D&D 5E Flanking

[KarinsDad]

Because then you'd get another d4 irrespective of positioning?

Sure. But which PC would cast a spell to get an additional D4 when the PCs can already get that with flank? It seems overkill except in the most extreme of cases which means that those spells will rarely be cast. It just messes up the balance of the system when DMs start throwing in a bunch of willy nilly bonuses here and there.

So far, it is not really that hard to hit in 5E (unless you roll super crappy like I do ). Most PCs can hit somewhere between 60% and 80% of the time at level one. The spells make sense boosting this by an average 12.5%. Having both a spell and a house rule boosting it by an average of 25% seems way overkill.

Also, the chances of hitting PCs tends to be lower than hitting NPCs (because of better PC armor, even for the lightly armored PCs). Giving this ability to NPCs can make the game even swingier.

See ccookie's post.

 

[Runny]

I still like the four to one gang up giving advantage. It properly models the benefits of a mob imo

 

[Joe Liker]

I still like the four to one gang up giving advantage. It properly models the benefits of a mob imo

The benefits of a mob are that you and a bunch of friends are all beating down the same poor schmuck. Do you really need more than that?

How about the fact that you don't all have to attack the guy you're surrounding? Some of you can attack while others use the Help action to grant advantage.

In fact, it seems to me, the Help action is the flanking bonus people here seem to be looking for. It can emulate the situation where the guy in "front" keeps the monster occupied while the guy in "back" attacks with advantage. In essence, since there's not technically facing in the game, the Helper creates a temporary facing situation by keeping the enemy's attention.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

As I said before we felt that since the character helping didn't get an attack seemed like to much of a penalty and didn't necessity make sense.

I also don't think that attacking one person flanking you provoked an opportunity attack. You have to leave the reach to provoke an opportunity attack. If you're flanked then you are adjacent with two or more combatants, which means you are within reach of all of them and can attack any of them without leaving the tech l tech of the others.

So I'm still not entirely sold on any solution, not convinced that there isn't an elegant answer.

Again, I think the term flanking is perhaps the wrong one. The idea for me is still that two or more opponents against one should have an advantage. Everybody is always moving, but that also means that for a creature that's surrounded, somebody is always at your back.

My earlier suggestion was that if two or more were surrounding a target, and the first hit the target, they could use help as a bonus action to grant advantage to the other. That uses the help mechanic, requires a successful hit which would draw the target away from the ally, and doesn't grant advantage to the character who strikes first.

Which is another reason I like the tactic, it encourages teamwork.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Li Shenron]

The benefits of a mob are that you and a bunch of friends are all beating down the same poor schmuck. Do you really need more than that?

I certainly don't need more than that!

 

[KarinsDad]

Again, I think the term flanking is perhaps the wrong one. The idea for me is still that two or more opponents against one should have an advantage. Everybody is always moving, but that also means that for a creature that's surrounded, somebody is always at your back.

Not in a real fight in real life as per my earlier example.

And the advantage that they already have is that they will knock you unconscious twice as fast.

Which is another reason I like the tactic, it encourages teamwork.

Teamwork is already encouraged. It's called focus fire.

The problem with a Flanking bonus is that the counter to it, the 5 foot step, no longer exists in the game. A foe cannot back up into the corner to avoid the flank without using Disengage or taking at least one OA.

One really has to look at rules in the big picture mode and not be convinced that old style earlier edition rules really make sense for this edition.

In 1E, one had to have 4 opponents on him in order for one of them to get a flank bonus. It was assumed that a PC (or NPC) could keep 3 foes in front of himself at all times (just by backing away, slipping to the side, etc.). It's only in latter editions where flank started coming into play, but in most of those editions, the shift or 5' step also came into play.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I once saw an actual fight at a park. 6 guys were trying to beat up one guy who happened to be a martial artist. They never got flank on him. He hit them. They hit him. But he constantly moved, never staying in a single place for an instant. Kicking, punching, running, retreating. I never saw the outcome of the fight (he was on the other side of a waterway and went out of view), but I do know that for a real melee fighter in the real world who has room to maneuver, flank is very difficult to get.

