I have no problem with flanking either. If it works for the party it works against them too. A pack of Kobold Hyena riders or a flock of Kobold Vulture riders can be abso-freakin’-lately terrifying. 😉

🤣😂🤣

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

How do you feel when people say "don't play a Purple Dragon Knight/Undying Warlock, it's super underpowered and broken"? Do you think that's "badwrongfun"? 

If not, how in the hell is that at all different from "this mechanic is broken and overpowered, no one should use it"? If you do have the same opinion . . . how the **** is it "badwrongfun" to try and warn people that a mechanic might make their game less fun for them. 

Keep using Flanking all you like. You're an experienced DM. If you have made the proper counter-balances to keep nigh-constant advantage on weapon attacks from breaking your game, good for you. I still do not think that it should have been in the core rulebooks at all, because of how it can break new players' games, thinking that WotC would have designed a balanced feature. 

It broke my games when I started. I used it, thinking that it would be fine, but it wasn't. It should not be an option in the DMG, just like the Purple Dragon Knight, Undying Warlock, and similar broken subclasses should not have been published in their broken form. 

Mechanics are objective. 

 There is a difference between, "I don't like X rule. I think it is overpowered." and "X rule is broken and will ruin your game don't use it."

One is stating an opinion but doesn't carry any self appointed authority, the other does.  

Edit: I would tell someone that I don't like the Purple Dragon Knight, but I would never tell some one not to play it if they want to to.  That is not my place nor is it yours.

Unless you’re the DM and that’s your houserule. I ban both the Sorcerer and Barbarian Wild Magic 💩 subclasses.

Quote from IamSposta >>

Unless you’re the DM and that’s your houserule. I ban both the Sorcerer and Barbarian Wild Magic 💩 subclasses.

 That is fair, but also a table rule, not telling a stranger on the internet that they are breaking their own game by using rules that they like.

So we want to see tactical movement options like flanking in a future UA?  I'm sorry, maybe I was blinded by the lack of DRAGONRAGE in UA, but I didn't see how the bickering was on topic.

I wouldn't mind seeing actually some "tactical movement" or "tactical options" that may do things like revisit grappling, shoving and strength contests, as well as flanking, high ground and other things.  

I don't see flanking as broken, it's very impactful on the tide of a battle, and if a game implemented it would definitely be a big factor in tactical consideration that most tables tend to ignore, but I don't think that makes it broken.  The 3rd Party Spelunkers Guide to the Underdark has this whole chapter on "momentum" which definitely makes combat more dynamic than traditional swing and hit combat in 5e.  It's not for everyone, but it's incorporation into a game doesn't break it, it just asserts a different tactical mindset (and brings alive features that are sorta inert or neat on paper meh in practice like the Scout Rogue's skirmisher ability.

So, yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing, rather than yet another miscelania of loosely associated players options,.some mechanical options for folks wanting to stir up their combat stew.  Exploration mechanics would be of interest as well (though I've yet to check out the Wilderness Screens content).

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

So we want to see tactical movement options like flanking in a future UA?  I'm sorry, maybe I was blinded by the lack of DRAGONRAGE in UA, but I didn't see how the bickering was on topic.

I wouldn't mind seeing actually some "tactical movement" or "tactical options" that may do things like revisit grappling, shoving and strength contests, as well as flanking, high ground and other things.  

I don't see flanking as broken, it's very impactful on the tide of a battle, and if a game implemented it would definitely be a big factor in tactical consideration that most tables tend to ignore, but I don't think that makes it broken.  The 3rd Party Spelunkers Guide to the Underdark has this whole chapter on "momentum" which definitely makes combat more dynamic than traditional swing and hit combat in 5e.  It's not for everyone, but it's incorporation into a game doesn't break it, it just asserts a different tactical mindset (and brings alive features that are sorta inert or neat on paper meh in practice like the Scout Rogue's skirmisher ability.

So, yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing, rather than yet another miscelania of loosely associated players options,.some mechanical options for folks wanting to stir up their combat stew.  Exploration mechanics would be of interest as well (though I've yet to check out the Wilderness Screens content).

 If flanking was a feat it wouldn't be a problem, now it negates the advantage of low level enemies with pack tactics. If it was a feat it would at least cost you something to have it.

It gives everyone Pack Tactics and makes everyone a Rogue, which essentially devalues both those things. My concern is less that it's overpowered (it is, but not really a lot) so much as that it steps on toes and makes existing choices less impactful. 

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

It gives everyone Pack Tactics and makes everyone a Rogue, which essentially devalues both those things. My concern is less that it's overpowered (it is, but not really a lot) so much as that it steps on toes and makes existing choices less impactful. 

