The problem with Distant Advantage

[Black Knight Irios]

1) I see no problem with the feat as written.
2) There is Vexing Flanker (PHB2) if you constantly have 3 guys in melee teaming up against a single opponent.
3) At lower levels it is easier to gain CA for people who do melee combat.
4) If the opponent is large or larger there is no problem to flank it with three people.

 

[Lauberfen]

Sorry, an answer was implied in my post, but not clearly stated. It is this- even if this feat worked for melee, you'd never take it (perhaps apart from reach weapons) as it is so easy to flank with 3 people.

Based on a combined 18 levels of this working well, heres how:

You have something like this

1 E 2
...3

1 attacks, with combat advantage. 2 does likewise, then shifts:

...2
1 E
...3

3 Attacks, with CA, then shifts:

...2
1 E 3

1 attacks with CA, then shifts:

2
E 3
1
and so, ad infinitum. Considering the fighte/warden is on your side, this is easy, and can generally be managed any time you can maintain flanking. Hell, I wasn't even using the diagonals to flank on.

 

[Christian]

... even if this feat worked for melee, you'd never take it (perhaps apart from reach weapons) as it is so easy to flank with 3 people.

Ah, yes. The flanking dance!
(Edit: Ye gods, has it really been seven years since that thread? How can I remember about stuff like this, but I don't know where I put my keys?)

 

[Dice4Hire]

If you want to see a real flanking dance, you should see a group of kobold skirmishers in my games. Man, my players hate those little buggers. Sometimes 4-5 kobolds will get a flanking attack from the same square, one after another.

 

[CapnZapp]

In my opinion, the flanking dance is just an over-worked over-detailed way of saying "if you outnumber your foe, have the flanking bonus".

As for Distant Advantage, the main one I see is that it makes ranged Rogues a far too viably build.

Why should my group's rogue ever enter melee when he can just stand back getting Sneak damage on all the targets flanked by the group's Fighter and TWB Ranger?

No, this feat undermines the entire reason for melee rogues, which is "if you don't risk you butt in melee, you should have a hard time finding Combat Advantage" (once you run out of special powers, that is).

I like it just fine when my Rogue's player after say half the battle realizes it's time to enter melee.

And I don't buy the argument "just let the player play whatever he feels like" - a game without restrictions becomes less interesting. Especially when those restrictions are in place to keep the game at least vaguely resembling classic fantasy!

So I am happy feats like this weren't in the PHB1, as banning feats from the rulebook they all have would trigger much more of a discussion!

 

[Lauberfen]

I must say I'm entertained by your banning spree, and wonder what your players have to say. Whole books, fine (otherwise the complexity and brokenness is exponential). Odd feats (Expertise), totally fine. half the feats in a book? Madness.

As already noted, this is hardly significant for most rogues. My rogue (daggers) will probably never take it, simply because if anyone else is flanking, so can she.

I'd be much more worried about vexing flanker, which gives everyone CA.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why would a rogue enter melee? Probably because it's still easier to gain a melee CA from flanking (when you need only one ally) as opposed to a ranged CA from flanking (where you'd require two).

And considering the whole rogue class was balanced around the fact that he should be gaining CA probably 2/3rds of the time... all this is doing is making the ranged rogue's gaining of CA a bit more equitable compared to the melee. You as DM should not want to stop a rogue from gaining CA... you should be happy when he can.

And all these "why should Class X do this, when doing this other thing is so much better..." just make me roll my eyes. Not every player is a min/maxing wimp who needs his character to do maximum damage while taking none of his own. Yeah, some players might be that way... but not everyone is. So to erase the possibility completely by banning supposedly "broken" rules because you as DM don't want to see it happen is just really lame.

 

[Ryujin]

As a Warlock I would consider taking Distant Advantage. The only problem is that I would never be able to use it, because my party would never do the set-up required. As others have stated, it's only useful if you have the level of co-operation required.

 

[CapnZapp]

I must say I'm entertained by your banning spree, and wonder what your players have to say. Whole books, fine (otherwise the complexity and brokenness is exponential). Odd feats (Expertise), totally fine. half the feats in a book? Madness.

Why do you assume I'm allowing "half the feats in a book"? And why do you feel so free in calling my theoretical discussions "a banning spree"?

These threads are about the feats.

Not about me as a DM. I'm not handing out more details about my game than what's needed for the discussion at hand, and yet plenty of posters seem willing to draw conclusions about me as a DM based on incomplete information.

This is a theoretical discussion. It does not necessarily have any bearing on my home game.

But for your information, I'm not considering to allow "half the feats" from the PHB. I'm not allowing the book at all (for my PHB1 PCs at least), with a select few exceptions.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

CapnZapp: In this thread you haven't gone into a lot of detail, but you've outlined the numerous feats you'll be banning in another, so it's fair game to say you went on a "banning spree" with the PHB 2 feats.

As for this feat. First off, yes, against a single medium opponent only two people can flank...if they're standing still. As was already demonstrated with the flanking dance, you can get around this. Also, with large or larger creatures it's pretty easy to set up at least 3 people in flanking positions. Heck, it can even be advantageous since it limits the movement of the creature.

As for the viability of a melee Rogue, this doesn't affect it. For a party that has no Rogue, neither build is viable. For a party made of nothing but Rogues, either is viable. It all depends on party composition. In my party, for example, our Rogue has said that he won't be taking this probably (even though I think he would get some use out of it) because we don't have a lot of melee players. There's a Fighter and a melee Cleric, but we're usually trying to form a wall and almost never actually flank with each other. The only flanking going on tends to be the Rogue flanking with me (the Fighter) because my mark can keep the enemy from attacking him. So, there's really no advantage here for our party, since he basically has to be in melee in order for someone in our pary to be flanking.

(This is basically a real party example of what DracoSuave was saying. It's not that we don't value CA and flanking, just that typically it's better for the Melee Cleric and I to be adjacent rather than flanking a single enemy because of our party makeup.)