D&D 5E Flanking

[Guest 6801328]

So effectively Solo monsters (such as Legendary monsters) are debuffed considerably by every PC getting 'flanking' against them more often than not.

Fighter attacks, Rogue moves and dashes 60' around the back of the monster, advantage. Monster now cops advantage from its attackers to hit it, and cant move or else it provokes an attack from the Fighter (meh), and the Rogue (ouch - sneak attack again). Instead of the combat becoming more tactical and fluid, it's actually become more static.

Lets not forget that your average DnD adventuring party will consist of only 2-3 melee PCs, with the other 2 being a Spellcaster of some sort, and usually a ranged PC, wheras many monster encounters SHOULD feature around half a dozen monsters (a boss and 4-6 or so mooks).

Being outnumbered in combat is already a massive disadvantage, and ganging up on monsters is something PCs will naturally try to do anyway (focus fire on one monster at a time till its dead, before moving onto a different monster).

The latter is a negative and unrealistic consequence of the Hit point attrition nature of combat, but still it holds true - two monsters attacking you is twice as bad as only a single monster attacking you. That's already a steep penalty to bear (taking into account bounded accuracy) and I personally see no reason to toss out easy advantage via flanking (which would also require 3.5's movement and AoO rules to make it worthwhile).

Yes. In line with what I've said above:
1. Flanking tends to favor the larger group, the most extreme/typical being party of PCs vs. solo boss
2. If the DM designs and runs encounters they way they would have designed and run them without flanking, it's going to feel like a bad rule.

It also diminishes Battlemasters, Barbarians, Rogues, Vengeance Paladins etc who all have a way to obtain advantage anyway.

Agreed, to lesser or greater degrees. And if you don't have any of those classes (or specific subclasses, or specific subclass choices) then it's not a problem.

Look, I'm not arguing that everybody should use flanking, or that the game is bad (or even worse) without it. Just that it's entirely possible to use flanking in a way that adds another tactical dimension to the game, without combat being trivialized. YMMV, of course.

Strangely, this debate reminds me of the one about flying, except we're on opposite sides.
Me: Flying trivializes encounters.
You: Design different encounters!

 

[Rockyroad]

It adds nothing of value, and takes far more away.

Not necessarily, if flanking is done right. And that's what I've been trying to garner from the debate here. Designing encounters using smart terrain and obstacles and using flanking to add tactical challenge are not mutually exclusive. You can have your cake and eat it too.

So I still like my original idea with a few modifications. So the attackers from the sides when a target is engaged with another attacker in melee get +2 to attack (does not use the advantage mechanic so it doesn't step on other class abilities) and from behind the attacker gets +4 (not +5 as before). In addition, I would implement another house rule that says that movement within an enemy's threat range is treated as difficult terrain (so as to make getting into rear and flank positions not so trivial).

Edit: Just thought of another thing. If the space is in more than 1 enemies' threatened area, you must stop when entering that space first. Then you can move on your next turn as difficult terrain.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Not necessarily, if flanking is done right. And that's what I've been trying to garner from the debate here. Designing encounters using smart terrain and obstacles and using flanking to add tactical challenge are not mutually exclusive. You can have your cake and eat it too.

I'd even go farther than simply "not mutually exclusive". I'd say there is synergy between flanking and terrain.

 

[Flamestrike]

3.x dud bor hve everything taking a 5 foot step every turn because as I posted a screengrab of the pub earlier "experienced characters can attack more than once, but only if they don't move (a full round action)". Players were presented with the option of moving 5 feet and attacking once with an attack that might hit as they tried towards establishing a flank or not moving and making multiple attacks with a flanking bonus.

No, the 5' step in 3.X was 'free'.

You can take a 5' step AND make a full attack action (making all your attacks)

 

[tetrasodium]

No, the 5' step in 3.X was 'free'.

You can take a 5' step AND make a full attack action (making all your attacks)

3.5 phb page 135 would disagree with your statement

Spoiler

page 22 & table 3-1/base attack bonus also says nothing supporting you

Spoiler

That might be how you played at your table, but not the way the rules were structured & the rules can't really be faulted if you used a houserule that you didn't like instead of the rules themselves at your table given that this one area is somewhere 3.5 wasn't even obscure or needing lots of cross referencing

 

[Flamestrike]

Not necessarily, if flanking is done right. And that's what I've been trying to garner from the debate here. Designing encounters using smart terrain and obstacles and using flanking to add tactical challenge are not mutually exclusive. You can have your cake and eat it too.

So I still like my original idea with a few modifications. So the attackers from the sides when a target is engaged with another attacker in melee get +2 to attack (does not use the advantage mechanic so it doesn't step on other class abilities) and from behind the attacker gets +4 (not +5 as before). In addition, I would implement another house rule that says that movement within an enemy's threat range is treated as difficult terrain (so as to make getting into rear and flank positions not so trivial).

