Was just reading through this as I'm researching the area a bit. I started our game with flanking (and I do remember that NPC's can do it too, and my PC's have gotten caught in tough situations at times because of it). I like the idea of it, because if you have an enemy on either side of you, you have to be really damn good to be able to defend against both of them at the same time (within 6 seconds, the course of a round). For this reason, I don't want to remove flanking.
However, it has definitely made it difficult in setting up Combat Encounters, as the rogue/barbarian/druid seemingly exist solely to flank something and absolutely destroy it, even if moving to that thing provokes attacks of opportunities from other enemies. It's cool and all, but they just destroy everything I throw at them, and while they are having a blast, it's honestly not making it as much fun for me. I don't play versus my players by any means, i love when they are super heroic and it's great when they have a battle where I think it should be tough and they kill it, but this has become almost every battle at this point (at level 5 now). I also want to challenge them as that makes it more tense and fun for me and I think gives them a sense of "wow, we really just did something great".
I see it mentioned earlier in this thread, and also in a video Matthew Colville recently did that perhaps changing the optional flanking rule from giving advantage to giving a flat +2 or even an extra 1d4 on top of the roll (giving about 10% bonus to hit, instead of about 25% bonus to hit from advantage). I think I might adapt this instead of a straight advantage for flanking as you still get a bonus, but the bonus isn't as good, which I think would lead my players to think about it more instead of just doing everything they can to get into a flanking position and obliterate the opponent.
Would anyone have an opposition to changing the optional rule to from giving adv to giving +2 to hit or +1d4 to hit? Any reasons you think giving advantage is a "better" or more fair rule?
I would agree with filcat that the balance in Flanking is that it's a two way street. Against a single "big bad" it's definitely disadvantages the monster. AlexandreRola does have a good point about large AoE effects negatively impacting swarms. In most of the games I've played the PCs are usually outnumbered and so giving up a flank is a thing most of the players I've played with are adverse to doing. In addition I consider position a very important thing (why Control Wizards are important). So effects like Thunderwave, Shield Master, Shove, etc... all can become very important. In 5e I think grappling is kinda bad, but with Shove or Flanking it can really shine. That said all tactics are a 2 way street. This all assume the combat is battlemat heavy vs theater of the mind.
That said, I probably play with a more tactically conservative group. We'd be adverse to giving a few monsters AoOs just to get Adv.
I do like the idea of "reverse cover". If the group heavily uses a battle mat a full 180' flank could be +5, and a 135' flank (the squares just off from directly across) could give a +2. Possibly just make it +2, if the +5 seems too high... or +2 for more Theater of the Mind groups.
I also heavily use cover so if a ranged/reach weapons wants to hit a target they need to get clear LOS not through their allies to avoid the penalty. This is one reason I LIKE the fact that positioning if free because it allows combatant to move around each other.
I do strongly disagree with the idea that combatants can't move without provoking attacks of opportunity. As long as they never try to leave reach they are theoretically "focused" on the attackers. Anyone who has done sword fighting (competitive fencing aside, as they don't move much) knows opponents circle each other. Multiple attackers (flanking) starts constraining movement rapidly. 3e was ponderously slow in combat because it locked down movement... 4e and 5e really let combat be more fluid.
There is a lot of really good food for thought in this post though.
I would agree with filcat that the balance in Flanking is that it's a two way street. Against a single "big bad" it's definitely disadvantages the monster. AlexandreRola does have a good point about large AoE effects negatively impacting swarms. In most of the games I've played the PCs are usually outnumbered and so giving up a flank is a thing most of the players I've played with are adverse to doing. In addition I consider position a very important thing (why Control Wizards are important). So effects like Thunderwave, Shield Master, Shove, etc... all can become very important. In 5e I think grappling is kinda bad, but with Shove or Flanking it can really shine. That said all tactics are a 2 way street. This all assume the combat is battlemat heavy vs theater of the mind.
That said, I probably play with a more tactically conservative group. We'd be adverse to giving a few monsters AoOs just to get Adv.
