolls for the whole turn, to say nothing of other class features that might trigger, simply for simply standing in the right spot on the battlemat? I still maintain that complaints about it being overpowered are well-defended, even if my Excel skills are indefensible.

Yes, I agree with that.* Personally, I just give a +1 for attacks from the side and +2 from behind, but that requires keeping track of which way creatures are facing. I do that because my players prefer it. Actually, it is pretty much a demand, not just a preference. I'm not sure where that came from; I didn't start things out that way.

*EDIT - I mean I agree about the +3; I make no judgement about your Excel skills.

 

[happyhermit]

Okay okay, gosh! I get it alright?!

Just kidding, it's cool. We're cool.

Even so, getting a +3 bonus to all of your attack rolls for the whole turn, to say nothing of other class features that might trigger, simply for simply standing in the right spot on the battlemat? I still maintain that complaints about it being overpowered are well-defended, even if my Excel skills are indefensible.

Of course, at least as I see it, a simple +3 would be potentially much more problematic because it could stack. Even making flanking a +2 is probably going to have more impact than advantage, at least a lot of the time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I did like the playtest iteration where kobolds got +1 per otger kobold attacking the target in melee. I think that had potential for a general rule. Would help lowere level foes to be more dangerous and also allow mooks to enhance the heavy hitters without just giving advatage by using the help action.

 

[Zardnaar]

I like the +2 modifier idea.