Edit: Just thought of another thing. If the space is in more than 1 enemies' threatened area, you must stop when entering that space first. Then you can move on your next turn as difficult terrain.

If it must be done (flanking) then this is how I would do it:

1) Flanking provides a +1 bonus to hit, as long as your flanking ally is not incapacitated, and you can see your enemy. +1 to hit is a huge deal in 5E, and is a larger relative bonus that 3.X's +2 to hit.

As a bonus this fixed +1 doesn't devalue spells, class features and other abilities that grant advantage to hit (Barbarian Reckless attack, Wolf Barbarians, Pack tactics on monsters, Shove action, certain spells, certain Battlemaster manoeuvres, Samurai, Aim manoeuvre, Hiding, Vengeance Paladins etc) and it doesn't overvalue feats like Elven Accuracy.

2) Movement, flanking and OA rules need to be brought into line with 3.5. Namely:

• All movement out of a threatened square provokes AoO before that movement (unless you first withdraw, or take a 5' step [see below], or have some other ability like the Mobile feat or Swashbucklers Fancy Footwork, Relentless Avenger from the Vengeance paladin, and some monster abilities which allow you to move without provoking AoO's).
  • PAM feat no longer provides a free attack when a creature enters your threatened area, instead it now provides advantage on attacks of opportunity against creatures that are not adjacent to you who move out of a square you threaten, to a square that is adjacent to you.
  • The second benefit of the Sentinel feat changes to: Creatures within your reach provoke opportunity attacks when they leave a threatened square, even if they took the Disengage action or took a 5' step.
• Insert a new action entitled '5' Step' which can be taken as a Bonus action by all creatures.
• Have spellcasting with a casting time of one Action trigger OA's. Bonus action and reaction casting (Shield, counterspell, quickened spells etc) are not affected and those spells do not trigger OA's.
  • Mage Slayer's 1st bullet point now states: When a creature you can see starts casting a spell, you can use your reaction to move up to 5' towards that creature as long as you threaten that creature at the end of that movement. You may then make a single melee weapon attack against that creature as part of the same reaction.
  • Warcaster no longer allows spellcasting in place of an AoO. Instead it now lets you cast spells while threatened without AoO (in addition to its other benefit of advantage on Con saves to maintain concentration).
• d) Sneak attack now only triggers when you have advantage, or you flank your target and don't also have disadvantage.

Rogues remain the kings of manoeuvrability thanks to bonus action withdrawing letting them position themselves with ease. However now that they need to flank to get sneak attack (instead of just having a friendly ally next to them) they will have some tougher decisions to make about battlefield positioning. Ranged Rogues get weaker (but this is countered by the new Aim action in Tashas) and just like before, they can always Hide for advantage (and sneak attack) as needed.

Spell casters now have as much to fear as do Martials from being threatened and flanked by multiple creatures (3 creatures properly positioned around a caster ensures an AoO, and being stuck near a creature creature with reach, all but ensures one), but also have an easy way to avoid it (bonus action 5' step and cast) unless overwhelmed.

A +1 to hit wont overwhelm PCs when flanked by monsters like advantage would. It's still a bonus worth chasing, but it's not that out of proportion that a flanked PC is doomed like they would be if monsters got easy advantage.

If I were to implement it, the above is how I would do it.

 

[Flamestrike]

That might be how you played at your table, but not the way the rules were structured & the rules can't really be faulted if you used a houserule that you didn't like instead of the rules themselves

Hold your horses. You (and your group) were the one doing it wrong. Have a read of the Full Attack Action in your PHB.

From the SRD:

Full-Round Actions
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

Full Attack​

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

SRD:Full-Round Actions - D&D Wiki

It was the same in 3E and also in Pathfinder:

Full Attack​

If a character gets more than one attack per action, the character must use the full attack action to use those additional attacks. A character does not need to specify the targets of a the attacks ahead of time. A character can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The character may take a 5 ft. step before, after, or between the attacks.

3e SRD:Full-Round Actions - D&D Wiki

www.dandwiki.com

 

[Guest 6801328]

1) Flanking provides a +1 bonus to hit, as long as your flanking ally is not incapacitated, and you can see your enemy. +1 to hit is a huge deal in 5E, and is a larger relative bonus that 3.X's +2 to hit.

Unless you get that +1 as a result of racial bonuses, in which case it's just flavor to prevent all races from feeling like humans with funny ears and really isn't a big deal and you shouldn't feel your character isn't viable if you don't get it. /wickedgrin

But, no, seriously, I will agree that the problem with the flanking rule as written is that the bonus is really big and it makes certain class (or other) abilities less significant. However, the thing I don't like about replacing it with a straight up +attack bonus is that 5e was trying to avoid keeping track of bonuses that vary during combat, which is a goal I agree with and try to adhere to.

