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

[DND_Reborn]

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

Oh, interesting... I like this and will have to look into it.

You could make it more lethal by increasing the critical range for each participant! So, if 4 creatures ganged up on 1, the critical range would become 17-20!!! Yikes!

 

[Xeviat]

Advantage is nearly equivalent to +5 to hit if you need a 10 or 11 to hit. It goes down in value when you need below or above that, but it always doubles crit chances.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Advantage is nearly equivalent to +5 to hit if you need a 10 or 11 to hit. It goes down in value when you need below or above that, but it always doubles crit chances.

Yeah, I seem to recall near the extremes the effect bonus drops to about +2 or so.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Yeah, I seem to recall near the extremes the effect bonus drops to about +2 or so.

If you already need a 20 on the die, it's less than a +1. (you get a 9.5% chance of hitting) Over an "average" spread of needs, it's just under a +4.

It's not a small boost, though - although it doesn't change the caps.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you already need a 20 on the die, it's less than a +1. (you get a 9.5% chance of hitting) Over an "average" spread of needs, it's just under a +4.

It's not a small boost, though - although it doesn't change the caps.

(Emphasis mine). That's the most important point concerning bounded accuracy. It is why I disliked Expertise doubling proficiency, it blows bounded accuracy out of the water... So, we reduced Expertise to half proficiency bonus (rounded up).

Here's the actually "effective" bonus (rounded to 1 decimal place):

So, if you "need" to roll an 8 (standard given the 65% hit probability IME), it is about a +4.6 bump. But if you need a 17 to hit, it is effectively about a +3.2 bump. Given the more normal ranges of numbers needed (7-15) on d20 rolls, I would definitely estimated it at typically about a +4.5 increase overall.

 

[aco175]

I have not had a problem with flanking. There may be some movement to circle the monsters and ganging up at the end finishes the fight faster, but I also allow the monsters to flank to even things out more. I do find that it keeps the thief from just hiding and poking out each round to gain advantage. It allows him to contribute more when he can give the fighter advantage as well by placing himself in a bit of danger.

 

[CubicsRube]

I've gone from being anti-flanking to pro-flanking because it gives melee an advantage (NPI) over ranged. Making advantage easy to get isn't ideal, but it's better than a party that kites all the time.

My rule is that firing into melee where allies are involved is -2 due to the scuffling and movement. I won't treat it like cover and so it doesn't get negated by sharpshooter.

 

[CubicsRube]

I like having players think tactically and positioning characters, we’re all about the grid. I find advantage is far too much just from location. Matt Colville’s “Running the Game“ video on the math of D&D really clarified why it felt too much, it’s a huge benefit.

A straight +2 is cleaner, but I could even see instead using d4 like bless, that may or may not stack with bless.

If I were to g this route I'd prefer the +2 myself. It's a balancer between modifier creaap (a la 3e) and bonus dice creep.

I feel in 5e we're more in the latter.