D&D does not have this "constant move" capability of real life, so RPG flank shouldn't mean much of anything from a plausibility POV. It's not like the NPC is just going to stand there and have one guy in front of him and one guy behind him.

Actually, that's why I've gotten away from the mini game on the table. I'll use minis as a visual aid, but not a combat resolution system. Using minis essentially eliminates the constant motion of combat, where TotM lets you describe a combat in real terms, with lots of motion.

Just because everybody was moving around doesn't mean that they were never able to flank him. The game uses the term flank, and specified that you had to be on opposite sides of the target, but the reality is that multiple trained opponents targeting the same opponent can work together and set up opportunities that give them an advantage. And I think it would be very difficult (at least by observing one fight) to determine if any of them found it easier to hit him because there were more of them. To hit one person requires him to turn his focus, however quickly, to that opponent. In that moment an opponent on the other side has an opportunity that would not be there if it was a one-on-one fight. That's why two or more against one is usually viewed as an unfair fight.

D&D isn't the best combat simulation to account for all of the variables. So why try to include one of those variables? Well, we include cover, because it's easy to determine and has a measurable effect. I think that flanking is another tactic that fits that description. And since it's already described for rogues, and any creature with pack tactics, it also has precedence in this version of the rules.

So far, my players want a flanking tactic/rule. So that's why I'm trying to accommodate them. The help rule works fine, but we felt it was a bit restrictive in that the helping character couldn't attack at all that round. Which also didn't make a lot of sense, because if you weren't really a threat that round, then they could focus on the other PC. I also don't want to take away the benefit that some creatures have, which is why I added the restriction that you couldn't be near any other hostile creatures.

I haven't really run into any real issue with the rule as we've been playing it. But I also enjoy these types of discussions, and since a number of people think it's too powerful it makes me think some more...

So here are the questions that I guess I'd like to answer (at least for myself):

If everything else is evenly matched, does an attacker have an advantage when they outnumber their opponent in direct melee combat?

If so, what's the advantage?

Is it easier to hit them?

Is it easier to cause more damage?

Does it give you more opportunities to attack?

Do all of the attackers gain the benefits, or just one?

Do you need special training to gain the benefits? Remembering that all PC's are trained in combat, that is they have proficiency, but do you need a special ability like a feat?

Here's an interesting article: http://www.wikihow.com/Fight-off-Multiple-Opponents

One thing that I find particularly interesting (and may be what you actually saw in the fight) is to keep backing away to prevent them from surrounding you. So one option would be to use the same mechanism as Pack Tactics and/or Martial Advantage (which is basically sneak attack). I could go with a feat that would allow its use, in which case only the character with the feat gains the benefit. I might also add an option to the Mobile feat to avoid being flanked, or perhaps grant a Dex save.

That would be the second option, to allow anybody to use the tactic, but that it requires an opposed Dexterity check to gain the benefit.

I'm at a stage where if the benefit isn't really worthwhile, then there's not much point in creating the rule. Both Martial Advantage and Pack Tactics make it worthwhile. If the tactic can't provide a similar benefit, then I'll probably just scrap it.

Ilbranteloth

 

[The_Gneech]

Somebody being flanked is already pinned down in terms of movement, unable to avoid opportunity attacks for getting out unless they disengage. Adding advantage just for flanking is OP, IMO. Being in flanking position already opens up your rogue's sneak attacks. If you want flanking to also enable your bruiser to land his big blow, you use the "Help" action. That's what it's for!

Adding advantage for flank means the PCs will surround and wail on your big baddies and kill them double-quick.

Adding advantage for flank means that mobs of kobolds will surround your squishy PC and kill them double-quick.

Adding advantage for flank nerfs archers and spellcasters.

It's a bad idea. Don't do it. The RAW already has you covered.

-The Gneech

 

[KarinsDad]

So here are the questions that I guess I'd like to answer (at least for myself):

If everything else is evenly matched, does an attacker have an advantage when they outnumber their opponent in direct melee combat?

If so, what's the advantage?

Is it easier to hit them?

Is it easier to cause more damage?

Does it give you more opportunities to attack?

Do all of the attackers gain the benefits, or just one?

Do you need special training to gain the benefits? Remembering that all PC's are trained in combat, that is they have proficiency, but do you need a special ability like a feat?

