Favorite Flanking Fixes in Five-E?

[Henry]

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.

From what we've seen, it would make the most difference toward the extremes -- e.g. if you needed a 20 to hit. A +1 would be about the same odds, and as your target number was closer to 11 on a 20, it would make less and less difference than Advantage would.

Given the bounded accuracy of 5e, and having used the advantage flanking option from the DMG for an entire campaign, I'd be more comfortable with a straight +1. Advantage meant that EVERYONE wanted to gang up in combat -- PCs and enemies. I will admit though that the players would figuratively lose their water whenever they faced against a horde of CL1 or 1/2 creatures in close quarters, even at high level - because they knew if they didn't think tactically they could be nickel-and-dimed to death...

 

[CleverNickName]

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

Yeah, we are leaning in that direction as well just because it makes the math simpler. (We will probably make it +1, since stacking bonuses are a thing in 5E.)

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

Another excellent point. Advantage is powerful for a number of reasons, not just the statistical +3.3 bonus to hit. That might not be an issue for some gaming groups, but it's a problem in mine.

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

This is my biggest argument for giving a bonus to damage, rather than a bonus to hit. In 5E, armor classes are quite a bit lower compared to 3.x, so that +2 bonus is more powerful now than it was Back In The Day. I like the bonus to damage because it has a couple of built-in power checks: you have to hit first, and it doesn't multiply on a crit.

 

[Oofta]

If anyone uses a rule like a tactical bonus, to you allow it to stack? Do you change any rules to make it more difficult to get that bonus?

I could see where adding bonuses to attack could be an issue, it certainly could be one in previous editions. I've toyed around with some of these ideas because with certain groups, I kind of miss the tactical feel of previous editions but I don't want to go overboard.

I'm thinking a +2 tactical bonus for flanking, higher ground that doesn't stack with any other external bonuses (Bless might be an issue). In addition I might go back to the old opp attack rules where you provoke for moving in a threatened area unless you make an acrobatics (tumble) check.

Maybe I'll discuss it when I have another session 0.

 

[dave2008]

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.

Ugh - I can see I walked into it here. I was never trying to make an argument for D&D being more "realistic." I was responding to this comment in OP:

"Don't get me wrong, I think flanking should definitely give you an edge in melee. But my gut tells me that Advantage is just too good, ..."

I interpreted "my gut" to mean: "feels more realistic to me." If it doesn't feel right to your "gut," I believe that it doesn't "feel" (and I do want to emphasize feel) realistic on some base level. Your "gut" is telling you something is off. But simply on that "gut" level, not an over arching argument about simulation/realism vs heroic fantasy.

I was just merely say my "gut" says advantage feels right to me.

 

[CleverNickName]

Some pretty good ideas so far. Instead of granting all attackers Advantage on melee attacks...

...flanking does nothing.
...flanking gives Advantage on the first attack only.
...flanking gives a +1 (or +2?) bonus to attack rolls.
...flanking gives a +1 bonus to damage rolls.
...a flanked target can't make OAs.
...a flanked target provokes OAs if it moves.
...targets with the Mobile (or Alert?) feat cannot be flanked.
...you cannot have Advantage while flanked.
...you cannot flank creatures that more than one (two?) size category larger than yourself.

Any other ideas? I'm leaning toward #3 or #4.

 

[WaterRabbit]

What I can tell you is that I have been running with the optional flanking rule from the DMG for quite a while now. It hasn't been a negative in the game I am playing. I have been using it in a Curse of Strahd campaign.

However, as a DM I normally run encounters in which the number are between 1:2 and 2:1. If the number of combatants go to far in either direction, the game flow tends to suffer -- especially when the DM becomes the bottleneck.

Getting into a flanking position is usually difficult for the PCs. Creatures with flying and other special movement types tend to break up flanking opportunities.

Also, I haven't seen flanking that detrimental to pack tactics.

To flank, I do require exact opposite sides (i.e., three spaces between flankers; five if the creature is large) and I don't allow flanking if the flankers are two sizes smaller than the creature they are attacking (this hasn't come up yet as there are very few huge creatures in CoS and even fewer tiny creatures).

 

[aco175]

I play the flanking rules and do not have any big problems. Maybe the PCs get some advantage unless they have lots of mooks on them that flank them. I also play zombies and such as not so much looking for flanking but stumble into is if the find it. It does make fights go quicker in the end of fights where one or two foes are left and cannot escape without dragging out the encounter. We mostly carried it over from 4e and it works at my table.

Some of the fights become boring a bit where the fighter tends to get in the middle of the bad guys. The thief uses disengage to move and flank about every round. The others get some help as well. It does make playing with a grid more tactical, but we like knowing what it going on around the PCs and using the grid is better for us.

 

[jgsugden]

One thing to consider here: It is not a question of whether the DMG optional flank rules give the PCs an advantage over the monsters or not - that would be highy campaign dependent. We can't really make any sweeping statements about whether it is better for the monsters or the PCs.

Instead, it is a question of whether making advantage the default state, as it tends to be in games with flanking granting advantage, is a problem. When positioning on the board allows advantage, it makes other things, such as inspiration, spells that grant advantage, etc.... that also grant advantage less meaningful. Further, it alters the math of the game substantially.

This can cause big problems. If the DM is used to the PCs being able to casually fight off deadly encounters because they hit all the time, when they encounter creatures that are immune to advantage from melee positioning (creatures that always cause disadvantage on melee attacks, creatures that fly and thus can't be attacked from both sides by grounded enemies, creatures that attack from range, etc...), the PCs can suddenly struggle a lot more than the DM expected. Further, it amps up melee damage, which discourages ranged damage attackers.

The game works a lot better when flanking grants neither advantage, nor attack bonuses. My rule wherein flanked enemies provoke OAs when they move gives us strategic reasons to flank, but doesn't mess with the math. I really like it.