D&D 5E Flanking
- Thread starter Runny
- Start date
There are no flanking rules as of yet. If/when they appear it will be in the DMG. I personally would not hand out advantage for something as easy to get as flanking in 5e, advantage/disadvantage is something I give out just a couple times an encounter not every round.
The current rules, one of the two flankers could use the help action to give the other one advantage.
I might give advantage if the target was out numbered by 4 to 1 by opponents equal to his size, or so like a gang up rule.
The current rules, one of the two flankers could use the help action to give the other one advantage.
I might give advantage if the target was out numbered by 4 to 1 by opponents equal to his size, or so like a gang up rule.
Chocolategravy
First Post
Advantage on flanking would suck as advantage is a horrible mechanic that doesn't work with itself. Barbarians and monks giving themselves advantage every round would get nothing from it.
I disagree. Barbs wouldn't have to work on fancy footwork (positioning), they could just pick nearest target and swing. Other melee types would have to flank, and thus maybe put themselves in a position where they are easily flanked.
Combat adv in 3rd and 4th was predicated on flanking first and foremost. Also, it makes sense that surrounding your opponent would give you advantage.
Any other thoughts? Any predictions on how the DMG will handle flanking?
Combat adv in 3rd and 4th was predicated on flanking first and foremost. Also, it makes sense that surrounding your opponent would give you advantage.
Any other thoughts? Any predictions on how the DMG will handle flanking?
Thinking on this some more, I came up with the following.
If you are flanking an enemy, you can use a bonus action to perform the help action.
To me this works well because it keeps it as an advantage/disadvantage thing not a fiddly number bonus like a +1 or +2, it uses up a bonus action so it takes some effort on the flankers part, and it only applies to the allies first attack against it not all of them.
For now that will be my house rule, if one of my players asks.
If you are flanking an enemy, you can use a bonus action to perform the help action.
To me this works well because it keeps it as an advantage/disadvantage thing not a fiddly number bonus like a +1 or +2, it uses up a bonus action so it takes some effort on the flankers part, and it only applies to the allies first attack against it not all of them.
For now that will be my house rule, if one of my players asks.
Keeps the general rule: No advantage without action. Seems alright to me.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
I'll have to think about that one a bit. I've been going with advantage for one of the allies, provided the first ally hits with their attack. I've also considered allowing the 'helped' ally to move out of reach without provoking an opportunity attack.
Originally I was just going with the Help rule, but that meant that one of the allies couldn't attack. That didn't really make sense to me, because if you weren't taking an attack then you wouldn't be drawing the enemy away from your ally very much. Yes, I know that descriptively you could still be attacking, and just not hitting.
Another alternative I thought about was to use the Help action, and allow a bonus attack instead. This would limit you to a single attack, instead of whatever multiple attacks you'd normally get.
I don't particularly mind granting advantage or disadvantage. Combat is often all about trying to put yourself into an advantageous position, and goes back to the simple rule of earlier editions to not worry about all of the modifiers and just go with a +2 or -2 based on who has the advantage. Of course, the monsters are usually trying to get the advantage as well.
Since Combat and Tactics, though, flanking has been a staple tactic (rightfully so), so I do want to go with something.
-Ilbranteloth
fuindordm
Adventurer
If you're worried about rogues, the sneak attack description says that they get the extra damage dice if an ally is within 5 feet of the opponent and the rogue does not have disadvantage on the attack.
So SA works even if the ally isn't actively helping, and they don't have to flank 3E style, just double-team.
So SA works even if the ally isn't actively helping, and they don't have to flank 3E style, just double-team.
The_Gneech
Explorer
According to Mike Mearls, they removed flanking because there was too much confusion of how it worked with large+ creatures; given the desire to move to mapless encounters, it's also way too fiddly.
For the rogue, they added the "...if there's another creature hostile to your target within 5' of it" to the sneak attack language to cover the main thing that flanking was used for, and the Help action for those people who can't possibly hit the target so want to provide a bonus for someone else in the party who can.
So, no. No flanking (by that name) in 5E.
-TG
For the rogue, they added the "...if there's another creature hostile to your target within 5' of it" to the sneak attack language to cover the main thing that flanking was used for, and the Help action for those people who can't possibly hit the target so want to provide a bonus for someone else in the party who can.
So, no. No flanking (by that name) in 5E.
-TG
My group plays most combats on a map now (though we initially played without when we started 5e), and we don't miss flanking at all.
It turns out, the constant quest for combat advantage was one of the things that slowed 4e combat to a crawl. Not the only thing, of course, but it was definitely a contributing factor.
We're much happier now that we mainly just worry about staying out of one another's way and keeping the squishies safe.
It turns out, the constant quest for combat advantage was one of the things that slowed 4e combat to a crawl. Not the only thing, of course, but it was definitely a contributing factor.
We're much happier now that we mainly just worry about staying out of one another's way and keeping the squishies safe.
Wrathamon
Adventurer
I agree with Joe on flanking (and threating for OAs) was the main thing players fiddled with over positioning in 3rd and 4th imo. I dont miss it.
I do think the concept of using a Bonus action (since you only get 1) is interesting and has merit. When you are flanking you get a bonus action to give another player X. Whether that is advantage or a +1 or +2 to hit.
I do think the concept of using a Bonus action (since you only get 1) is interesting and has merit. When you are flanking you get a bonus action to give another player X. Whether that is advantage or a +1 or +2 to hit.
Thaumaturge
Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)
I like +1d4 for a generic, not quite advantage, bonus. People can see if the die roll included it, just by looking at the dice on the table. It averages ~2, and there's precedent in the system (bane and bless).
Thaumaturge.
Thaumaturge.
frankthedm
First Post
Considering the HP monsters start getting, players don't need any more encouragement to gang up on foes to take them down one by one.
The Mirrorball Man
Aventurier
The cave troll scene in Fellowship of the Ring convinced me that flanking is meaningless in a dynamic fight. It's not a wargame about the Napoleonic wars.
wedgeski
Adventurer
A scene which gets better every time I watch it.
Flanking was there to add depth to the tactical layer: if there's no positional benefit to be gained, then you don't encourage people to move their PC's around the battle-mat. That's my POV on the subject, anyway. We've moved away from the battle-mat for 5E and don't really miss it.
LostSoul
Adventurer
I agree that flanking adds tactical depth. I don't agree that you need a battle mat to make use of it.
I'm surprised that most of the commenters on this thread don't find it odd (and possibly immersion-breaking) that you can't attack someone from behind; or, if you can, that there is no benefit to it. Even in AD&D, when you couldn't specify the target of your attacks in melee, you gained benefits from flanking/attacking from the rear.
Similar Threads