Actually, I did take martial arts for several years. A guy was taking his Black Belt test and the test was to fight two Brown Belt guys at the same time. He had never been taught how to do this, so he went back and forth attacking one, then attacking the other.

I was a much lower belt, but I was sitting there thinking "That's not how you do it, you grab one guy, keep him between yourself and the other guy, and beat the crap out of the nearest guy.".

Sure enough, after about 30 seconds or so, the master stopped the fight, went over and told him how to do it, and then he did much better. He had actually never sparred with two foes or been trained to fight two foes.

One thing that I find particularly interesting (and may be what you actually saw in the fight) is to keep backing away to prevent them from surrounding you. So one option would be to use the same mechanism as Pack Tactics and/or Martial Advantage (which is basically sneak attack). I could go with a feat that would allow its use, in which case only the character with the feat gains the benefit. I might also add an option to the Mobile feat to avoid being flanked, or perhaps grant a Dex save.

That would be the second option, to allow anybody to use the tactic, but that it requires an opposed Dexterity check to gain the benefit.

I'm at a stage where if the benefit isn't really worthwhile, then there's not much point in creating the rule. Both Martial Advantage and Pack Tactics make it worthwhile. If the tactic can't provide a similar benefit, then I'll probably just scrap it.

The assumption is that both sides fight to the best of their ability. When outnumbered, always try to position yourself so that as few guys as possible can attack you.

When done properly, too many foes can actually get in each others way and give themselves disadvantage.

So instead of figuring out if the two guys have "flank and advantage" or whether the one guy "positions himself to prevent one of the foes from attacking him", it's just easier to not worry about this kind of thing.

With miniatures, it's often impossible to stop the miniatures from flaking and also often impossible to position one foe between yourself and the other foe and keep them that way. That's an issue of how miniatures and one turn at a time works. It's has nothing to do with real world fighting where time is not segregated into individual turns.

 

[Tormyr]

If you want everyone who is flanking to have advantage, why not just have the first guy use the shove action as part of his attack to knock him prone? Then everyone who is "flanking" gets advantage on every attack.

 

[Paraxis]

If you want everyone who is flanking to have advantage, why not just have the first guy use the shove action as part of his attack to knock him prone? Then everyone who is "flanking" gets advantage on every attack.

Unless you can shove as a bonus action, wasting your action to shove the target down instead of just attacking is probably not worth it.

 

[Tormyr]

Unless you can shove as a bonus action, wasting your action to shove the target down instead of just attacking is probably not worth it.

Shove is only 1 attack in a multiattack, and then everyone gets advantage, even the character doing the shoving if they were successful on their first try. I would have thought it would be hugely effective against an opponent everyone was ganging up on.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Kobolds already have a flanking ability. It's called pack tactics and as long as there is more than one kobold adjacent to a target they have advantage.

Spells and other special abilities (including cantrips) provide advantage or a bonus to attack so it's not heard to get. So I don't really see an issue with it being too powerful. On the other hand it is so easy to get so I guess it's not really that big a deal to not have a rule for it.

Ilbranteloth

 

[KarinsDad]

Kobolds already have a flanking ability. It's called pack tactics and as long as there is more than one kobold adjacent to a target they have advantage.

Spells and other special abilities (including cantrips) provide advantage or a bonus to attack so it's not heard to get. So I don't really see an issue with it being too powerful. On the other hand it is so easy to get so I guess it's not really that big a deal to not have a rule for it.

What good is a special ability for your class or race if the DM then hands it out to everyone? Kind of defeats the purpose of it being a special ability. Do you just hand out Inspiration to everyone at the table the moment they show up at the table, or do you do it for special things that happen at the table?

And Advantage is too powerful because Advantage is nearly the equivalent of +5 on the D20 (for those AC numbers in the bell curve that show up in the game).

DM's should rarely just hand out Advantage or Disadvantage. It should mostly just be based on the rules as written. The DM should sometimes hand out +2 or -2, but Advantage and Disadvantage are pretty huge.

 

[keterys]

Spells and other special abilities (including cantrips) provide advantage or a bonus to attack so it's not heard to get.

