Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="drjones" data-source="post: 6402707" data-attributes="member: 62944">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.</blockquote>

Verification