So it seems Flanking is not in the DMG, and it's not mentioned in the PHB. As an always DM I have no strong feelings on this, but what do players think? Since all it did was give advantage, and there are a lot of ways to gain advantage I'm not sure it's a big loss, but I feel some of the tactical gameplay just died.
So it seems Flanking is not in the DMG, and it's not mentioned in the PHB. As an always DM I have no strong feelings on this, but what do players think? Since all it did was give advantage, and there are a lot of ways to gain advantage I'm not sure it's a big loss, but I feel some of the tactical gameplay just died.
Flanking was always an optional rule in 5e and was not in the 2014 PHB either. I've never used it as a DM because it seemed to force too much reliance on tactical grid movement, which I'm not super into.
There’s enough other ways to get advantage in melee- especially with the weapon masteries- that flanking is somewhere between overkill and redundant anymore.
It's not in the DMG? Someone has even earlier access or something?
Anyways, I won't miss it. It was far too easy to get, just position your characters at certain places, and made Sneak Attack too easy to get and therefore a bit OP really. At least now it takes a Bonus Action or some environmental interaction, which actually requires engagement and thought - whereas Flanking was just "and I'm going to move 90⁰ relative to the enemy so I can get my Advantage...".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I like the idea of flanking - it gives another level of tactical play to martial classes as it makes positioning more important. I do not, however, like the 5e flanking rule conferring advantage when flanking. Flanking makes it really easy to get advantage - which, in turn, makes every other ability that confers advantage a little worse. Far too often, I ran into situations where one of my players would do something else (such as using one of their class abilities) that would confer advantage... and it was functionally useless, since they already obtained advantage through flanking. It also was really annoying alongside Elvish Accuracy, since it just meant additional dice rolls were almost universal.
Personally, I switched over to the 4e rule - when you are flanking, you get a +2 to attack rolls against the creatures. This ensures there is still a tactical component to positioning, but also means you get to benefit from other possible ways of obtaining advantage, making those other abilities more exciting and useful. Have not been disappointed with this homerule.
So it seems Flanking is not in the DMG, and it's not mentioned in the PHB. As an always DM I have no strong feelings on this, but what do players think? Since all it did was give advantage, and there are a lot of ways to gain advantage I'm not sure it's a big loss, but I feel some of the tactical gameplay just died.
The new DMG isn't out yet, so how do you know this? I don't think flanking optional rules have ever been mentioned in a PHB. This was always a DMG thing. I know in 1e it also included attacks from the rear, which obviously ignore the target's shield.
So it seems Flanking is not in the DMG, and it's not mentioned in the PHB. As an always DM I have no strong feelings on this, but what do players think? Since all it did was give advantage, and there are a lot of ways to gain advantage I'm not sure it's a big loss, but I feel some of the tactical gameplay just died.
The new DMG isn't out yet, so how do you know this? I don't think flanking optional rules have ever been mentioned in a PHB. This was always a DMG thing. I know in 1e it also included attacks from the rear, which obviously ignore the target's shield.
Various YouTubers have advanced copies so they can make content and a couple have mentioned it
Flanking doesn't need to be in the rules to allow it or disallow it.
Personally, I'm not keen on it alone giving one advantage, but i am also used to my players surrounding dragons and attacking them from multiple sides at once.
and it isn't like this an important piece of the value of the book -- which by all accounts (the youtube folks doing reviews are mostly positive) is going to significantly improve the ability of DMs to do their job.
It will also be amazing for teaching new folks.
I am way more interested in watching how folks will handle the clarification on alignment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I am way more interested in watching how folks will handle the clarification on alignment.
Oh? Do tell ... or link maybe?
they went hard on the point that alignment does not determine how a character acts, a characters acts determine their alignment. So it can change in game, based on the actions of the PC, and is determined by those actions.
Which, in practice, is waaaay different from how most folks see it.
most folks see it as being a guide for how you should act, a sort of personality template that has the PC doing things because of their alignment.
Now it is alignment happens because of things you do, and the DM will change it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I am way more interested in watching how folks will handle the clarification on alignment.
Oh? Do tell ... or link maybe?
they went hard on the point that alignment does not determine how a character acts, a characters acts determine their alignment. So it can change in game, based on the actions of the PC, and is determined by those actions.
Which, in practice, is waaaay different from how most folks see it.
most folks see it as being a guide for how you should act, a sort of personality template that has the PC doing things because of their alignment.