In trade for an action, it's totally easy to get. For example, if you're flanking with an ally, that ally can use their action to "Help" you get advantage. Or if you have the True Strike cantrip you can use an action to get advantage on your next attack.

Trading an action is a _huge_ cost.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

What good is a special ability for your class or race if the DM then hands it out to everyone? Kind of defeats the purpose of it being a special ability. Do you just hand out Inspiration to everyone at the table the moment they show up at the table, or do you do it for special things that happen at the table?

And Advantage is too powerful because Advantage is nearly the equivalent of +5 on the D20 (for those AC numbers in the bell curve that show up in the game).

DM's should rarely just hand out Advantage or Disadvantage. It should mostly just be based on the rules as written. The DM should sometimes hand out +2 or -2, but Advantage and Disadvantage are pretty huge.

Which I stated before - I wanted to find a way to make a rule work, but not make it so easy that it defeats the abilities of certain creatures and classes.

I've been saying myself for some time that Advantage is the equivalent of a +5, but the reality is that that's the case only in the middle of the spectrum (if you need to roll an 11, if the DC is a 20 the benefit is about a +1). See: http://onlinedungeonmaster.com/2012/05/24/advantage-and-disadvantage-in-dd-next-the-math/

I think that's what you meant when you said for the AC number in the bell curve...

The main mechanic for modifying rolls in 5th Ed is advantage/disadvantage. The basic idea being that if the circumstances are significant enough to warrant a modifier, then it grants advantage or imposes disadvantage. This is consistent with earlier editions which had statements to the effect that if the modifiers were too complicated, just determine whether the character holds an advantage or not, and apply a +/-2 modifer to the roll. Now it's just advantage/disadvantage which eliminates some more math. I don't have a problem with +/-2 or using advantage/disadvantage myself. Other DMs may feel that it's too much.

But it's the last sentence of the section on Advantage/Disadvantage on pg 173: "The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.

In the end I'm still not sure where we'll end up in my campaigns. I think for now, despite the fact that I think that flanking of some sort should provide an advantage, I haven't found a way to rule that without making it too easy, but not making it so hard that it's not worthwhile. In the meantime, I'll stick with the help rule that's already there.

Ilbranteloth

 

[KarinsDad]

I've been saying myself for some time that Advantage is the equivalent of a +5, but the reality is that that's the case only in the middle of the spectrum (if you need to roll an 11, if the DC is a 20 the benefit is about a +1). See: http://onlinedungeonmaster.com/2012/05/24/advantage-and-disadvantage-in-dd-next-the-math/

I think that's what you meant when you said for the AC number in the bell curve...

The chances of you running into a situation where you need to roll a 20 on the die is practically nil though. It almost never happens in the game system.


The fact is, PCs start out (generally) with a +5 to hit. The AC of foes, even most of the toughest ones in the MM, are typically in the range of 10 to 22 (there might be a few with higher or lower, but I didn't bother to keep looking). The first level PC might run into an AC 18 foe.

So, the first level PC needs a 5 to 13 to hit depending on foe. The table shows number needed to hit and the advantage / disadvantage equivalent using the link you supplied.

 5 +/-3.20
 6 +/-3.75 
 7 +/-4.20 
 8 +/-4.55 
 9 +/-4.80 
10 +/-4.95 
11 +/-5.00 
12 +/-4.95 
13 +/-4.80

So, the average here is 4.67. Minimally, it's +3.2 (advantage) or -3.2 (disadvantage).

As a general rule of thumb, advantage is basically +4 to +5 and typically closer to +5 than +4 There are a few cases where is it below +4.

Against mooks, it's closer to +3 to +4.

The main mechanic for modifying rolls in 5th Ed is advantage/disadvantage.

That's for convenience sake, not for plausibility sake.

But it's the last sentence of the section on Advantage/Disadvantage on pg 173: "The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result.

Yup, it sure says that. I prefer the +2/-2 of 4E and earlier systems for a DM whim because it helps, but it doesn't HHHEEEELLLPPPP! I don't think that there are many things in the game that one should get a 20% to 25% boost on. For example, a player says that he jumps down on a foe from above. I might make that +2, but not +4 to +5.