One way to incorporate it but not make it overtly crazy is instead of ADV its a +2 to hit....kind of like reverse cover. 

I believe that's how it worked in older editions, a small flat bonus instead of freakin' advantage, which is far stronger.

Quote from SemanticAvenger >>

I believe that's how it worked in older editions, a small flat bonus instead of freakin' advantage, which is far stronger.

Yeah and only gets progressively better as your attack stat increases....

Could rule it as add proficiency (again) to the attack roll, so it scales as you do. Expertise to-hit, if that makes sense.

I would not mind a Tactical Combat UA, but I wasn't bothered by the idea that people don't like the Flanking rules. I was bothered by someone telling me to stop using the rule because it is hurting my game.  No one should be telling anyone how to play at their table.  It is just plain rude.  If you want to talk about the pros and cons of a rule or possible fixes you might want to see that is great.  Just don't tell some one that if they are using a rule that you don't like that they should feel bad or that they are breaking their game or that it is wrong.  That is crossing a line.

I will say no more on the subject, but had to get that off my chest.

As far as alternate flanking rules, I like the idea of reverse cover.  A flat +2 to hit for being in a tactically advantageous position I think is reasonable.  If you really wanted to get deep into it without having to many modifiers to track, it could work just like Advantage/Disadvantage.  You can't gain more than one +2 bonus from positioning and there could be things that nullify it as well such as being in difficult terrain.  This would allow people that want a more tactical style of combat to do so without bogging down the game with lots of math and tracking modifiers.

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

I'm . . . torn about the Sorcerer. I love the idea of someone that's born with their magic, and I also love the idea of a Warlock, someone that makes a deal with an otherworldly entity to get their magic, but I currently think there's a bit too much overlap between the two. They both are basically full casters, cast from Charisma, and have very similar subclasses (Celestial Warlock and Divine Soul Sorcerer, Undead Warlock and Shadow Sorcerer, etc). There's also a lot of overlap between Planetouched and Sorcerers (from one point of view, wouldn't it make sense for all Genasi, Aasimar, Hexblood, and Tieflings to automatically be Sorcerers?). In my opinion, a Sorcerer's subclass should be based on what source of magic they have (like it currently is), with higher level subclass features making them more and more like whatever creature/magical entity caused them to get magic (Dragons for Draconic Bloodline Sorcerers, Shadows for Shadow Sorcerers, Celestials for Divine Soul Sorcerers, etc). 

But there's also a ton of Warlock subclasses that do basically the same thing, making the Warlock become more and more like their patron as they grow in levels. Genie Warlocks basically become mini-genies, which is something that I would have assumed would be more like a Sorcerer Genie Subclass. Undead Warlocks get more and more undead-like as they grow in powers, which, again, is fairly similar to what most Sorcerer subclasses could/should do. Great Old One Warlocks become more and more alien (like pseudo-Mind Flayers/Aboleths), which makes sense thematically, but again has a lot of overlap with Sorcerers. 

Maybe it would be better if the "Warlock" class held both the theme of "I was born with powers/changed by magic to have spellcasting", as well as "my powers were granted by an outsider", and the Sorcerer was more like the Arcane Gish class that it was during the D&D Next Playtest? Possibly making them Constitution-based spellcasters, too? That would make them more mechanically and thematically distinct. 

 i'd rather have warlocks lean heavier towards the more scholarly lunatic vibe knowing secrets that should not be known that they are eluding to with the current flavour text for the warlock, sort of having them leech power from someplace or something (be it an plane of existance, eldrich god or whatever the ****), and hand the "fiendish sugar daddy" trope to sorcerers, with them either being directly given arcane power or having it inherited from some greater source.

WotC really struck a chord with the 3rd playtest packet from 2012, both sorcerers and warlocks were extremely different from any other spellcaster mechanically and had a lot of interesting flavour in them

Quote from ArtificeMeal >>

 i'd rather have warlocks lean heavier towards the more scholarly lunatic vibe knowing secrets that should not be known that they are eluding to with the current flavour text for the warlock, sort of having them leech power from someplace or something (be it an plane of existance, eldrich god or whatever the ****), and hand the "fiendish sugar daddy" trope to sorcerers, with them either being directly given arcane power or having it inherited from some greater source.

WotC really struck a chord with the 3rd playtest packet from 2012, both sorcerers and warlocks were extremely different from any other spellcaster mechanically and had a lot of interesting flavour in them

 I think part of the problem is not just the fact that the Pacts and Bloodlines overlap, but that they are both Charisma casters. Mechanically speaking, there isn't a lot of overlap between the two classes, it is mostly just overlapping themes but both being Charisma based doesn't help. 

