Out of curiousity, How many of you use the optional flanking rule? My party has used it pretty much since we started 5e.
From what I've noticed, It makes Advantage the "new standard" for melee players, and actually makes them disappointed when they don't have advantage. It makes them much more accurate (obviously) which leads to melee characters dealing a ton of damage because missing is much less likely.
However, Enemies can also use the rule. It makes fights against large groups particularly difficult because they can get into mass swarm flanks
I continue to use it because... well because whatever lol, if the party hits a bunch, I hit a bunch, everyone wins right lol? BUT! I perfectly understand the reasoning behind NOT using it (and have considered not using it as well!)
I use it. IMO it encourages the players to think about the combat more than just "I swing my sword."
I thought this too when we first adopted it! But it also eliminates the usefulness (or at least reduces) of spells and abilities that grant advantage. Fairy Fire used to be a very popular spell in our group until the bard started thinking "Well they pretty much all have ADV anyway, why bother" lol
I've never played in a game that didn't include flanking, but I also rarely play in groups that emphasize melee, so flanking bonuses are often thwarted by players not wanting to get close enough to trigger it.
Mobs make AoOs a significant risk, and more advantage means that CR can be bumped up, which can make for exciting encounters. If it ever becomes a problem at my table, it's easy enough to balance.
I use it. IMO it encourages the players to think about the combat more than just "I swing my sword."
I thought this too when we first adopted it! But it also eliminates the usefulness (or at least reduces) of spells and abilities that grant advantage. Fairy Fire used to be a very popular spell in our group until the bard started thinking "Well they pretty much all have ADV anyway, why bother" lol
This probably partly depends on party composition too (both player and PC). I DM for my brother and two oldest nephews. For us, using flanking gets the kids thinking more strategically at times and because they're kiddos and forget rules, using it at our table doesn't eliminate the usefulness of things that give advantage otherwise.
We do not like the flanking. Not to reiterate all the reasons above which are correct, but the encounters then become more on trying to get flanking. Where does it stop, can you flank a 20' giant, can you flank any kind of 4 legged beast or purple worm, or dragon or a beholder. It also will effect if you have 1 BBEG. He will not be so BBEG if flanked. I understand the premise, but there are a lot of premises that are left out in 5E and this is one that should be too.
I've never played in a game that didn't include flanking, but I also rarely play in groups that emphasize melee, so flanking bonuses are often thwarted by players not wanting to get close enough to trigger it.
Mobs make AoOs a significant risk, and more advantage means that CR can be bumped up, which can make for exciting encounters. If it ever becomes a problem at my table, it's easy enough to balance.
I've had a pretty similar experience, every group I've played in doesn't tend to have more than 2 players (usually out of 5) who are melee focused so it hasn't caused me any problems. Personally I think it makes lower CR mobs a better challenge, especially if you're not actually tracking HPs for minions, and makes terrain a bit more interesting. Additionally most of my players also like to deal damage over using buff/debuff spells anyways, so even if got rid of flanking I doubt they'd suddenly switch to using spells like Faerie Fire.
Flanking makes no sense in 5e, it's way yo easy to get (compared to previous editions, since you can move around a target with no AoO) and it shuts down all other ideas to get advantage, while at the same time preventing disadvantage. The combination of lack of AoO, and the Adv/Dis mechanic trivialises this.
I can’t disagree with Lyxen here.
Since there is no penalty for moving within a monster’s threat zone, players just scoot around for free advantage with minimal effort, as the DM tries to do the same with the baddies.
It does not add much to the game other than more chaos, while arguably imbalancing melee players and melee monsters and making spells and other effects that give advantage unnecessary in many situations.
So in short no I don’t use it. If the mechanics of the game better supported it, then I probably would.
I like the Dungeon Dudes' alternative flanking rule of adding +2 to attack, and optionally +5, if you have a three-way flank (oo-er).
If I were playing the three-way flank rule, I'd rule that to qualify each attacker must qualify as flanking with both other attackers - not just two in front, one behind. i.e. the attackers form an equilateral triangle with target in the middle.