I do like the idea of "reverse cover". If the group heavily uses a battle mat a full 180' flank could be +5, and a 135' flank (the squares just off from directly across) could give a +2. Possibly just make it +2, if the +5 seems too high... or +2 for more Theater of the Mind groups.
I also heavily use cover so if a ranged/reach weapons wants to hit a target they need to get clear LOS not through their allies to avoid the penalty. This is one reason I LIKE the fact that positioning if free because it allows combatant to move around each other.
I do strongly disagree with the idea that combatants can't move without provoking attacks of opportunity. As long as they never try to leave reach they are theoretically "focused" on the attackers. Anyone who has done sword fighting (competitive fencing aside, as they don't move much) knows opponents circle each other. Multiple attackers (flanking) starts constraining movement rapidly. 3e was ponderously slow in combat because it locked down movement... 4e and 5e really let combat be more fluid.
There is a lot of really good food for thought in this post though.
Thanks for the input. Your blocked point, the part I bolded about moving without provoking attacks of opportunity -- RAW moving around the enemy if you stay within it's range doesn't provoke the AoO which would lend to your point about sword fighting/staying engaged and circling each other. 3
That being said though, just as a thought, would you consider having a slowed speed for those interactions (making it equivalent to maybe rough terrain, halving your speed/costing double to move around an enemy while remaining in range)? Reason being you are focused on defending and moving at the same time, as opposed to someone just focused on charging ahead. It's never anything I previously considered, but in having this discussion and that point being made, I thought of that.
Obviously there gets to a point where you end up modifying the rules way more than needed, and that is probably getting there, but it's interesting to me to say the least.
Point of order; it is now the elegant and concise "opportunity attack."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Admin on MeWe's Conservative D&D Players group, but I believe that no matter what our differences are, our love of D&D is something that should bring us together. So, if you don't start something I won't either. Fair enough?
Method Actor, Storyteller, Tactician type who plays peacemaker at the table. This fall will be my 39th year playing D&D, Gamma World, Car Wars, Talisman, Serenity and Traveller.
"Dipping from 3e and 4e is a great way to implement things that aren't otherwise standardized in the game. For example, use the previous editions flanking method and give a +2 to the attack roll..."
I could not disagree with this more. Flanking is standard 5E, advantage is not broken and does not need fixed. 3E and 4E are obsolete.
Your DM's NPCs need to use flanking against the PCs. He needs to learn to use tactics and be tougher.
Admin on MeWe's Conservative D&D Players group, but I believe that no matter what our differences are, our love of D&D is something that should bring us together. So, if you don't start something I won't either. Fair enough?
Method Actor, Storyteller, Tactician type who plays peacemaker at the table. This fall will be my 39th year playing D&D, Gamma World, Car Wars, Talisman, Serenity and Traveller.
You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach.
It's right here. You can dance around a single enemy all you want as long as you don't leave their Reach. I believe this means monsters which have reach also means you only draw the AoO *when* you leave their [expanded] reach. The rule says "reach" not "5 feet" or "base to base contact" Once you have two or more opponents, that is when your movement is locked down.
I decided to not invoke the Flanking rule in my campaign. I am, however, letting them use a homebrew rule that they get a +1 (up to +2) on the attack roll for each additional threatening ally within melee range of the enemy you are attacking.
One additional ally currently threatening your target and in melee? +1 to the attack roll. In my mind, if the target is already dealing with one person then your attacks will have a slightly better chance of landing. If you have two allies threatening, then you get a +2 as it's even more likely the enemy can't defend against your attack while keeping an eye on the other two people.
I capped it at +2 for now because I'm not sure how potent this can be, and I don't want to encourage the party to all run into melee range of one enemy and beat them down with a +6 to their attacks. The party seems to like it and it has already provided several situations where they changed up strategies and placement on the battlefield to get the extra bonus to attack but sacrificed to do so.
Just thinking this rule through further, does that mean that if you move toward a creature that has a reach of more than 5ft, i.e. armed with a polearm or a Dragon, that you can get into base to base contact without having to suffer opportunity attacks as you move closer?
