D&D 5E Flanking

[tetrasodium]

You're going to have to explain that to me, especially because the DMG has optional rules where flanking grants advantage. Advantage is essentially always better unless your character is horrible at melee. Either the game is built to account for characters getting circumstantial bonuses like advantage or bless or magic weapons, or the entire combat system is broken.

Seriously, look at the percentages for d20+2 vs d20 advantage, remembering that a natural 20 is always a success. D20+2 is only better when you need the d20+2 roll to be a 19, 20, or 21 to hit, which is like AC 23-25 at level 1 and like AC 28-30 at level 10. Even then I'm not sure if the higher crit rate of advantage doesn't mean it's still better. This is not a scenario we realistically need to care about.

I think flanking being +2 is perfectly fine. However, I would also probably say that flanking counts as advantage, too, so it's spoiled by (and spoils) disadvantage and it doesn't stack with (and is superceded by) advantage. That's a lot more fiddley, but I think it's a good compromise to prevent bonus hunting.

First you have the -5/-10/etc penalty for second/third/etc attack in 3.5 while 5e is no penalty for any number of attacks. Second you have bounded accuracy pegging the math to the spherical cow of no feas & n magic items so the already more generous math is nearly always going to be skewed towards being even more successful in most games. Finally compare the monsters & the 5e version is generally going to be lower ac. For example:

• creature: 3.5/5e
• human commoner zombie: cr 1/2 ac11 16hp /zombie ac8 cr 1/4 22 hp
• Troglodyte: cr1 ac15 13hp / cr1/4 ac11 13 hp
• Large earth elemental cr5 ac18 38hp / earth elemental: cr5 ac17 126hp
• Vampire cr7 ac23 32hp / vampire cr13 ac16 144hp
• Gargoyle cr4 ac16 37hp / Gargoyle cr2 ac15 52hp

 

[Charlaquin]

I've actually never thought to try combining those two rules like that, I really like the idea ! I think I'll have to try that in my current game. Thanks !

Yeah, it almost feels like they were designed to be used together, but then ended up getting put in separate parts of the DMG. Having to use your reaction to change facing kind of makes sense because if you can change facing freely then the rule is meaningless. But it causes problems because it competes with opportunity attacks. Marking is nice because it can make tanks stickier, but as-written it’s basically free advantage on opportunity attacks and they no longer cost a reaction. But combined, the two rules nicely cover each others’ flaws.

 

[Rockyroad]

Yeah, it almost feels like they were designed to be used together, but then ended up getting put in separate parts of the DMG. Having to use your reaction to change facing kind of makes sense because if you can change facing freely then the rule is meaningless. But it causes problems because it competes with opportunity attacks. Marking is nice because it can make tanks stickier, but as-written it’s basically free advantage on opportunity attacks and they no longer cost a reaction. But combined, the two rules nicely cover each others’ flaws.

We tried facing rules from DMG but for whatever reason we found it very time consuming and fiddly. Everyone kept hemming and hawing about how they wanted to be facing or if they wanted to use their reaction to change facing. So we eventually gave that rule up.

The flanking rule I'm proposing in the OP is not using the facing rules from the DMG. The only "facing" is defined just to determine orientation of the target so that the other attackers know where to position themselves to be considered to be on the side or rear of the target. The players don't choose facing and it doesn't change throughout the round. And there are no other mechanical effects to facing in this rule. Takes all the fiddliness out of it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I actually really like the Facing rule, provided the Mark rule is also in play. That also allows you to make use of tactical positioning to gain advantage, but it takes more work to get that advantage than flanking.

I must be missing something then...

What does having the Mark rule in play have to do with Facing???

 

[Rockyroad]

I must be missing something then...
View attachment 130816

What does having the Mark rule in play have to do with Facing???

I think the fact that you don't need to use reaction for OA when marking while you use your reaction to change facing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think the fact that you don't need to use reaction for OA when marking while you use your reaction to change facing.

It seems like that would make flanking worse, not better, in running it.

What if they don't use the reaction for changing facing? Now they can use it for shield or a parry-like maneuver as well as getting an OA for free.

 

[Rockyroad]

It seems like that would make flanking worse, not better, in running it.

What if they don't use the reaction for changing facing? Now they can use it for shield or a parry-like maneuver as well as getting an OA for free.

Yeah we gave up facing rules as I stated in my post above. Way too fiddly even for our more tactically leaning table.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah we gave up facing rules as I stated in my post above. Way too fiddly even for our more tactically leaning table.

I just don't see how they are supposed to help with flanking.

We "use" facing but only in the sense if a target is being attacked from the rear (and thus we have an unseen attacker... which grants advantage). But if the target is in melee with another foe, it is being "flanked" anyway--which also gives advantage so it becomes a moot point.

 

[Charlaquin]

We tried facing rules from DMG but for whatever reason we found it very time consuming and fiddly. Everyone kept hemming and hawing about how they wanted to be facing or if they wanted to use their reaction to change facing. So we eventually gave that rule up.

That’s reasonable. I haven’t found it to cause significant slowdown myself, but I can se how it might do for others.

The flanking rule I'm proposing in the OP is not using the facing rules from the DMG. The only "facing" is defined just to determine orientation of the target so that the other attackers know where to position themselves to be considered to be on the side or rear of the target. The players don't choose facing and it doesn't change throughout the round. And there are no other mechanical effects to facing in this rule. Takes all the fiddliness out of it.

I understood that was your suggestion. I was offering a different suggestion. Seems at least one person benefited from my input on the matter.

 

[Rockyroad]

I just don't see how they are supposed to help with flanking.

We "use" facing but only in the sense if a target is being attacked from the rear (and thus we have an unseen attacker... which grants advantage). But if the target is in melee with another foe, it is being "flanked" anyway--which also gives advantage so it becomes a moot point.

Yeah there seemed to be some confusion from my original post where I talked about "facing" in my proposed flanking rule. It is not the facing rule from the DMG. It is only an orientation marker to tell attackers where to stand in order to be either at the sides (flanks) or rear of the target. There are no other mechanical effects for facing in that context. I think the DMG facing is too much to consider and keep track of.