I also thinks that often handing out advantage to players tends to water down Inspiration. Why roleplay something cool if your DM is just going to give you advantage any time you can talk him into it?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I prefer the +2/-2 of 4E and earlier systems for a DM whim because it helps, but it doesn't HHHEEEELLLPPPP!

...

I also think that often handing out advantage to players tends to water down Inspiration. Why roleplay something cool if your DM is just going to give you advantage any time you can talk him into it?

Which is fine. I think the idea of replacing advantage/disadvantage altogether with a +/-2 system would work very well, whether it's for some things or everything. I wouldn't call it DM whim, though. It's a judgement call based on the circumstances. I see what you mean by the math and that makes sense, though.

Likewise, the whole point of wanting to work out a rule is because DM's shouldn't hand out advantage just because 'somebody can talk you into it.' No part of this is because this is a new approach, which simplifies things in many ways, but it is a hefty modifier so thinking through these types of scenarios helps get a feel for the mechanism and where you stand as a DM. Which helps figure out those unusual situations that pop up during the game.

Ilbranteloth

 

[KarinsDad]

I wouldn't call it DM whim, though. It's a judgement call based on the circumstances.

Well, the reason I call it whim (and one could find a different word) is that on any given day, the DM might add it, or he might not for the exact same scenario. One DM might add it, another DM might not. So I'm using the word whim to mean "not RAW", or at least not RAW in the sense of consistently used. The rule on page 173 (or a +2/-2 rule) is not used consistently from time to time, or from DM to DM.

 

[Gargoyle]

Flanking brings to mind three things to me.

The first is from the "real" world. I put that in quotes because this is just from my limited experience. I haven't been in a real fight since high school. I'm not an expert martial artist, but I've been taking kung fu for the last two years, practicing every day, and competing in (and sometimes winning) tournament events. I'm training for a full contact event now. Like a lot of kung fu, my style happens to focus on fighting more than one opponent at the same time in our forms, and sometimes we spar two on one. Flanking is usually how our two on one sparring starts, and if you're the one guy, you focus on using your footwork to move so that both opponents are on the same side. It's very dangerous to have one on either side. Certain stances and techniques can mitigate that danger, but the basic tactic is always to get them on the same side as soon as possible, which requires movement. Flanking does grant you a big "advantage" against someone IRL.

But D&D is a game, not a simulation, so the above is only of use to those who need some sort of assurance that the game is quasi-realistic, and it's just an anecdote, there are plenty of people with more experience and skill in real world fights (and not just sparring!) and I'm only mentioning it because it leads to my next two points. It's more important to consider what flanking does to the game at the table, and in my experience it's sort of the same thing. It encourages movement and thoughtful maneuvering.

The second thing that came to mind is the effect that flanking and attacks of opportunity had on D&D starting in 3rd edition. It was great at first because it forced characters to move, both to gain flanking or to get out of it. Up to then, fights in D&D at my table felt very static. Typically a fighter would rush up to a monster and attack it, and everyone seemed to stay in the same spot. The increased movement was new and fun and enhanced miniatures play, and it felt more cinematic, more real, and more fun all at the same time. AoO's were a bit clunky and had their own issue, but this thread isn't about them so I digress.

The third thing is that these tactical rules tended to cause issues in the long run because as characters leveled up, combat took too long. The problem wasn't in these rules themselves, it was that because of the design of powers in 4e, you couldn't take these options out of the game to speed things up if that's what you prefer, because it nullified so many powers that influenced movement. If you needed a faster game because of time constraints and/or number of players, or didn't want to use mini's, or just because that was your preference, you were out of luck.

So what I'm hoping to see in the DMG are optional tactical rules that encourage movement and maneuvering during combat. Movement is what it's about; watch any action movie and they usually aren't just standing there trading punches, the fight itself moves, sometimes all over the bar or even across city blocks; it's an exaggeration of a real fight where there is some movement, and that cinematic combat is what I like in my D&D. To me encouraging movement so that the combatants interact with the environment, and thoughtful maneuvering is the fun that flanking brings (and to a point AoO's and powers/spells that affect movement or move characters), so I'd like to see options that encourage movement and maneuvering, but it doesn't have to be flanking per se.