D&D 5E Tweaking DMG Combat Options

[ExploderWizard]

I enjoy using minis in my D&D games but hate getting bogged down in grid fiddliness. The flanking rules combined with the penalties for trying to move turned a lot of 3E combat into very static chess matches.

I was taking a look through the 5E DMG and looking over what optional stuff I want to add to my campaigns and read up on the flanking. The less OA centric madness and the absence of losing the full attack option for movement have made playing with minis much more fun in 5E but the precise chess piece like positioning is still part of the flanking rules.

I am working on a way to use the concept while abandoning the square occupation fixation. Outnumbering an enemy and being able to attack from multiple angles should be an advantage so I'm keeping that part. My compromise is that a combatant facing foes on more than one side grants advantage to those foes. Those sides DO NOT have to be directly opposite of one another.


So getting ganged up on and "wrapped" by an enemy force is bad and very easy for a more numerous foe to do in open terrain.

Adventurers can rise to levels beyond ordinary troops though! The second part of this option allows for a more heroic defensive capability for those who have risen above the ordinary. For every point of proficiency bonus beyond 2 the defender has, one more attacker is required to gain advantage from a multi-sided attack. So if a fighter with a +3 proficiency bonus is attacked by only 2 attackers, they cannot gain flanking advantage by themselves. It would require at least one more attacker to gain the bonus. Thus you can have a small group of highly skilled fighters in a tight formation that would be impossible to flank, just because they were that awesome.

The proficiency bonus improvement could be applicable to only the martial classes for those that want to give them an extra edge in melee combat.

I'm going to try this out and see how it goes. Any thoughts, or opinions about the concept?

 

[mips42]

It's a interesting idea. Here's a couple of thoughts:
Rather than square/hex, use wargame free-movement. this will help with some of the 'locked into square' movement issue.

Outnumbering an enemy and being able to attack from multiple angles should be an advantage so I'm keeping that part. My compromise is that a combatant facing foes on more than one side grants advantage to those foes. Those sides DO NOT have to be directly opposite of one another.

Are you saying an advantage or Advantage? I would say a cumulative +2 per additional attacker seems about right. So, if you're being attacked by 4 people, the attackers get a total of +6 due to distractions.
Your idea for Adventurers is good and fits right in with the above.
By Martial, do you mean Melee, because I could see that but if two or three people are attacking (by Melee or Ranged) a archer, the attacking bonuses should still accumulate but I would think that, if the Adventurer is the archer, I could see them not getting the Proficiency bonus or possibly only getting a +1 for every 2 points about +2. It's harder to nullify extra attackers when you're and archer.
By all means try it, see what happens and report back.

Play on!

 

[fjw70]

I like the rule, particularly the prof bonus determining the number of combatants it takes to get the flank bonus (and I like it being Advantage vs a fixed number). If you want to limit it you could say only classes with the extra Attack feature get this.

Alternately you could say that the number of enemies it takes to flank must exceed the number of attacks you get with an attack action.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I like the rule, particularly the prof bonus determining the number of combatants it takes to get the flank bonus (and I like it being Advantage vs a fixed number). If you want to limit it you could say only classes with the extra Attack feature get this.

Alternately you could say that the number of enemies it takes to flank must exceed the number of attacks you get with an attack action.

Cool ideas. The reason I decided on proficiency bonus was because it applies to monsters also. Not all monsters have extra attacks but they all have a prof. bonus.

 

[pukunui]

You could make the "pack tactics" monster trait a general rule.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You could make the "pack tactics" monster trait a general rule.

Heh. Pack tactics along with a gang up rule I made for my own B/X house rules was where the idea for this came from. I like leaving pack tactics as is. It isn't modified by proficiency bonus or anything so it still has use as an ability.

 

[fjw70]

Cool ideas. The reason I decided on proficiency bonus was because it applies to monsters also. Not all monsters have extra attacks but they all have a prof. bonus.

Yeah was I thinking about how to handle monsters. Maybe Attacks for PCs and prof bonus for monsters, unless you don't mind wizards and such being harder to flank at higher levels (which may not be a bad thing).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah was I thinking about how to handle monsters. Maybe Attacks for PCs and prof bonus for monsters, unless you don't mind wizards and such being harder to flank at higher levels (which may not be a bad thing).

I don't mind at all. I suggested martial types only for those who feel that these classes are underpowered compared to casters. I'm cool with all higher level adventurers being harder to flank in my game.

 

[fjw70]

I don't mind at all. I suggested martial types only for those who feel that these classes are underpowered compared to casters. I'm cool with all higher level adventurers being harder to flank in my game.

I agree. You convinced me to use the prof bonus.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I enjoy using minis in my D&D games but hate getting bogged down in grid fiddliness. The flanking rules combined with the penalties for trying to move turned a lot of 3E combat into very static chess matches.

I was taking a look through the 5E DMG and looking over what optional stuff I want to add to my campaigns and read up on the flanking. The less OA centric madness and the absence of losing the full attack option for movement have made playing with minis much more fun in 5E but the precise chess piece like positioning is still part of the flanking rules.

I am working on a way to use the concept while abandoning the square occupation fixation. Outnumbering an enemy and being able to attack from multiple angles should be an advantage so I'm keeping that part. My compromise is that a combatant facing foes on more than one side grants advantage to those foes. Those sides DO NOT have to be directly opposite of one another.


So getting ganged up on and "wrapped" by an enemy force is bad and very easy for a more numerous foe to do in open terrain.

Adventurers can rise to levels beyond ordinary troops though! The second part of this option allows for a more heroic defensive capability for those who have risen above the ordinary. For every point of proficiency bonus beyond 2 the defender has, one more attacker is required to gain advantage from a multi-sided attack. So if a fighter with a +3 proficiency bonus is attacked by only 2 attackers, they cannot gain flanking advantage by themselves. It would require at least one more attacker to gain the bonus. Thus you can have a small group of highly skilled fighters in a tight formation that would be impossible to flank, just because they were that awesome.

The proficiency bonus improvement could be applicable to only the martial classes for those that want to give them an extra edge in melee combat.

I'm going to try this out and see how it goes. Any thoughts, or opinions about the concept?

We do TotM and just say if you are fighting 2 foes, if they can maneuver to either side of you, they do, and they get adv. Works perfectly well for both monsters and PCs. Combatants need to come up with ability/spell strategies or use the terrain to keep from being flanked if they are outnumbered.

I quite like the proficiency bonus idea and needing more enemies to get flanked at higher levels. I think prof bonus might be too much though at 4,5,6. For me I would probably use half bonus, or perhaps use extra attacks - each extra attack means there needs to be one extra enemy?