D&D 5E Flanking

[Charlaquin]

I don't mind breaking up your move, what bothers me with it is the way initiative works in D&D. Fortunately, with CIV it works a lot better so I am pretty happy with it in that respect.

What I don't like are things like the lack of a 5-foot step, moving through threatened spaces without provoking OAs, etc.

A 5-foot step is cake to add to 5e thanks to the clever movement-as-resource design. “You can use an amount of movement equal to your speed to move 5 feet without provoking opportunity attacks.” Add movement within a target’s reach provoking OAs back in and Bob’s your uncle.

 

[DND_Reborn]

A 5-foot step is cake to add to 5e thanks to the clever movement-as-resource design. “You can use an amount of movement equal to your speed to move 5 feet without provoking opportunity attacks.” Add movement within a target’s reach provoking OAs back in and Bob’s your uncle.

Oh, I know, and we've thought about putting it back in.

I did have another thought on movement though a threatened space by making it difficult terrain, so it will cost you extra movement to avoid the OA (if added back in). Then, something like Mobile would offset it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oh, I know, and we've thought about putting it back in.

I did have another thought on movement though a threatened space by making it difficult terrain, so it will cost you extra movement to avoid the OA (if added back in). Then, something like Mobile would offset it.

Oh, that’s a neat idea!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Oh, that’s a neat idea!

Thanks. I think it would create a "cost" for getting into position, something I think the OP was looking for.

 

[Rockyroad]

Oh, I know, and we've thought about putting it back in.

I did have another thought on movement though a threatened space by making it difficult terrain, so it will cost you extra movement to avoid the OA (if added back in). Then, something like Mobile would offset it.

Hey, I just mentioned that on another thread. Great minds think alike lol!

 

[Imaculata]

I've always liked the +2 flanking rule. But +5 for attacking in the back is a bit much. As I imagine combat, the opponent is constantly moving around. It is not as if his back is facing any specific direction, even if his miniature might suggest otherwise. +2 is more than enough.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've always liked the +2 flanking rule. But +5 for attacking in the back is a bit much. As I imagine combat, the opponent is constantly moving around. It is not as if his back is facing any specific direction, even if his miniature might suggest otherwise. +2 is more than enough.

The flanking idea is that no matter where the target is facing, they have at least one of two people outside the target’s field of vision, which makes it hard to defend against either attacker. It’s not called “backstabbing” for a reason.

 

[Helldritch]

We removed flanking almost immediately after 5ed release. It was too easy to get advantage... for the monsters. This was resulting in a lot of tpk at first. During one of our Friday night D&D a few spectators asked us why we had removed the flanking.

We showed them this scenario
A group is attacked by 4 ogres. One of the ogres start a grab with the fighter, succeed and immediately drop the fighter behind him. Very fast, the fighter is surrounded by four angry ogres which will attack with advantage. Now imagine this scenario with low level characters and 6 hobgoblins...

Yes when advantage is in favor of the players it is powerful. But in the hands of the monsters, it is deadly.

 

[jayoungr]

We use the flanking rule because most of my players were coming from 3.5 and expected it. I do think they enjoy it. I kind of wish I could convince them to try playing without it, because it does seem to grant advantage an awful lot of the time, but on the other hand, it applies to the monsters as well (but I have a large group, so that means we have to have a lot of monsters). And I guess having combats go faster isn't a bad thing, overall.

 

[DND_Reborn]

We removed flanking almost immediately after 5ed release. It was too easy to get advantage... for the monsters. This was resulting in a lot of tpk at first. During one of our Friday night D&D a few spectators asked us why we had removed the flanking.

We showed them this scenario
A group is attacked by 4 ogres. One of the ogres start a grab with the fighter, succeed and immediately drop the fighter behind him. Very fast, the fighter is surrounded by four angry ogres which will attack with advantage. Now imagine this scenario with low level characters and 6 hobgoblins...

Yes when advantage is in favor of the players it is powerful. But in the hands of the monsters, it is deadly.

Yep, and when 5 PCs can gang up on 1 BBEG, they drop it just as quickly.

After more thought, I really like my suggestion of +1 to attack rolls for each ally engaging the same target. So, to get the rough equivalent of advantage (+4-5), you would need 5-6 attackers all on the same target.

EDITED for clarity. The first attacker (of the allies) doesn't add to the bonus. So, if two allies are attacking the same target, they each get a +1 bonus, not +2.