Favorite Flanking Fixes in Five-E?

[i_dont_meta]

My group toyed around with the DMG guidelines but quickly reverted back to +2.

 

[dave2008]

But D&D is a heroic action game, not a realistic one. Something like Riddle of Steel was very good at showing that. D&D, where a hero is expected to wade through goblins, not so much.

I don't think providing advantage on flanking detracts from D&D as a heroic action game, do you?

 

[dave2008]

We provide advantage for any 2 vs 1 situation. You don't have to be flanked. It hasn't hurt our play, if anything it has made my job as DM easier as i am more likely to hit as I've got more mooks to throw at them

 

[ClaytonCross]

The only issue with any flanking rules is that depending on your campaign and encounter style it will benefit the enemy more often than the PCs. Assuming of course that NPCs and monsters play by the same rules as the PCs which is something I always do.

I like the idea of the tactical advantage as well. Beyond that the differences in AC and bounded accuracy don't really matter. In both 3.5 and 5.0, a +1 is an additional 5% to hit a +2 is 10% to hit. As long as the tactical bonuses don't stack I don't see a big issue. If they stack, a person standing in a sandy pit that is flanked and lower than their enemies could really be SOL.

I would point out that while this is true most boss fights are against one larger opponent, so your making fighting easier fights against large number of minions harder based on numbers and hard fights vs one powerful opponent easier based on the tactical advantage of number actually able to use tactics instead of just all run up and hit each other. That really feels like its makes strategy matter as opposed to not having a bonus and it really doesn't matter were you stand because you line up on one side all stupid like and just hit the enemy and it will not change the fight at all unless they have and AoE attack like dragons breath. So stupid is the same as smart. I like smart to matter when I am fighting a horde of stupid zombies.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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."

You can mitigate this by requiring allies to have at least two squares between them to qualify as flanking. That is, they have to either be on opposite sides of the target, or one of them can be one square adjacent to opposite. (I guess what you would classically call a "backstab" position.)

 

[smbakeresq]

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.

To me it’s not the bonus that is important (although it is) its that advantage gives you two chances to critical hit or cancels disadvantage.

A flat bonus is better and encourages tactical position which makes players think which is good. That also would not trigger abilities that happen on advantage or when not disadvantaged.

 

[smbakeresq]

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."

That’s not flanking rules fault, that’s the DMs fault, as you say.

And nothing pisses off the players like a spirit guardians on a flying creature (the aura reaches “down” also) or on a huge creature with reach (it greatly increases the area and messes up PC positions.)

I tried to justify a roper with spirit guardians type aura but really couldn’t. I had to settle for a roper partially submerged in the middle of a deep pool so if you break free you must now sink or swim.

I don’t think that most DMs realize (or just are willing to use) that everything the players have access to the enemies do also. That goes for all divination magic and spying, enemies with that ability WILL know all PC resistances, weaknesses, fears, tactics etc. It’s not metagaming the players that the BBEG with a network of spies and minions and magic knows standard tactics and routines and class abilities and spell usage of players.

From the players perspective, if your DM is like me, well dead men tell no tales, but slaying prisoners is an evil act. Changing survivors memories work, as does Geas or Suggestion. Turning them over to the local constabulary works also in a lot of cases, trial and punishment isn’t on the players.


Maybe the +1/+2 for some tactical advantage is the solution though to give some bonus for smart play.

Maybe the players need to make an insight check to fully exploit the advantageous position to get full advantage, with martial types getting the check with advantage.

Or this, combine both, it’s +1/ +2 for everyone, but martial classes get an insight check, DC is AC of enemy, to get full advantage. This encourages skill use, and gives martial PC who take insight a chance at a larger bonus.

I think a lot faster then I can type [emoji41]

 

[jgsugden]

D&D is intentionally stingy with the +X bonuses to hit. They're limited to a verysmall set of situations. The math of the game does not do well with giving it away too freely... nor does it work too well when everyone can easily get advantage.

 

[Sadras]

Maybe the players need to make an insight check to fully exploit the advantageous position to get full advantage, with martial types getting the check with advantage.

Or this, combine both, it’s +1/ +2 for everyone, but martial classes get an insight check, DC is AC of enemy, to get full advantage. This encourages skill use, and gives martial PC who take insight a chance at a larger bonus.

I'm not a fan of additional rolls (insight checks) to gain additional rolls (advantage) - it is similar to spamming hiding to gain advantage. We already have one current thread where fellow Enworlders are removing one other from their xmas guest list because of that.

 

[Blue]

I don't think providing advantage on flanking detracts from D&D as a heroic action game, do you?

D&D mechanically focuses on high fantasy and the tropes of it. A hero fights dragons, can take multiple critical great axe attacks and still fight, falls off a 50' cliff and continues to fight. Picking 5e over a system that prioritizes realism shows that the default position should be that realism is good, but not at the cost of heroics.

So the question isn't "is it realistic", it's "is this net enhancing play?", with more weight given to heroics then realism.

Here's what I see as common cases:

• Characters outnumbered by weaker foes: Flanking more use to monsters. Weak monsters overwhelming heroes - adds realism at the cost of heroics, so because of our weightings, this is bad.
• Characters and monsters even in terms of numbers and strength: Neutral
• Characters outnumber strong foes: 5e already has a problem with solo creatures being too easy to defeat, so this doesn't enhance play. This is orthogonal to realism, instead it would be exasperating a flaw in the system. So also bad.

This is only looking at the generic. Any given table could have different priorities and value realism more. Something like this would therefore be good as a variant rule as opposed to a base rule. Variant and house rules are encouraged, to allow each table to tailor the general experience to one that fits them better.