I don't have a perfect solution, though. Allow multiple advantage/disadvantage to stack?

 

[Flamestrike]

But, no, seriously, I will agree that the problem with the flanking rule as written is that the bonus is really big and it makes certain class (or other) abilities less significant. However, the thing I don't like about replacing it with a straight up +attack bonus is that 5e was trying to avoid keeping track of bonuses that vary during combat, which is a goal I agree with and try to adhere to.

In this case, it's the only bonus we're allowing in, and its counterbalanced by tightened up movement, spellcasting and so forth.

Adding a way to gain a +1 to hit into the rules as currently written wont break anything.

Adding a few different ways of getting those kinds of bonuses will.

 

[tetrasodium]

If it must be done (flanking) then this is how I would do it:

1) Flanking provides a +1 bonus to hit, as long as your flanking ally is not incapacitated, and you can see your enemy. +1 to hit is a huge deal in 5E, and is a larger relative bonus that 3.X's +2 to hit.

As a bonus this fixed +1 doesn't devalue spells, class features and other abilities that grant advantage to hit (Barbarian Reckless attack, Wolf Barbarians, Pack tactics on monsters, Shove action, certain spells, certain Battlemaster manoeuvres, Samurai, Aim manoeuvre, Hiding, Vengeance Paladins etc) and it doesn't overvalue feats like Elven Accuracy.

2) Movement, flanking and OA rules need to be brought into line with 3.5. Namely:

• All movement out of a threatened square provokes AoO before that movement (unless you first withdraw, or take a 5' step [see below], or have some other ability like the Mobile feat or Swashbucklers Fancy Footwork, Relentless Avenger from the Vengeance paladin, and some monster abilities which allow you to move without provoking AoO's).
  • PAM feat no longer provides a free attack when a creature enters your threatened area, instead it now provides advantage on attacks of opportunity against creatures that are not adjacent to you who move out of a square you threaten, to a square that is adjacent to you.
  • The second benefit of the Sentinel feat changes to: Creatures within your reach provoke opportunity attacks when they leave a threatened square, even if they took the Disengage action or took a 5' step.
• Insert a new action entitled '5' Step' which can be taken as a Bonus action by all creatures.
• Have spellcasting with a casting time of one Action trigger OA's. Bonus action and reaction casting (Shield, counterspell, quickened spells etc) are not affected and those spells do not trigger OA's.
  • Mage Slayer's 1st bullet point now states: When a creature you can see starts casting a spell, you can use your reaction to move up to 5' towards that creature as long as you threaten that creature at the end of that movement. You may then make a single melee weapon attack against that creature as part of the same reaction.
  • Warcaster no longer allows spellcasting in place of an AoO. Instead it now lets you cast spells while threatened without AoO (in addition to its other benefit of advantage on Con saves to maintain concentration).
• d) Sneak attack now only triggers when you have advantage, or you flank your target and don't also have disadvantage.

Rogues remain the kings of manoeuvrability thanks to bonus action withdrawing letting them position themselves with ease. However now that they need to flank to get sneak attack (instead of just having a friendly ally next to them) they will have some tougher decisions to make about battlefield positioning. Ranged Rogues get weaker (but this is countered by the new Aim action in Tashas) and just like before, they can always Hide for advantage (and sneak attack) as needed.

Spell casters now have as much to fear as do Martials from being threatened and flanked by multiple creatures (3 creatures properly positioned around a caster ensures an AoO, and being stuck near a creature creature with reach, all but ensures one), but also have an easy way to avoid it (bonus action 5' step and cast) unless overwhelmed.

A +1 to hit wont overwhelm PCs when flanked by monsters like advantage would. It's still a bonus worth chasing, but it's not that out of proportion that a flanked PC is doomed like they would be if monsters got easy advantage.

If I were to implement it, the above is how I would do it.

On the spellcasting bit melee attack spells (shocking grasp/inflict wounds/etc) or those spells need to be made dramatically better to account that casting them is pretty much a guarantee of eating aoo. the 5e phb190 sidebar pretty much reads like someone wanted to make it as difficult as possible to import the old AoO rules as difficult as possible since a lot of those things listed provoked one or more AoOs & in some cases multiple actions with the bag of holding/handy haversack standing as evidence to it being more someone with a last minute grudge against it rather than a deeply thought out change.

As to the "how did someone do it at their table", that one doesn't realy matter much since it was only a single oneish sentence change rather than say a 2 page 621 word new system trying to strip out a useless by design one & rebuild something that works

@Elfcrusher it's one thing to say that 5e was trying to avoid things, but it's not exactly like the results of trying to do that didn't create serious problems of their own as this nine page thread is a good example of. At some point 5e's design goal purists need to step back & admit that goals can't always be met without good intentions becoming the enemy of the system itself, You only need to look at jump as an example of oversimplification making an already simple thing complicated