Flanking Rules

[jayoungr]

i don't have a problem with flanking. If your game is showing it to be too powerful for your tastes, just have the enemy use it occasionally. easier to do with large groups. In 5E even weak enemies get much more dangerous when they are having advantage frequently, especially if they have a sneak attack or the like.

I do have the enemy use flanking whenever they can.

 

[BookBarbarian]

The flanking variant makes the Wolf Totem 3rd level ability pointless, so I've never considered using it.

There is still a lot of incentive to flank foes such as getting as many attacks of opportunity as possible if said foe moves away from those next to it.

 

[BluejayJunior]

I didn't enjoy advantage for flanking much for our group. It makes melee characters more powerful, since they were almost always attacking with advantage, while the ranged/backline characters were hitting less frequently. Plus, it didn't really encourage tactics for us, but the illusion of tactics. It seemed cool to think the fighter and ranger were being tactical by surrounding one enemy, but really it just let the other enemies move around unimpeded and get to the cleric and wizard.
And there are so many spells and other class abilities that can give you advantage, but they rarely ever get used because people can get advantage for free. Fairie Fire goes from useful in most fights to only useful if the enemy is invisible.

If I were to put it in my games, I would probably keep it at a +1 (or +2) and probably use the movement/opportunity attack rules from 3rd. So moving around enemies became more difficult and it wasn't as easy to get flanking.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

It seems like characters and creatures meant to benefit from flanking have the Pack Tactics ability. I've considered adding 3.5E flanking rules amongst my house rules but I don't want to add fiddliness or complexity.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I tend to find that flanking giving advantage is too powerful for my tastes. It's pretty easy to flank, so PCs would have advantage all the time.

Wouldn't it also mean NPCs do as well?

My problem is that it negates all the other ways to get advantage, but I actually like it being very strong. It puts emphasis on number in melee. Range being more defensive and easier to pick/switch targets. I would be okay with a +2 or even a +5. It doesn't effect rogues because flanking requires an ally in melee which already allows for backstab. One of current GMs doesn't like it because gives PCs a number advantage (because he like 1 enemy boss fights) and another GM that doesn't like it because he thinks its too dangerous for players (he likes a large number of smaller melee NPCs) … When I GM I include range and multiple enemies so everyone wants it but its not always and option and it can go to who ever has the most melee actually engaged. At the same time if ranged is spread out they can focus fire while 2 PC party member try to gang up on one ranged NPC while they stand in a 120ft triangle ambush … so I like making melee tactically better in tight spaces while ranged and spreading out in open spaces is generally better if you can.

… So really depends on GM play style. In my opinion.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t think the flanking rules add enough tactical depth to really be worthwhile. On the other hand, I really enjoy the facing rules, also from the DMG. They are a little more complex, but also have a much more dramatic impact on tactics and positioning. Flanking is basically just free advantage for standing on opposite sides of something, very powerful and not really very interesting IMO. Facing makes you think about not only where everyone is, but also where their arcs are, and who has a reaction available to change up their arcs.