D&D 5E Flanking

[Charlaquin]

Which changes nothing. You can only make one OA per turn normally anyway. It doesn't prevent me from making an OA instead against a target I haven't marked (using my reaction, of course, and without advantage).

What Mark does is allow you a free OA with advantage with no cost at all to the PC or creature using it.

Oh, I see what you’re saying. I misunderstood, I thought you were saying nothing stops you from doing the free OA and a regular OA.

Yes, I agree with you that Marking just seems to give you free advantage OAs at no cost, which is why I wouldn’t use it without Facing. With Facing though, I feel that free OAs are warranted, to compensate for the additional competition for the reaction resource.

But again, I’ve taken up enough of this thread with discussion of Facing and Marking. I recommend trying them together, but if it isn’t for you, no worries!

 

[DND_Reborn]

But again, I’ve taken up enough of this thread with discussion of Facing and Marking. I recommend trying them together, but if it isn’t for you, no worries!

Well, I don't see your suggestion really detracting from the thread in any fashion; after all, you are offering it as an alternative to normal flanking rules.

No, I can't see myself using Marking to offer free OAs and allow other reactions (such as Uncanny Dodge) in addition to the OAs in my games. Facing would only mitigate the issue slightly, and even then I don't see it doing so in a sizable manner.

Frankly, I don't see too many issues with flanking as it is anyway. But one option I thought might work well (someone else probably already suggested it--but oh well) would be each ally in combat with your target grants a +1 bonus to all for attacks.

So, if a party of 5 PCs surrounded a giant, they would all get a +4 to attack rolls instead of giving them all advantage.

 

[Charlaquin]

Frankly, I don't see too many issues with flanking as it is anyway. But one option I thought might work well (someone else probably already suggested it--but oh well) would be each ally in combat with your target grants a +1 bonus to all for attacks.

So, if a party of 5 PCs surrounded a giant, they would all get a +4 to attack rolls instead of giving them all advantage.

That seems like a pretty good alternative, and it’s easier to translate to TotM than most flanking rules, which is a plus.

 

[tetrasodium]

I find it pointless because there is little to no cost and just allows more OAs.

I am fighting an ogre. I mark it when I attack (no cost to me). Now, if it moves away I get an OA with advantage and without costing me my reaction.

There is no downside to this. If the gnoll I am also fighting moves away instead, I can still make an OA against the gnoll, but it would be without advantage and would cost me my reaction (in other words, completely normal OA).

Now, if marking one target prevented you from making OAs against another target, that might make sense.

It's also extremely difficult for the gm to track which baddies have marked which PC on top of everything else. Unlike something like prone/poisoned/bleed & other DoT type effects/bane/etc that are almost certain to be an issue every round or have a player reminding the gm "I cast bane on that guy earlier, is that save with the -1d4?" & go unused. The GM is generally not exactly invested in the success of NPCs & can be expected to not metagame the red base elf when bob says "I mark the red base elf" but that's not quite the same in reverse if the GM says "The red base elf marks you bob The green base elf marks bob the blue base elf marks alice the orange base elf marks Dawn etc".

 

[Charlaquin]

It's also extremely difficult for the gm to track which baddies have marked which PC on top of everything else. Unlike something like prone/poisoned/bleed & other DoT type effects/bane/etc that are almost certain to be an issue every round or have a player reminding the gm "I cast bane on that guy earlier, is that save with the -1d4?" & go unused. The GM is generally not exactly invested in the success of NPCs & can be expected to not metagame the red base elf when bob says "I mark the red base elf" but that's not quite the same in reverse if the GM says "The red base elf marks you bob The green base elf marks bob the blue base elf marks alice the orange base elf marks Dawn etc".

Honestly, I don’t bother with declaring who marks who. If you make a melee attack against a creature, you have advantage on opportunity attacks against that creature until the end of your next turn and you can make opportunity attacks against the target without spending your reaction. It’s not terribly difficult for me to remember which monsters attacked which PCs on a given round.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That seems like a pretty good alternative, and it’s easier to translate to TotM than most flanking rules, which is a plus.

It's used in other game systems and makes it so having allies in a fight grants someone different than advantage, so if you can get both you are really looking good.

 

[Rockyroad]

Frankly, I don't see too many issues with flanking as it is anyway. But one option I thought might work well (someone else probably already suggested it--but oh well) would be each ally in combat with your target grants a +1 bonus to all for attacks.

So, if a party of 5 PCs surrounded a giant, they would all get a +4 to attack rolls instead of giving them all advantage.

I'm not crazy about this option. On a square grid you can easily get 3 combatants lined up in front of a target to get +3 for all 3 attackers. That seems too easy. Getting behind a target would be harder and put yourself potentially in a more vulnerable position, which would deserve the bigger bonus, high risk high reward.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not crazy about this option. On a square grid you can easily get 3 combatants lined up in front of a target to get +3 for all 3 attackers. That seems too easy. Getting behind a target would be harder and put yourself potentially in a more vulnerable position, which would deserve the bigger bonus, high risk high reward.

That's fine. Personally, I think it works well because having the advantage of numbers in battle IS huge IMO. When a lone PC is facing three foes, starting to think defensively is a good thing and will create more uses of such tactics as Dodging or Disengaging.

As far as getting behind an enemy--IME unless that enemy has allies that can protect its back, running around behind it isn't that hard because it's dealing with you ally in front of it. shrug

Anyway, I know other game systems use such a mechanic and thought it might work for D&D--take it or leave it as you please.

 

[aco175]

I do find that flanking keeps the thief from just hiding and jumping out to gain advantage. He actually puts himself in danger behind the monster to help the other party members. It does allow the fighter to hit more but this seems to speed up combat. Kind of a win, win.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

I'm not a huge fan of flanking, but also wanted to give my players a chance at helping each other out in battle. So the rule is you use the help action on your turn to give advantage to one other player's next attack. I use an open initiative, so players are free to choose who goes in what order. If they wanted to, they could coordinate an attack together.