Just thinking this rule through further, does that mean that if you move toward a creature that has a reach of more than 5ft, i.e. armed with a polearm or a Dragon, that you can get into base to base contact without having to suffer opportunity attacks as you move closer?
I believe that is a correct interpretation of the rule. It's only when you leave reach.
That said I think it's funny because the 2nd rule of Sentinel makes it a bad feat for polearm characters.
Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
I think this means since your reach is 10 feat with a polearm that feat won't trigger.
I think I'm going to go with a house rule here and apply it to 'circling' within the same distance, but as soon as you close or create distance, you provoke an opportunity attack.
Just thinking this rule through further, does that mean that if you move toward a creature that has a reach of more than 5ft, i.e. armed with a polearm or a Dragon, that you can get into base to base contact without having to suffer opportunity attacks as you move closer?
I believe that is a correct interpretation of the rule. It's only when you leave reach.
That said I think it's funny because the 2nd rule of Sentinel makes it a bad feat for polearm characters.
Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the Disengage action before leaving your reach.
I think this means since your reach is 10 feat with a polearm that feat won't trigger.
I use flanking. But there are certain things that either make it harder to flank or outright impossible to do so. If something like a beholder is getting flanked, I'm like no, the amount of tentacle eyes they have makes it where they have no blind spots. If my players are all medium sized, they need to double up and actually surround them for flanking on larger creatures. Gargantuan, they can't flank because it's like a person has 10 ants circling them.
LOL - Players who are creating characters to do more than serve as an advantage generator for the rogue? :)
Mostly they are casting spells and shooting arrows. Of the 3 campaigns I'm running only one is going with a melee focus. Big game, lots of options!
View my StartPlaying.Games profile to see my games!
Flanking rules expose characters as well. The rule is valid also for NPCs.
Was just reading through this as I'm researching the area a bit. I started our game with flanking (and I do remember that NPC's can do it too, and my PC's have gotten caught in tough situations at times because of it). I like the idea of it, because if you have an enemy on either side of you, you have to be really damn good to be able to defend against both of them at the same time (within 6 seconds, the course of a round). For this reason, I don't want to remove flanking.
However, it has definitely made it difficult in setting up Combat Encounters, as the rogue/barbarian/druid seemingly exist solely to flank something and absolutely destroy it, even if moving to that thing provokes attacks of opportunities from other enemies. It's cool and all, but they just destroy everything I throw at them, and while they are having a blast, it's honestly not making it as much fun for me. I don't play versus my players by any means, i love when they are super heroic and it's great when they have a battle where I think it should be tough and they kill it, but this has become almost every battle at this point (at level 5 now). I also want to challenge them as that makes it more tense and fun for me and I think gives them a sense of "wow, we really just did something great".
I see it mentioned earlier in this thread, and also in a video Matthew Colville recently did that perhaps changing the optional flanking rule from giving advantage to giving a flat +2 or even an extra 1d4 on top of the roll (giving about 10% bonus to hit, instead of about 25% bonus to hit from advantage). I think I might adapt this instead of a straight advantage for flanking as you still get a bonus, but the bonus isn't as good, which I think would lead my players to think about it more instead of just doing everything they can to get into a flanking position and obliterate the opponent.
Would anyone have an opposition to changing the optional rule to from giving adv to giving +2 to hit or +1d4 to hit? Any reasons you think giving advantage is a "better" or more fair rule?
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Hi,
I would agree with filcat that the balance in Flanking is that it's a two way street. Against a single "big bad" it's definitely disadvantages the monster. AlexandreRola does have a good point about large AoE effects negatively impacting swarms. In most of the games I've played the PCs are usually outnumbered and so giving up a flank is a thing most of the players I've played with are adverse to doing. In addition I consider position a very important thing (why Control Wizards are important). So effects like Thunderwave, Shield Master, Shove, etc... all can become very important. In 5e I think grappling is kinda bad, but with Shove or Flanking it can really shine. That said all tactics are a 2 way street. This all assume the combat is battlemat heavy vs theater of the mind.
That said, I probably play with a more tactically conservative group. We'd be adverse to giving a few monsters AoOs just to get Adv.
