D&D 5E Flanking

[Helldritch]

Well, of course, but that is pretty realistic isn't it? To have a game where having extra numbers in battle isn't a contributing factor is pretty poor design. I agree for many tables advantage is too strong, so my idea offers a method where numbers can still matter, but not as much as normal flanking would.

Anyway, also with my idea you would need a large number of allies to come close to giving you the same increase advantage does. Given the numbers above, of a 6-4 battle, if things happen to get "spread out" more evenly (2-1, 2-1, 1-1, 1-1) then two ogres would get a +1 and that's it. Not as big a deal, is it?

A high AC front liner is not necessarily high strength. High Dex can also come to play. An elven eldritch knight can reach high AC and not be trained in athletics.

The big deal with your method, is that flanking bonus with advantage becomes much more powerful than normal. Again, 4 ogres against a PC will get a +3 bonus. Now, if the PC has a high enough AC so that the ogres have trouble to hit; they will try something. So two of them will help the other two. In normal circumstances it means that they simply have advantage and their normal bonuses to hit. If the character actively dodge, then only get their normal bonuses to hit.

With your method, they will have +3 to hit (as the helping ogres are still a threat so warrant the flanking bonuses) and will have advantage and their normal bonuses to attack. If the character dodges, then they are still with a +3 to hit in addition to their normal bonuses. That is a lot.

And the higher the players are, the more dangerous and unbalanced your approach becomes for one PC.
Imagine trolls, giants, glabrezu, Four of these can surround a PC in no time in an open space.
What about a few gladiators where a cleric is blessing them? Or even worse, high level thieves or assassins? The more varied the monsters, the more swingy a battle can become. 5ed removed the +"x" without concentration approach for a good reason. 3ed was a nightmare in bonuses calculation and with so many different spells to boost both sides...

But maybe it's just me. What I know is that since I have removed flanking, players are now reaching much higher levels and TPK are much rarer (but still present).

 

[DND_Reborn]

A high AC front liner is not necessarily high strength. High Dex can also come to play. An elven eldritch knight can reach high AC and not be trained in athletics.

Fine, then they probably have Acrobatics and DEX. Either way, IME front-liners usually have one or the other.

The big deal with your method, is that flanking bonus with advantage becomes much more powerful than normal. Again, 4 ogres against a PC will get a +3 bonus. Now, if the PC has a high enough AC so that the ogres have trouble to hit; they will try something. So two of them will help the other two. In normal circumstances it means that they simply have advantage and their normal bonuses to hit. If the character actively dodge, then only get their normal bonuses to hit.

Ok, if someone is helping the other gain advantage, they aren't attacking, which reduces the damage the PC will likely take--it is a losing strategy unless the AC is super high. I'll give you another example:

Spoiler

Two orcs attack a PC with AC 16. They are flanking, so one of them gets a +1 bonus. The other, call it the primary , doesn't get the bonus because that is the one the PC is focused on. They don't both get +1, just one of them. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough before and if I caused confusion, I apologize.

Now, an orc is normally +5 to attack for 9 (crit 16) damage. Against AC 16, an orc hits on 11 or higher or 50/50. With advantage 75/25.
Orc A does 4.85 (0.45 x 9 + 0.05 x 16) damage per round. Orc B, with the +1 flanking bonus, does 5.3 (0.5 x 9 + 0.05 x 16). So, if both attack they do 10.15 damage per round.

But, if Orc A helps, he does no damage. And Orc B's, with advantage, does only 7.86 (0.7 x 9 + 0.0975 x 16) damage per round.

So, both orcs attacking yields higher damage than Orc A helping Orc B.

Now, it certainly, either way, isn't more powerful than flanking as normal, with both orcs attacking with advantage! If, by "normal", you mean both orcs attacking with no bonus (nor advantage for flanking), you would be wrong:

Each orc does 4.85 damage per round "normally", so 9.7 damage together. Orc A helping Orc B (who's attacking with advantage) is again only 7.86. So, this:

flanking bonus with advantage becomes much more powerful than normal

is not correct, regardless of what your meaning of "normal" is.

At any rate:

But maybe it's just me. What I know is that since I have removed flanking, players are now reaching much higher levels and TPK are much rarer (but still present).

Which is entirely logical. You've removed one of the biggest advantages (pardon the pun) mooks, etc. can get in the game. You've also removed one of the PCs greatest tactics against solitary foes (such as that Dragon, which is the other part of the name of the game... ).