Now it is alignment happens because of things you do, and the DM will change it.
This is how should be in my opinion. Glad they put it in the rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
I am way more interested in watching how folks will handle the clarification on alignment.
Oh? Do tell ... or link maybe?
they went hard on the point that alignment does not determine how a character acts, a characters acts determine their alignment. So it can change in game, based on the actions of the PC, and is determined by those actions.
Which, in practice, is waaaay different from how most folks see it.
most folks see it as being a guide for how you should act, a sort of personality template that has the PC doing things because of their alignment.
Now it is alignment happens because of things you do, and the DM will change it.
Only hard core old-schoolers play it rigid, not even all old schoolers. I never have. Character development should include personality development, reacting, changing and growing (or even falling) due to events, actually learning more than just that next spell or combat ability.
I like the idea of flanking - it gives another level of tactical play to martial classes as it makes positioning more important. I do not, however, like the 5e flanking rule conferring advantage when flanking. Flanking makes it really easy to get advantage - which, in turn, makes every other ability that confers advantage a little worse. Far too often, I ran into situations where one of my players would do something else (such as using one of their class abilities) that would confer advantage... and it was functionally useless, since they already obtained advantage through flanking. It also was really annoying alongside Elvish Accuracy, since it just meant additional dice rolls were almost universal.
Personally, I switched over to the 4e rule - when you are flanking, you get a +2 to attack rolls against the creatures. This ensures there is still a tactical component to positioning, but also means you get to benefit from other possible ways of obtaining advantage, making those other abilities more exciting and useful. Have not been disappointed with this homerule.
Flanking giving advantage simply makes sense, though. If anything, the rule I dislike is that creatures (incl. characters) are perfectly aware in 360 degrees. I remember when that kind of thing was a rare, much desired ability, not merely something every character simply has.
I am way more interested in watching how folks will handle the clarification on alignment.
Oh? Do tell ... or link maybe?
they went hard on the point that alignment does not determine how a character acts, a characters acts determine their alignment. So it can change in game, based on the actions of the PC, and is determined by those actions.
Which, in practice, is waaaay different from how most folks see it.
most folks see it as being a guide for how you should act, a sort of personality template that has the PC doing things because of their alignment.
Now it is alignment happens because of things you do, and the DM will change it.
This is how should be in my opinion. Glad they put it in the rules.
Characters having their alignments change as a result of their actions has been a thing in D&D as long as alignment has existed in the game. It's just that GMs didn't always enforce it. It stopped mattering as much once 3rd Edition rolled around and changing your alignment no longer had mechanical effects (by itself, not counting alignment-restricted classes and magic items).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I am way more interested in watching how folks will handle the clarification on alignment.
Oh? Do tell ... or link maybe?
they went hard on the point that alignment does not determine how a character acts, a characters acts determine their alignment. So it can change in game, based on the actions of the PC, and is determined by those actions.
Which, in practice, is waaaay different from how most folks see it.
most folks see it as being a guide for how you should act, a sort of personality template that has the PC doing things because of their alignment.
Now it is alignment happens because of things you do, and the DM will change it.
This is how should be in my opinion. Glad they put it in the rules.
Characters having their alignments change as a result of their actions has been a thing in D&D as long as alignment has existed in the game. It's just that GMs didn't always enforce it. It stopped mattering as much once 3rd Edition rolled around and changing your alignment no longer had mechanical effects (by itself, not counting alignment-restricted classes and magic items).
I have played for many years and I have heard "Your character wouldn't do that because of your alignment" far far too many times. If it wasn't an issue, they would not have had to spell it out so plainly in the new DMG.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
So it seems Flanking is not in the DMG, and it's not mentioned in the PHB. As an always DM I have no strong feelings on this, but what do players think? Since all it did was give advantage, and there are a lot of ways to gain advantage I'm not sure it's a big loss, but I feel some of the tactical gameplay just died.
The new DMG isn't out yet, so how do you know this? I don't think flanking optional rules have ever been mentioned in a PHB. This was always a DMG thing. I know in 1e it also included attacks from the rear, which obviously ignore the target's shield.
Various YouTubers have advanced copies so they can make content and a couple have mentioned it
I take what YouToolers say on that platform with a grain of salt. 90% of them are just morons.
I am way more interested in watching how folks will handle the clarification on alignment.
Oh? Do tell ... or link maybe?
they went hard on the point that alignment does not determine how a character acts, a characters acts determine their alignment. So it can change in game, based on the actions of the PC, and is determined by those actions.
