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.
D&D 5E Flanking
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
Explorer
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
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
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
First Post
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
Explorer
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
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.
Code:
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 +/-4.80So, 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.
That's for convenience sake, not for plausibility sake.
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
Explorer
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
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
Adventurer
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.
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.
Similar Threads
