So why prep and cast the spell?
I do not prefer extraneous rules to overlap with spells or feats or other resources that one PC works for, handed out to other PCs for free.
D&D 5E Flanking
So why prep and cast the spell?
I do not prefer extraneous rules to overlap with spells or feats or other resources that one PC works for, handed out to other PCs for free.
And way too powerful and easy to acquire. +5 for advantage, just because a fellow PC is on the opposite side of the monster? Yikes!
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.
The more I play, the more I'm convinced that a flanking bonus is completely unnecessary and would be harmful to the dynamics of the game.
Every house rule suggestion in this thread seems overpowered to me. I just don't see any need to reward flanking with advantages beyond what such a position inherently does for you. It's already a hugely powerful place to be without artificially amping it even further.
I hope the DMG does not mention it at all.
Every house rule suggestion in this thread seems overpowered to me. I just don't see any need to reward flanking with advantages beyond what such a position inherently does for you. It's already a hugely powerful place to be without artificially amping it even further.
I hope the DMG does not mention it at all.
Nebulous
Legend
It should have some sort of tactical advantage. Otherwise having two enemies right in front of you is no different than having one in front and one unseen behind. How to balance that in 5e, i don't know. Throwing around bonuses and advantages seems overpowered no matter which way it's cut. Maybe it's not that big a deal after all. I'm curious how the DMG will address it.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
For me it really just depends on the players. I don't mind having a rule that everybody (including monsters) can use. Kobolds, wolves, rogues, and other creatures already essentially have a flanking rule. That's why I don't mind considering it for the right circumstances. Yes, there are characters that essentially can't be flanked, but I would consider that the result of an ability or feat.
So for my campaign I'd be OK with it being the result of a feat. But I also like to see the players think about their tactics (and my monsters use tactics and terrain to their advantage too). Flanking is an easy concept, and pretty easy to include. If you think advantage is too much, then do a +1 or +2 bonus.
Part of my approach is because I have two players that learned with the 4th Edition. We sometimes use minis as a visual aid, but I don't want them to be counting squares and moving their minis to specific positions, etc. So part of the reason for including it in my current campaign is to allow them to think in a similar way, but to get away from the war game approach with the minis.
The way I worded my option is to take into account that when you gang up on an opponent, it's more difficult for them to defend as well against multiple opponents. But that doesn't apply if you are also adjacent to several opponents yourself, since you have the same problem and can't be as focused on the advantage you gain.
The reason I keep falling back on advantage/disadvantage is because it's a core mechanic in the rules. Aside from that, the whole point about tactics in combat is to get the upper hand - that is, advantage.
Ilbranteloth
So for my campaign I'd be OK with it being the result of a feat. But I also like to see the players think about their tactics (and my monsters use tactics and terrain to their advantage too). Flanking is an easy concept, and pretty easy to include. If you think advantage is too much, then do a +1 or +2 bonus.
Part of my approach is because I have two players that learned with the 4th Edition. We sometimes use minis as a visual aid, but I don't want them to be counting squares and moving their minis to specific positions, etc. So part of the reason for including it in my current campaign is to allow them to think in a similar way, but to get away from the war game approach with the minis.
The way I worded my option is to take into account that when you gang up on an opponent, it's more difficult for them to defend as well against multiple opponents. But that doesn't apply if you are also adjacent to several opponents yourself, since you have the same problem and can't be as focused on the advantage you gain.
The reason I keep falling back on advantage/disadvantage is because it's a core mechanic in the rules. Aside from that, the whole point about tactics in combat is to get the upper hand - that is, advantage.
Ilbranteloth
We have some players in person, some over skype. The skype folks pretty much always said the same thing when playing 4e 'I move to where I get a flank and attack' since it was almost always possible to get a flank with some fiddly moving, they pretty much always got it.
The new (Basic) rule saves time by taking a minor bonus that both the players and the monsters were always getting and assumes it balances out. That's why rogues get the sneak damage if there is anyone nearby. Not because the target does not have to be flanked to sneak attack, but because it assumes that you will always try to get a flank so there is no reason to spend time fiddling with it.
These rules come from wargames where flanking is very important because it was on the battlefield: when considering blocks of soldiers attacking together and the use of cover that only effects one direction. Both those can be modeled, by powers like the kobolds in the first case and by cover bonuses in the second. I'm not going to say don't put it in the tactical module because it's optional, go nuts. But I would say I do not miss it at all from the basic rules.
On the actual bonus if one was using it: I like advantage and want to see it come up often but if it is given for really simple stuff like flanking then there is zero reason to try to get it in a more complicated way. you can only have one (well unless you have Disadvantage for something, then you can only have two) so spells and actions and class features etc. that grant it will be marginalized by rules that allow one to get advantage easily. If I was still using flanking I would go with a lesser bonus like +1 which in the world of bounded accuracy and stacking with other forms of advantage would be significant.
The new (Basic) rule saves time by taking a minor bonus that both the players and the monsters were always getting and assumes it balances out. That's why rogues get the sneak damage if there is anyone nearby. Not because the target does not have to be flanked to sneak attack, but because it assumes that you will always try to get a flank so there is no reason to spend time fiddling with it.
These rules come from wargames where flanking is very important because it was on the battlefield: when considering blocks of soldiers attacking together and the use of cover that only effects one direction. Both those can be modeled, by powers like the kobolds in the first case and by cover bonuses in the second. I'm not going to say don't put it in the tactical module because it's optional, go nuts. But I would say I do not miss it at all from the basic rules.
On the actual bonus if one was using it: I like advantage and want to see it come up often but if it is given for really simple stuff like flanking then there is zero reason to try to get it in a more complicated way. you can only have one (well unless you have Disadvantage for something, then you can only have two) so spells and actions and class features etc. that grant it will be marginalized by rules that allow one to get advantage easily. If I was still using flanking I would go with a lesser bonus like +1 which in the world of bounded accuracy and stacking with other forms of advantage would be significant.
Last edited:
What I'm saying is, it already gives significant tactical advantages, as outlined by ccooke.
The idea of facing has been gone for some time now. I find it's easier just to let that notion go than to try to jimmy it into a ruleset that doesn't support it.
Nebulous
Legend
Okay, yeah, he makes some good points.
Thaumaturge
Wandering. Not lost. (He/they)
Because then you'd get another d4 irrespective of positioning?
I know you don't like it as a flanking bonus. We've covered that elsewhere. I brought it up in this discussion for the OP.
Thaumaturge.
Similar Threads