Which, in practice, is waaaay different from how most folks see it.
most folks see it as being a guide for how you should act, a sort of personality template that has the PC doing things because of their alignment.
Now it is alignment happens because of things you do, and the DM will change it.
This is how should be in my opinion. Glad they put it in the rules.
Characters having their alignments change as a result of their actions has been a thing in D&D as long as alignment has existed in the game. It's just that GMs didn't always enforce it. It stopped mattering as much once 3rd Edition rolled around and changing your alignment no longer had mechanical effects (by itself, not counting alignment-restricted classes and magic items).
I have played for many years and I have heard "Your character wouldn't do that because of your alignment" far far too many times. If it wasn't an issue, they would not have had to spell it out so plainly in the new DMG.
Maybe it's your circles, or how your interpreting what you're hearing.
Does alignment affect your character? It should. A selfless person who was goody two shoes suddenly deciding to torture an innocent peasant for the location of their last copper piece doesn't just happen. That's literally the only kind of situation where I, as a player or DM, have heard alignment brought up as an enforcing tool - a player ignoring their character in order to do what the player meta-wants to do. It's always been a "you can do it, but you can't keep your alignment that way).
Do your actions affect your alignment? They should. If a goody two shoes starts doing chaotic or bad things, they'll open themselves up more to that kind of thinking, and their alignment will shift.
Do some DMs have a power trip and try to hit players over the head with alignment to control them? Yes, and it's not even the most prolific form of DM-abuse I see on these boards. It's a tool, and every tool is abusable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So it seems Flanking is not in the DMG, and it's not mentioned in the PHB. As an always DM I have no strong feelings on this, but what do players think? Since all it did was give advantage, and there are a lot of ways to gain advantage I'm not sure it's a big loss, but I feel some of the tactical gameplay just died.
The new DMG isn't out yet, so how do you know this? I don't think flanking optional rules have ever been mentioned in a PHB. This was always a DMG thing. I know in 1e it also included attacks from the rear, which obviously ignore the target's shield.
Various YouTubers have advanced copies so they can make content and a couple have mentioned it
I take what YouToolers say on that platform with a grain of salt. 90% of them are just morons.
I find this an odd comment as it relates to this thread. These YouTubers are releasing info on the DMG. Stating that Flanking is not in the DMG is just putting out a fact.
Now, if they give their opinion on “Flanking is not in the DMG and the game is now ruined forever!!!!1!!!” Or “Flanking is not in the DMG and it is the best decision WotC ever made since the beginning of time!!!!1!!” you can take with a grain of salt. But that wasn’t the purpose of this thread.
Personally, we never used flanking so I won’t miss it.
It gives Martials an edge over Spellcasters, rewards being within reach of the enemy by increasing Crit chance (aware there are ranged attacks and spells, I'm thinking of meatier enemies that have strong melee blows who sometimes have multiattack) and my players are already used to using it.
Interesting that they've not kept it as an optional rule, especially as the popularity of Critical Role means that this rule already has a wide exposure. Understand why people don't use this rule, just surprised it's still not optional.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So it seems Flanking is not in the DMG, and it's not mentioned in the PHB. As an always DM I have no strong feelings on this, but what do players think? Since all it did was give advantage, and there are a lot of ways to gain advantage I'm not sure it's a big loss, but I feel some of the tactical gameplay just died.
Flanking was always an optional rule in 5e and was not in the 2014 PHB either. I've never used it as a DM because it seemed to force too much reliance on tactical grid movement, which I'm not super into.
pronouns: he/she/they
There’s enough other ways to get advantage in melee- especially with the weapon masteries- that flanking is somewhere between overkill and redundant anymore.
It's not in the DMG? Someone has even earlier access or something?
Anyways, I won't miss it. It was far too easy to get, just position your characters at certain places, and made Sneak Attack too easy to get and therefore a bit OP really. At least now it takes a Bonus Action or some environmental interaction, which actually requires engagement and thought - whereas Flanking was just "and I'm going to move 90⁰ relative to the enemy so I can get my Advantage...".
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I like the idea of flanking - it gives another level of tactical play to martial classes as it makes positioning more important. I do not, however, like the 5e flanking rule conferring advantage when flanking. Flanking makes it really easy to get advantage - which, in turn, makes every other ability that confers advantage a little worse. Far too often, I ran into situations where one of my players would do something else (such as using one of their class abilities) that would confer advantage... and it was functionally useless, since they already obtained advantage through flanking. It also was really annoying alongside Elvish Accuracy, since it just meant additional dice rolls were almost universal.