I do like the idea of "reverse cover". If the group heavily uses a battle mat a full 180' flank could be +5, and a 135' flank (the squares just off from directly across) could give a +2. Possibly just make it +2, if the +5 seems too high... or +2 for more Theater of the Mind groups.
I also heavily use cover so if a ranged/reach weapons wants to hit a target they need to get clear LOS not through their allies to avoid the penalty. This is one reason I LIKE the fact that positioning if free because it allows combatant to move around each other.
I do strongly disagree with the idea that combatants can't move without provoking attacks of opportunity. As long as they never try to leave reach they are theoretically "focused" on the attackers. Anyone who has done sword fighting (competitive fencing aside, as they don't move much) knows opponents circle each other. Multiple attackers (flanking) starts constraining movement rapidly. 3e was ponderously slow in combat because it locked down movement... 4e and 5e really let combat be more fluid.
There is a lot of really good food for thought in this post though.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Point of order; it is now the elegant and concise "opportunity attack."
Admin on MeWe's Conservative D&D Players group, but I believe that no matter what our differences are, our love of D&D is something that should bring us together. So, if you don't start something I won't either. Fair enough?
Method Actor, Storyteller, Tactician type who plays peacemaker at the table. This fall will be my 39th year playing D&D, Gamma World, Car Wars, Talisman, Serenity and Traveller.
Admin on MeWe's Conservative D&D Players group, but I believe that no matter what our differences are, our love of D&D is something that should bring us together. So, if you don't start something I won't either. Fair enough?
Method Actor, Storyteller, Tactician type who plays peacemaker at the table. This fall will be my 39th year playing D&D, Gamma World, Car Wars, Talisman, Serenity and Traveller.
Where is that rule, please?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/combat#OpportunityAttacks
It's right here. You can dance around a single enemy all you want as long as you don't leave their Reach. I believe this means monsters which have reach also means you only draw the AoO *when* you leave their [expanded] reach. The rule says "reach" not "5 feet" or "base to base contact"
Once you have two or more opponents, that is when your movement is locked down.
Ah, okay, it's not explicit, it's implied.
Cool. Thanks :-)
I decided to not invoke the Flanking rule in my campaign. I am, however, letting them use a homebrew rule that they get a +1 (up to +2) on the attack roll for each additional threatening ally within melee range of the enemy you are attacking.
One additional ally currently threatening your target and in melee? +1 to the attack roll. In my mind, if the target is already dealing with one person then your attacks will have a slightly better chance of landing. If you have two allies threatening, then you get a +2 as it's even more likely the enemy can't defend against your attack while keeping an eye on the other two people.
I capped it at +2 for now because I'm not sure how potent this can be, and I don't want to encourage the party to all run into melee range of one enemy and beat them down with a +6 to their attacks. The party seems to like it and it has already provided several situations where they changed up strategies and placement on the battlefield to get the extra bonus to attack but sacrificed to do so.
Just thinking this rule through further, does that mean that if you move toward a creature that has a reach of more than 5ft, i.e. armed with a polearm or a Dragon, that you can get into base to base contact without having to suffer opportunity attacks as you move closer?
I think this means since your reach is 10 feat with a polearm that feat won't trigger.
I think I'm going to go with a house rule here and apply it to 'circling' within the same distance, but as soon as you close or create distance, you provoke an opportunity attack.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
I use flanking. But there are certain things that either make it harder to flank or outright impossible to do so. If something like a beholder is getting flanked, I'm like no, the amount of tentacle eyes they have makes it where they have no blind spots. If my players are all medium sized, they need to double up and actually surround them for flanking on larger creatures. Gargantuan, they can't flank because it's like a person has 10 ants circling them.
That's not how dice work. On average advantage works out to be around a +3, not doubled.
They actually removed Flanking from the 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide. Here's a decent write up on it: https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/dnd-flanking-5e-rule/
Thanks for the article. I also noticed the rule wasn't included in the 2024 DMG, along with Facing and some Combat Options included in the 2014 DMG.
I guess some tables will keep this optional rule, but personally, even though my players use it frequently, I don't see it as a great loss.