Finally, you removed flanking completely. The OP wanted something other than advantage that flanking can do, which is what I presented. Using my method with helping is not more powerful than just using my method and each creature attacking. I've shown you that twice, now. But my method is not as powerful as RAW flanking with advantage. It is obviously stronger than "normal" (i.e. no bonus nor advantage) but weaker that RAW flanking.

 

[Rockyroad]

Certainly the flanking mechanic can make combat more swingy, but I would think that if a party faced the grapple and surround tactic on a regular basis, it would behoove them to come up with some counter strategies. Being cognizant of the possibility and not getting yourself into that position would be the first strategy. Teleporting out or shoving the blocking enemy out of the way to get allies into the fray to get flanking bonus themselves are others. We use the tumble and overrun optional rules as well to give even more options to get past the blocker. The bottom line is there's almost always going to be counters to any tactic and the party should be adapting to the DM's tactics. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

 

[Helldritch]

Certainly the flanking mechanic can make combat more swingy, but I would think that if a party faced the grapple and surround tactic on a regular basis, it would behoove them to come up with some counter strategies. Being cognizant of the possibility and not getting yourself into that position would be the first strategy. Teleporting out or shoving the blocking enemy out of the way to get allies into the fray to get flanking bonus themselves are others. We use the tumble and overrun optional rules as well to give even more options to get past the blocker. The bottom line is there's almost always going to be counters to any tactic and the party should be adapting to the DM's tactics. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

It is not always the case. Just as the monsters do not always have a perfect response to players' strategies. Not all characters have access to teleport, tumble or whatever. And when a monster drops you from its grab, you might be prone, so it will be half your movement just to get up. Just getting away might only get you past one ogres/opponents and they can still move to surround you and you might have provoked OA in moving away...

Depending on the level, such a gang up on one character can mean death in barely two rounds. Flanking might be a very realistic simulationistic rule, but it is not a heroic leading one.

High end damage monsters will make short work of a character that is unfortunate enough to fall on such a tactic. In addition, do not forget the size advantage such creatures have. I would not recommend to use this tactic often as a DM, but once I a while it does make for interesting combats. It is a matter of pacing.

 

[Horwath]

Adding prof bonus to damage vs. flanked target seems good enough and it does not step on toes of a class that can grant advantage.

 

[tetrasodium]

Adding prof bonus to damage vs. flanked target seems good enough and it does not step on toes of a class that can grant advantage.

it also massively throws off the damage calculations & advances damage output of martial classes with extra attack beyond casters than magic weapons already do.

 

[CydKnight]

As long as you include flanking in your game it should work both ways and that should be the balance preventing it from being "OP". If it still seems too one-sided for the party, then make some adjustments to your encounters so that the enemy can take advantage of the flanking too. This could be as simple as adding a few low level minions to the battle. Where this isn't an option, consider making some terrain adjustments that make flanking more difficult to achieve.

If the party is the only side getting the benefits of flanking all or most of the time, then it will seem OP just like any other rule (official or house). I'm not saying this is the case here but it seems like we often want to design better rules when perhaps we should be designing better encounters that work with the rules we have. For those that disagree with this opinion of mine, I'm not going to defend ad nauseam. As with anything there are always exceptions. In short, do what works best at your table.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Nice succinct article by Sly Flourish on the topic from just a few days ago:
Replace Flanking with Cinematic Advantage

TL;DR: players invoke part of the scene description and, as appropriate, DM applies an ability check based on the approach and goal of the PC.
Success = advantage on the attack, Failure = meaningful consequence

 

[tetrasodium]

Which is entirely logical. You've removed one of the biggest advantages (pardon the pun) mooks, etc. can get in the game. You've also removed one of the PCs greatest tactics against solitary foes (such as that Dragon, which is the other part of the name of the game... ).

Finally, you removed flanking completely. The OP wanted something other than advantage that flanking can do, which is what I presented. Using my method with helping is not more powerful than just using my method and each creature attacking. I've shown you that twice, now. But my method is not as powerful as RAW flanking with advantage. It is obviously stronger than "normal" (i.e. no bonus nor advantage) but weaker that RAW flanking.

Actually no, @Helldritch didn't remove anything from the game of d&d, wotc removed flanking from d&d then balanced monsters against the lack of flanking, magic items, or feats. Not continuing to add a broken half finished rule is different from removing it.

 

[HawaiiSteveO]

Different take:

Replace Flanking with Cinematic Advantage: SlyFlourish.com