Personally, I switched over to the 4e rule - when you are flanking, you get a +2 to attack rolls against the creatures. This ensures there is still a tactical component to positioning, but also means you get to benefit from other possible ways of obtaining advantage, making those other abilities more exciting and useful. Have not been disappointed with this homerule.
The new DMG isn't out yet, so how do you know this? I don't think flanking optional rules have ever been mentioned in a PHB. This was always a DMG thing. I know in 1e it also included attacks from the rear, which obviously ignore the target's shield.
Various YouTubers have advanced copies so they can make content and a couple have mentioned it
Flanking doesn't need to be in the rules to allow it or disallow it.
Personally, I'm not keen on it alone giving one advantage, but i am also used to my players surrounding dragons and attacking them from multiple sides at once.
and it isn't like this an important piece of the value of the book -- which by all accounts (the youtube folks doing reviews are mostly positive) is going to significantly improve the ability of DMs to do their job.
It will also be amazing for teaching new folks.
I am way more interested in watching how folks will handle the clarification on alignment.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Oh? Do tell ... or link maybe?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It's also in the DMG.
they went hard on the point that alignment does not determine how a character acts, a characters acts determine their alignment. So it can change in game, based on the actions of the PC, and is determined by those actions.
Which, in practice, is waaaay different from how most folks see it.
most folks see it as being a guide for how you should act, a sort of personality template that has the PC doing things because of their alignment.
Now it is alignment happens because of things you do, and the DM will change it.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This is how should be in my opinion. Glad they put it in the rules.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Only hard core old-schoolers play it rigid, not even all old schoolers. I never have. Character development should include personality development, reacting, changing and growing (or even falling) due to events, actually learning more than just that next spell or combat ability.
Flanking giving advantage simply makes sense, though. If anything, the rule I dislike is that creatures (incl. characters) are perfectly aware in 360 degrees. I remember when that kind of thing was a rare, much desired ability, not merely something every character simply has.
Characters having their alignments change as a result of their actions has been a thing in D&D as long as alignment has existed in the game. It's just that GMs didn't always enforce it. It stopped mattering as much once 3rd Edition rolled around and changing your alignment no longer had mechanical effects (by itself, not counting alignment-restricted classes and magic items).
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I have played for many years and I have heard "Your character wouldn't do that because of your alignment" far far too many times. If it wasn't an issue, they would not have had to spell it out so plainly in the new DMG.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
I take what YouToolers say on that platform with a grain of salt. 90% of them are just morons.
Maybe it's your circles, or how your interpreting what you're hearing.
Does alignment affect your character? It should. A selfless person who was goody two shoes suddenly deciding to torture an innocent peasant for the location of their last copper piece doesn't just happen. That's literally the only kind of situation where I, as a player or DM, have heard alignment brought up as an enforcing tool - a player ignoring their character in order to do what the player meta-wants to do. It's always been a "you can do it, but you can't keep your alignment that way).
Do your actions affect your alignment? They should. If a goody two shoes starts doing chaotic or bad things, they'll open themselves up more to that kind of thinking, and their alignment will shift.
Do some DMs have a power trip and try to hit players over the head with alignment to control them? Yes, and it's not even the most prolific form of DM-abuse I see on these boards. It's a tool, and every tool is abusable.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I find this an odd comment as it relates to this thread. These YouTubers are releasing info on the DMG. Stating that Flanking is not in the DMG is just putting out a fact.
Now, if they give their opinion on “Flanking is not in the DMG and the game is now ruined forever!!!!1!!!” Or “Flanking is not in the DMG and it is the best decision WotC ever made since the beginning of time!!!!1!!” you can take with a grain of salt.
But that wasn’t the purpose of this thread.
Personally, we never used flanking so I won’t miss it.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I will still probably use it:
It gives Martials an edge over Spellcasters, rewards being within reach of the enemy by increasing Crit chance (aware there are ranged attacks and spells, I'm thinking of meatier enemies that have strong melee blows who sometimes have multiattack) and my players are already used to using it.
Interesting that they've not kept it as an optional rule, especially as the popularity of Critical Role means that this rule already has a wide exposure. Understand why people don't use this rule, just surprised it's still not optional.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.