Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8163039" data-attributes="member: 6987520">[USER=7028097]@Rockyroad[/USER] Here's a crazy thought: instead of the attackers gaining a direct benefit when flanking, what about imposing a penalty on the flanked creature?I am just spit-balling stuff here, and thinking in terms more of the narrative:If an orc is being attacked by a fighter and rogue, it has to divide its attention between them, basically increasing its defensive stance (so to say). In my mind, this lessens its offense, so maybe imposing disadvantage on its attacks would work well? It isn't going full on Dodge, but it is holding back its attack a bit.If the orc wanted to ignore the situation and focus solely on one target (fighter or rogue), then allowing the other PC something (advantage or whatever...) a bonus of some sort makes sense to me. The orc is trying to kill one foe quickly so it can focus on the other.This would nicely translate into the concept of two or more allies harassing a foe IMO.It also allows attackers to benefit from other sources of advantage, which was something you wanted, when the orc accepts disadvantage on its own attacks. True, if it ignores one threat and attacks the other, you are stuck with advantage for the other attacker or something else. This is where my idea before of +1 per extra attacker might work? shrugEx. A party is facing a hill giant. Three PCs move to engage in melee and surround the giant. Depending on the giant's actions:1. If the giant focuses its defenses, turn and such to keep an eye on its foes, it accepts disadvantage on its own attacks.2. If the giant focuses on one PC and attacks it normally, the other PCs would get a +2 on their attack rolls. The PCs that stayed back and are attacking at range (say a caster with cantrips and an archer maybe?) would also get the +2 bonus I would think, but they don't count towards increasing the bonus.Just a thought.</blockquote>

Verification