That way it's not as powerful as advantage, which I think works out as an effective +4/+5. It also means it can stack with advantage.
Also, how many monsters are you putting in each encounter ? Do they use flanking against your PCs ? How often ? Do they like it then ?
The number I use Varies, but I REALLY try to stay away from one really big guy (action economy and all that...)
If my monsters have ANY kind of intelligence (or if they're pack hunters) then you bet they're getting flanking too lol My players thoughts in combat are usually "How do I get flanking without getting flanked myself?"
And they're fine with this! They like hitting and dealing damage, but they also like really hard encounters so it works out!
It does not add much to the game other than more chaos, while arguably imbalancing melee players and melee monsters and making spells and other effects that give advantage unnecessary in many situations.
I agree, it makes the game chaos, and it's not even beautiful. Instead of holding a line, you are encouraged to go around every adversary just as if you were waltzing all the time. In the end, I think it would be as good to allocate bonuses for coordinated melee attacks, even if the characters are on the same side. For example, look at the hobgoblin feature, which shows the benefit of battle coordination: Martial Advantage. Once per turn, the hobgoblin can deal an extra 7 (2d6) damage to a creature it hits with a weapon attack if that creature is within 5 feet of an ally of the hobgoblin that isn't incapacitated.
Don't forget Pack Tactics. But I believe Martial Advantage and Pack tactics should be left to NPC's/ monsters.
I am playing for the 1st time in a game without Flanking. It is an online game, where the DM wanted to try theatre of the mind more. Even without Flanking, it has devolved into us still moving our chars on a grid. But fundamentally, yes, I now see that a game without Flanking is a superior game.
Position jockeying is an important part of traditional combat, though I agree that Flanking might be better rolled under the "Combat Maneuvers" umbrella. Most classes probably wouldn't have the training to take full advantage of their positioning.
I use flanking but I don't grant advantage. I grant a bonus to the attack roll based on the number of allies flanking the enemy (+1 per ally up to a maximum of +3). It ends up being sufficiently strong but less so than advantage.
I also grant the enemy the option to nullify the bonus. On their turn, they can use a free action to "focus" on one attacker, taking the bonus away from only that attacker.
Also, how many monsters are you putting in each encounter ? Do they use flanking against your PCs ? How often ? Do they like it then ?
My monsters do use it, when appropriate. (Animal-INT ones don't -- everyone else does, when the situation allows for it.)
My players often forget to use it. Several times I've been baffled that whole battles will go by with two characters attacking a boss and being literally one square away from getting a flanking bonus and nobody moves. Well... the boss sure as heck isn't gonna remind 'em...
A couple of times even when the monsters have moved into flanking, the players haven't thought to do it back to them next round. Again... not gonna remind 'em. That's their job.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
On first reading it, I liked flanking for the thought of tactical movement, but then it could also just lead to long lines of alternating ally-enemy-ally-enemy chains.
So I thought about some ideas, discussed with people in my group and now we run with the following rule:
Normal flanking rules apply, being on opposite sides or corners, but you only gain the advantage if the flanking characters are only in melee with a single enemy.
This has had, what I feel to be positive impacts, on the the battlefield. Flanking is a great incentive for melee types to think about their movement, not just where they will go, but where their allies could reach on following turns. The addition to the rule means gaining field dominance is required before the benefit can be achieved, this means thinning the numbers or use of things like thorn wall to split up the enemy and take down the isolated. Having other abilities and spells to gain advantage early on is a real boon to the players, like the before mentioned fairy fire.
Finally, as the enemy also gain the benefit of flanking, there are occasions when ranged or utility characters have stepped into the melee just to harass the enemy and deny their advantage, that players use abilities to shove an enemy out of a combat to allow upcoming pcs to gain advantage or that two melee pcs surrounded by a mod, when back to back (next to each other on a grid space), help deny advantage to all surrounding enemies.
