D&D 5E Flanking

[tetrasodium]

I think you're expecting or hoping for too much out of 5e. Or for something that it's not.

Actually no, I quit GM'ing 5e well before joining this game. While covid was a good excuse at the time it was just an excuse to avoid unloading about all the problems resulting from excessive & relentless simplicity for the sake of simplicity at any cost baked into 5ethat were causing me to actively look into other systems at the time to my non-al players plus the other AL GMs & regular AL players of the AL table I also ran at a nearby flgs.

 

[Flamestrike]

This is a nicely thought out revision for flanking to make it jive with the rest of the rules, but my problem would be that it does change quite a lot of mechanics because of the intersection of OA with lots of different class abilities. I do not like adding more OA to the game because it tends to slow things down in combat, but that's a personal preference thing.

It doesnt really add that many more (limit is still 1 reaction a turn) and it mirrors 3.5 (which didnt see that many made at all).

 

[Don Durito]

I actually find the single reaction (like bonus actions to) tends to slow down the game rather then speed it up.

How it used to work:
Player "He moves away - I get an opportunity attack"
GM: Ok roll.

How it works now:
Player "He moves away - I get an opportunity attack"
GM: Ok roll.
Player 2: Wait didn't you use shield this round?
Player 1: Did I? Why?
GM: That uses your reaction you can't use an opportunity attack then?
Player 1: naughty word ok.
Player 3: Wait wasn't that last round? It's a new round now right?
GM: Yeah, because you stabbed that goblin after you used Shield, so you still have a reaction. Ok Roll.

 

[tetrasodium]

I actually find the single reaction (like bonus actions to) tends to slow down the game rather then speed it up.

How it used to work:
Player "He moves away - I get an opportunity attack"
GM: Ok roll.

How it works now:
Player "He moves away - I get an opportunity attack"
GM: Ok roll.
Player 2: Wait didn't you use shield this round?
Player 1: Did I? Why?
GM: That uses your reaction you can't use an opportunity attack then?
Player 1: naughty word ok.
Player 3: Wait wasn't that last round? It's a new round now right?
GM: Yeah, because you stabbed that goblin after you used Shield, so you still have a reaction. Ok Roll.

I used to see this a couple times a month when I was running AL tables, it got to the point where I didn't even care enough to go through the hassle that would come from mentioning it when I noticed double reactions

 

[Scott Christian]

We used flanking in our games but then we abandoned it because it was fairly easy to get and we thought advantage was a little too much of eh, an advantage, and it diminished some class abilities such as rage and the samurai fighting spirit abilities. But then we reimplemented because we missed the tactical aspect that it brought to the game and we all know that melee combat needs a little love in this game. But we changed flanking to give +2 to attacks instead of advantage. Our barbarian loved it because they could recklessly attack for advantage plus get the +2 bonus when flanking.

Another variant flanking rule I'm thinking of using would be as follows. In any given round, if there are melee attacks against a target from multiple attackers, the first melee attacker against that target that round would make attack rolls normally. All subsequent melee attackers that round against the target will get +2 to attack rolls if attacking the target from the side and +5 if attacking from the target's rear. This is kind of a reverse correlate to the cover rules for ranged combat. The orientation of the target is defined as if it was facing the first melee attacker.

So how many of you guys use the optional flanking rule in your games and do you use it as written or homebrew it?

Edit: Because there seems to be some confusion about the facing I'm using in this proposed flanking rule, let me clarify. This is not the facing rules from the DMG. The only effect of "facing" in context to my proposed flanking rules is so that attackers know where to position themselves to be either on the side or rear of the target. There are no other mechanical effects to this "facing" that I refer to. It's just an orientation marker.

One option not commonly thought of (haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been mentioned), is instead of players getting a +2, have the flanked opponent get a -2 to their attack roll. This, at times, can make for more tactical positioning, as in:
- The orc wizard is casting a spell so it won't do anything to them, but the warrior would get -2 to his attacks, so do we still all go after the wizard?

 

[tetrasodium]

One option not commonly thought of (haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been mentioned), is instead of players getting a +2, have the flanked opponent get a -2 to their attack roll. This, at times, can make for more tactical positioning, as in:
- The orc wizard is casting a spell so it won't do anything to them, but the warrior would get -2 to his attacks, so do we still all go after the wizard?

It would significantly decrease the risk of an already absurdly stacked system as this recent poll & thread nicely shows, alsoit really does nothing to help make melee a little more sticky or allow them to do things like establish a zone of control/speedbump for baddies who want to squish the squishies as AoO's for moving did.
TL;DR it would avoid the problem of adding flanking bonuses to a system not calibrated for flanking feats or magic items & do "something", but not really anything all that beneficial or meaningful

 

[Flamestrike]

I actually find the single reaction (like bonus actions to) tends to slow down the game rather then speed it up.

How it used to work:
Player "He moves away - I get an opportunity attack"
GM: Ok roll.

How it works now:
Player "He moves away - I get an opportunity attack"
GM: Ok roll.
Player 2: Wait didn't you use shield this round?
Player 1: Did I? Why?
GM: That uses your reaction you can't use an opportunity attack then?
Player 1: naughty word ok.
Player 3: Wait wasn't that last round? It's a new round now right?
GM: Yeah, because you stabbed that goblin after you used Shield, so you still have a reaction. Ok Roll.

Player "He moves away - I get an opportunity attack"
GM: No you cant, you've already used your reaction since your last turn.

If the same player keeps making the same mistake, they need to be required to implement some system of recording when they've used their reaction, and recording when it resets.

 

[tetrasodium]

Player "He moves away - I get an opportunity attack"
GM: No you cant, you've already used your reaction since your last turn.

If the same player keeps making the same mistake, they need to be required to implement some system of recording when they've used their reaction, and recording when it resets.

Reaction is a 5e complification

Here is 3.5.
The Hypertext d20 SRD - the ultimate d20 system referenceSite Search

Home > Combat > Attacks Of OpportunityHypertext d20 SRD menu iconExtras icond20 System menu iconBoLS menu icon

Attacks Of Opportunity
Sometimes a combatant in a melee lets her guard down. In this case, combatants near her can take advantage of her lapse in defense to attack her for free. These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity.

Threatened Squares
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

Reach Weapons
Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.

Note: Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)

ADVERTISING

Provoking an Attack of Opportunity
Two kinds of actions can provoke attacks of opportunity: moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square.

Moving
Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

Performing a Distracting Act
Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

Remember that even actions that normally provoke attacks of opportunity may have exceptions to this rule.

Making an Attack of Opportunity
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round. You don’t have to make an attack of opportunity if you don’t want to.

An experienced character gets additional regular melee attacks (by using the full attack action), but at a lower attack bonus. You make your attack of opportunity, however, at your normal attack bonus—even if you’ve already attacked in the round.

An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

Attacks Of Opportunity :: d20srd.org

www.d20srd.org

And I believe that this is 4e

Attacks Of Opportunity :: d20srd.org

www.d20srd.org