D&D 5E Flanking, advantage, and opportunity attacks

[Flamestrike]

We tried Flanking at a couple different level points and got rid of it. It made advantage too easy to get, and really trivialized features that granted Advantage.

This. It lasted all of 1 session, and that was with rules that made it harder to get (leaving a square provoked, and the 5' step was a bonus action)

(And this was a while ago - before Elven Accuracy which would be even more powerful, and the Samurai fighter subclass that would be mostly useless.)

Also this.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

So something I'm wondering is why flanking is always associated with an increase in attack bonus or adjusting the attack roll (usually via advantage). But in essence, flanking is a strategic choice the makes characters working together more dangerous. I don't think this needs to be via adjusting the attack roll. Both AC and HP are abstractions that represent an opponent's capacity to continue fighting. We generally accept that AC represents the ability to avoid taking damage, while HP represents how much damage you can take, but it doesn't have to be this way.

So in a game where bounded accuracy is important, and any bonus to attack or gaining of advantage can create huge buffs, flanking is a no brainer. So how do we create opportunities for flanking that make it desirable without making it so great that it would be foolish not to flank?

Well, what if instead of adjusting the attack roll, we adjust the damage? It could be a static +1 or +2 to damage, or it could be an additional d4 to damage. This also opens up options to increase the flanking bonus for each additional creature. Maybe you get a +1 bonus to damage for every ally attacking the same creature.

This also means that those attacking from range or splitting up to attack something else don't lose as much compared to those attacking while flanking.

 

[Flamestrike]

But in essence, flanking is a strategic choice the makes characters working together more dangerous.

That's already the case seeing as having two creatures wailing on you is already twice as bad as having just one creature wailing on you.

The HP attrition model of DnD combat already encourages 'ganging up' on creatures, and it's already a bad thing when you're the one surrounded by a ton off monsters for just such a reason.

I dont see any need to make that situation worse.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

That's already the case seeing as having two creatures wailing on you is already twice as bad as having just one creature wailing on you.

The HP attrition model of DnD combat already encourages 'ganging up' on creatures, and it's already a bad thing when you're the one surrounded by a ton off monsters for just such a reason.

I dont see any need to make that situation worse.

Yea, that's true. But I think a few factors come into play. First, a lot of players like to have more strategic options. Whether or not such options actually exist (I'm not totally convinced) they want to feel like there are ways to set up the set pieces to gain some additional advantage. Like, more so than the obvious advantage of ganging up on a creature already presents.

But I also think there are those who played through 3.x and 4e where flanking bonuses were the norm, and they don't want to let go.

Maybe the best way to address this wouldn't be through granting flanking bonuses to everyone. Maybe that bonus should be earned. Either as a class ability or feat. Like perhaps when a person gains Extra Attack, they can instead choose Coordinated Attack that grants them and one flanking ally a Flanking Bonus (whether a flat bonus, die roll, or advantage).

This way, people can still access the ability to flank, but they still have to work for it in some way.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So something I'm wondering is why flanking is always associated with an increase in attack bonus or adjusting the attack roll (usually via advantage). But in essence, flanking is a strategic choice the makes characters working together more dangerous. I don't think this needs to be via adjusting the attack roll. Both AC and HP are abstractions that represent an opponent's capacity to continue fighting. We generally accept that AC represents the ability to avoid taking damage, while HP represents how much damage you can take, but it doesn't have to be this way.

So in a game where bounded accuracy is important, and any bonus to attack or gaining of advantage can create huge buffs, flanking is a no brainer. So how do we create opportunities for flanking that make it desirable without making it so great that it would be foolish not to flank?

Well, what if instead of adjusting the attack roll, we adjust the damage? It could be a static +1 or +2 to damage, or it could be an additional d4 to damage. This also opens up options to increase the flanking bonus for each additional creature. Maybe you get a +1 bonus to damage for every ally attacking the same creature.

This also means that those attacking from range or splitting up to attack something else don't lose as much compared to those attacking while flanking.

Interesting idea, but bounded accuracy is not affect by flanking if you make it advantage RAW. It is only affected if you give a bonus to the attack rolls because you are allowing creatures to hit higher ACs that otherwise would be harder to hit.

Another alternative I've suggested before (and am implementing in our games recently) is that instead of the attackers gaining any advantage, it imposes disadvantage on the defender's offense.

Flanked
If you are attacked by more than one creature, your attention is divided and so you focus on your defense at the sacrifice of your offense. Any attack rolls you make are with disadvantage and you must make a DC 10 Concentration check to cast any spell of level 1 or higher while threatened by multiple opponents.

Optionally, you can give the defender the option. Either you accept disadvantage, etc. or your allies gain advantage--your choice.

 

[Gadget]

I like the idea of giving more damage to flankers, if a bonus needs to be given. Just outright giving advantage trivializes advantage and so many of the features that grant it. I've found the flanking rule, like many of the optional rules in the DMG, to be half-baked, back-of-the-napkin theory crafting that does not quite hit the spot.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Interesting idea, but bounded accuracy is not affect by flanking if you make it advantage RAW. It is only affected if you give a bonus to the attack rolls because you are allowing creatures to hit higher ACs that otherwise would be harder to hit.

Not sure I agree. Everything I've read seems to suggest that advantage on a d20 roll is roughly equivalent to a +5 bonus on the check. Now sure, advantage doesn't allow you to hit a 29 AC if the best you can hit is only a 24 on a natural 20, but I don't recall any monsters lower than CR 20 with anything close to that kind of AC.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not sure I agree. Everything I've read seems to suggest that advantage on a d20 roll is roughly equivalent to a +5 bonus on the check. Now sure, advantage doesn't allow you to hit a 29 AC if the best you can hit is only a 24 on a natural 20, but I don't recall any monsters lower than CR 20 with anything close to that kind of AC.

You might be correct--I'd have to do the math in comparing what is better. Advantage's "advantage" depends largely on the number you need to roll.

Either way, though, bounded accuracy is about keep the bonuses low. Advantage doesn't actually increase the bonuses, as where a bonus of any sort (like a flat +2) would. Not a problem to me, just how it works as I understand it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

In the game I run, we changed Flanking to increase the critical range of Melee attacks to 19-20.

 

[Krachek]

Add a bonus to damage rather than advantage. D4, d6,