1) It tends to invalidate the "bounded accuracy" assumptions of 5e since everyone essentially picks up an average of about +4 to hit ... considering that proficiency goes from +2 at level 1 to +6 at level 20, and the best magical weapons are +3 - this is a substantial shift in balance. Also, since both PCs and NPCs tend to do more damage relative to hit points this further boosts that disparity so that both PCs and NPCs die faster.
2) It removes the utility and tactics involved in actually creating situations where a character earns advantage through the use of skills or spells without adding any real tactical improvements to the game. All flanking does is creature a situation where you need 2 melee characters in every group and they have to concentrate on the same target or at least stand where the creature is flanked which is pretty much the tactic they should be using anyway in terms of focused fire. (Spells like fairy fire, skills like stun, gloomstalker invisibility, darkness+devils sight, greater invisibility - all lose part of their benefit when advantage is so easy to achieve) In addition, feats like elven accuracy suddenly become over valued since such a character will always attack with 3d20 to hit rolls.
3) In many encounters the party is outnumbered so the opponents are more likely to have flanking bonuses than the players. In addition, intelligent opponents in a world where flanking exists will know this and will specifically grapple the outnumbered PCs to separate them creating situations where the opponents have advantage and the players do not.
4) It pretty much invalidates the pack tactics feature available to certain creatures (wolves, kobolds etc)
Anyway, I wouldn't even consider using it as written. I might be convinced to add a +1 to hit when a creature is flanked by opponents on opposite sides to give some reward for trying to decide how best to play your characters ... but due to bounded accuracy reasons I wouldn't go any higher than that and only for a group that actually likes paying attention to the details of tactical placement of their characters.
I've considered using a modified version (flanking only applies if you are flanking at the start of your turn, so you can't just instantly run around a monster and get flanking; as such, it would mostly be useful for forcing creatures to move or avoid certain positions), but the simple version is way too easy to achieve for what it does. It occasionally had interesting results with 3e or 4e opportunity attacks (though the conga line was not my favorite thing either), but I really don't think it works in 5e.
I think, as others have said, it makes it far too easy to get advantage. Advantage should be the exception, not the rule. Giving everyone the option to just reposition themselves slightly, with no penalty, and gain advantage makes some features incredibly overpowered (e.g. Sneak Attack) and makes some virtually useless (e.g. Reckless Attack). It completely shifts the balance of the game.
For flanking to work, for me, it would need to be much more difficult to get and/or give something less than advantage. I could accept a +1 to hit. I might accept giving advantage if you first had to pass a skill/ability check, and if you failed that check you trigger an opportunity attack. But the straight up "I move to the opposite side of the monster, YAY I can haz advantagez!!!!" is a bit silly IMHO.
I think the rule is truly awful. Gaining advantage that easily? Surely hits start becoming trivial and critical hits quite likely. As other's have mentioned it also makes pack tactics practically meaningless. Its too much of an advantage for very little work.
Out of curiousity, How many of you use the optional flanking rule? My party has used it pretty much since we started 5e.
From what I've noticed, It makes Advantage the "new standard" for melee players, and actually makes them disappointed when they don't have advantage. It makes them much more accurate (obviously) which leads to melee characters dealing a ton of damage because missing is much less likely.
However, Enemies can also use the rule. It makes fights against large groups particularly difficult because they can get into mass swarm flanks
I continue to use it because... well because whatever lol, if the party hits a bunch, I hit a bunch, everyone wins right lol?
BUT! I perfectly understand the reasoning behind NOT using it (and have considered not using it as well!)
I'm just curious on what the majority does
I use it. IMO it encourages the players to think about the combat more than just "I swing my sword."
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
I thought this too when we first adopted it! But it also eliminates the usefulness (or at least reduces) of spells and abilities that grant advantage. Fairy Fire used to be a very popular spell in our group until the bard started thinking "Well they pretty much all have ADV anyway, why bother" lol
I've never played in a game that didn't include flanking, but I also rarely play in groups that emphasize melee, so flanking bonuses are often thwarted by players not wanting to get close enough to trigger it.
Mobs make AoOs a significant risk, and more advantage means that CR can be bumped up, which can make for exciting encounters. If it ever becomes a problem at my table, it's easy enough to balance.
This probably partly depends on party composition too (both player and PC). I DM for my brother and two oldest nephews. For us, using flanking gets the kids thinking more strategically at times and because they're kiddos and forget rules, using it at our table doesn't eliminate the usefulness of things that give advantage otherwise.
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
We do not like the flanking. Not to reiterate all the reasons above which are correct, but the encounters then become more on trying to get flanking. Where does it stop, can you flank a 20' giant, can you flank any kind of 4 legged beast or purple worm, or dragon or a beholder. It also will effect if you have 1 BBEG. He will not be so BBEG if flanked. I understand the premise, but there are a lot of premises that are left out in 5E and this is one that should be too.
I've had a pretty similar experience, every group I've played in doesn't tend to have more than 2 players (usually out of 5) who are melee focused so it hasn't caused me any problems. Personally I think it makes lower CR mobs a better challenge, especially if you're not actually tracking HPs for minions, and makes terrain a bit more interesting. Additionally most of my players also like to deal damage over using buff/debuff spells anyways, so even if got rid of flanking I doubt they'd suddenly switch to using spells like Faerie Fire.
I can’t disagree with Lyxen here.
Since there is no penalty for moving within a monster’s threat zone, players just scoot around for free advantage with minimal effort, as the DM tries to do the same with the baddies.
It does not add much to the game other than more chaos, while arguably imbalancing melee players and melee monsters and making spells and other effects that give advantage unnecessary in many situations.
So in short no I don’t use it. If the mechanics of the game better supported it, then I probably would.
I like the Dungeon Dudes' alternative flanking rule of adding +2 to attack, and optionally +5, if you have a three-way flank (oo-er).
If I were playing the three-way flank rule, I'd rule that to qualify each attacker must qualify as flanking with both other attackers - not just two in front, one behind. i.e. the attackers form an equilateral triangle with target in the middle.
That way it's not as powerful as advantage, which I think works out as an effective +4/+5. It also means it can stack with advantage.
The number I use Varies, but I REALLY try to stay away from one really big guy (action economy and all that...)
If my monsters have ANY kind of intelligence (or if they're pack hunters) then you bet they're getting flanking too lol
My players thoughts in combat are usually "How do I get flanking without getting flanked myself?"
And they're fine with this! They like hitting and dealing damage, but they also like really hard encounters so it works out!
Don't forget Pack Tactics. But I believe Martial Advantage and Pack tactics should be left to NPC's/ monsters.
I am playing for the 1st time in a game without Flanking. It is an online game, where the DM wanted to try theatre of the mind more. Even without Flanking, it has devolved into us still moving our chars on a grid. But fundamentally, yes, I now see that a game without Flanking is a superior game.
Position jockeying is an important part of traditional combat, though I agree that Flanking might be better rolled under the "Combat Maneuvers" umbrella. Most classes probably wouldn't have the training to take full advantage of their positioning.
I use flanking but I don't grant advantage. I grant a bonus to the attack roll based on the number of allies flanking the enemy (+1 per ally up to a maximum of +3). It ends up being sufficiently strong but less so than advantage.
I also grant the enemy the option to nullify the bonus. On their turn, they can use a free action to "focus" on one attacker, taking the bonus away from only that attacker.
"To die would be an awfully big adventure"
My monsters do use it, when appropriate. (Animal-INT ones don't -- everyone else does, when the situation allows for it.)
My players often forget to use it. Several times I've been baffled that whole battles will go by with two characters attacking a boss and being literally one square away from getting a flanking bonus and nobody moves. Well... the boss sure as heck isn't gonna remind 'em...
A couple of times even when the monsters have moved into flanking, the players haven't thought to do it back to them next round. Again... not gonna remind 'em. That's their job.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
On first reading it, I liked flanking for the thought of tactical movement, but then it could also just lead to long lines of alternating ally-enemy-ally-enemy chains.
So I thought about some ideas, discussed with people in my group and now we run with the following rule:
Normal flanking rules apply, being on opposite sides or corners, but you only gain the advantage if the flanking characters are only in melee with a single enemy.
This has had, what I feel to be positive impacts, on the the battlefield. Flanking is a great incentive for melee types to think about their movement, not just where they will go, but where their allies could reach on following turns. The addition to the rule means gaining field dominance is required before the benefit can be achieved, this means thinning the numbers or use of things like thorn wall to split up the enemy and take down the isolated. Having other abilities and spells to gain advantage early on is a real boon to the players, like the before mentioned fairy fire.
Finally, as the enemy also gain the benefit of flanking, there are occasions when ranged or utility characters have stepped into the melee just to harass the enemy and deny their advantage, that players use abilities to shove an enemy out of a combat to allow upcoming pcs to gain advantage or that two melee pcs surrounded by a mod, when back to back (next to each other on a grid space), help deny advantage to all surrounding enemies.
I don't use it for a few reasons.
1) It tends to invalidate the "bounded accuracy" assumptions of 5e since everyone essentially picks up an average of about +4 to hit ... considering that proficiency goes from +2 at level 1 to +6 at level 20, and the best magical weapons are +3 - this is a substantial shift in balance. Also, since both PCs and NPCs tend to do more damage relative to hit points this further boosts that disparity so that both PCs and NPCs die faster.
2) It removes the utility and tactics involved in actually creating situations where a character earns advantage through the use of skills or spells without adding any real tactical improvements to the game. All flanking does is creature a situation where you need 2 melee characters in every group and they have to concentrate on the same target or at least stand where the creature is flanked which is pretty much the tactic they should be using anyway in terms of focused fire. (Spells like fairy fire, skills like stun, gloomstalker invisibility, darkness+devils sight, greater invisibility - all lose part of their benefit when advantage is so easy to achieve) In addition, feats like elven accuracy suddenly become over valued since such a character will always attack with 3d20 to hit rolls.
3) In many encounters the party is outnumbered so the opponents are more likely to have flanking bonuses than the players. In addition, intelligent opponents in a world where flanking exists will know this and will specifically grapple the outnumbered PCs to separate them creating situations where the opponents have advantage and the players do not.
4) It pretty much invalidates the pack tactics feature available to certain creatures (wolves, kobolds etc)
Anyway, I wouldn't even consider using it as written. I might be convinced to add a +1 to hit when a creature is flanked by opponents on opposite sides to give some reward for trying to decide how best to play your characters ... but due to bounded accuracy reasons I wouldn't go any higher than that and only for a group that actually likes paying attention to the details of tactical placement of their characters.
I've considered using a modified version (flanking only applies if you are flanking at the start of your turn, so you can't just instantly run around a monster and get flanking; as such, it would mostly be useful for forcing creatures to move or avoid certain positions), but the simple version is way too easy to achieve for what it does. It occasionally had interesting results with 3e or 4e opportunity attacks (though the conga line was not my favorite thing either), but I really don't think it works in 5e.
Essentially all it does is give every player and monster in the game a poor man's pack tactics.
I think, as others have said, it makes it far too easy to get advantage. Advantage should be the exception, not the rule. Giving everyone the option to just reposition themselves slightly, with no penalty, and gain advantage makes some features incredibly overpowered (e.g. Sneak Attack) and makes some virtually useless (e.g. Reckless Attack). It completely shifts the balance of the game.
For flanking to work, for me, it would need to be much more difficult to get and/or give something less than advantage. I could accept a +1 to hit. I might accept giving advantage if you first had to pass a skill/ability check, and if you failed that check you trigger an opportunity attack. But the straight up "I move to the opposite side of the monster, YAY I can haz advantagez!!!!" is a bit silly IMHO.
I think the rule is truly awful. Gaining advantage that easily? Surely hits start becoming trivial and critical hits quite likely. As other's have mentioned it also makes pack tactics practically meaningless. Its too much of an advantage for very little work.
I'm quite surprised so many use it.
DM - The Call of Strahd (CoS); Feyrealm Campaign, Chapter 0 - Bleak Prospect (BP), Chapter 1 - Destination Unknown (DU)