I also don't buy into the idea that Sorcerers should become more Dragon or what ever.  The mutating aspect fits the Warlock better.  As they gain power, they lose parts of their "humanity".  Sorcerers should just be learning to control what they already have.  

Any guesses when we’ll see anything else from UA?

We could see updated versions of the Spelljammer/Darksun UA, but I doubt it. They almost never do two different UA for just new races, it's almost always just Subclasses or Classes that get two+ UA. 

Most setting books have new subclasses in them, so if we're getting a Spelljammer or Dark Sun book this year, we'll probably see new subclasses in the UA for them (a Pilot Artificer, maybe? Or Space Magic Wizard? Maybe even a Psion class if we're getting Dark Sun?). Most new setting books also take a variant rule from the DMG or another book and flesh it out more, so we could get something like that in a UA version (Space Combat or Spelljamming Vehicle Stats for Spelljammer? Lingering Injuries or Stone Weapons for Dark Sun?), too. 

Or we could get something from one of those "2 completely new D&D settings" that they've been working on for the past year or so, and we currently know nothing about. A UA for those could be literally anything. A new version of the Modern Magic UA (or Modern Weaponry/Armors), new spells/races/subclasses/classes/equipment specific to the worlds, or something along those lines. 

Anyone else have any guesses?

I hope we see a new attempt at Psion, but I'm not going to hold my breath.  In all honestly I hope that they do a new class UA.  Better yet, start giving us revamped classes so there is plenty of time to work through them AND all the PHB subclasses before 2024.  

Quote from IamSposta >>

Any guesses when we’ll see anything else from UA?

 I'm going to guess February, based on nothing at all. The only active UA we have is Travelers of the Multiverse, which came out in September, has been out for around five months, and still isn't going into any announced book. We just got Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse (in the boxed set, not solo until May) and the only other announced book is a Critical Role adventure coming out in March. January is over, and I assume with basically nothing truly new on the officially-announced horizon that we're either going to get a new UA or a new book announcement very soon. By the time Netherdeep comes out at the latest.

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

We could see updated versions of the Spelljammer/Darksun UA, but I doubt it. They almost never do two different UA for just new races, it's almost always just Subclasses or Classes that get two+ UA. 

Most setting books have new subclasses in them, so if we're getting a Spelljammer or Dark Sun book this year, we'll probably see new subclasses in the UA for them (a Pilot Artificer, maybe? Or Space Magic Wizard? Maybe even a Psion class if we're getting Dark Sun?). Most new setting books also take a variant rule from the DMG or another book and flesh it out more, so we could get something like that in a UA version (Space Combat or Spelljamming Vehicle Stats for Spelljammer? Lingering Injuries or Stone Weapons for Dark Sun?), too. 

Or we could get something from one of those "2 completely new D&D settings" that they've been working on for the past year or so, and we currently know nothing about. A UA for those could be literally anything. A new version of the Modern Magic UA (or Modern Weaponry/Armors), new spells/races/subclasses/classes/equipment specific to the worlds, or something along those lines. 

Anyone else have any guesses?

 Again, I would love to see an old setting return, but please tell me how to adapt Dark Sun, with its cannibalism, slavery, xenocides, the way Mul are made and the decidedly alignment driven societies and be made palatable to a 5th edition audience without losing its flavour?

Quote from Nechaef >>

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

We could see updated versions of the Spelljammer/Darksun UA, but I doubt it. They almost never do two different UA for just new races, it's almost always just Subclasses or Classes that get two+ UA. 

Most setting books have new subclasses in them, so if we're getting a Spelljammer or Dark Sun book this year, we'll probably see new subclasses in the UA for them (a Pilot Artificer, maybe? Or Space Magic Wizard? Maybe even a Psion class if we're getting Dark Sun?). Most new setting books also take a variant rule from the DMG or another book and flesh it out more, so we could get something like that in a UA version (Space Combat or Spelljamming Vehicle Stats for Spelljammer? Lingering Injuries or Stone Weapons for Dark Sun?), too. 

Or we could get something from one of those "2 completely new D&D settings" that they've been working on for the past year or so, and we currently know nothing about. A UA for those could be literally anything. A new version of the Modern Magic UA (or Modern Weaponry/Armors), new spells/races/subclasses/classes/equipment specific to the worlds, or something along those lines. 

Anyone else have any guesses?

 Again, I would love to see an old setting return, but please tell me how to adapt Dark Sun, with its cannibalism, slavery, xenocides, the way Mul are made and the decidedly alignment driven societies and be made palatable to a 5th edition audience without losing its flavour?

 I don't think that they have to do much to be honest.  Dystopian Post Apocalyptic worlds are still a common and well received trope in movies, books and games.  I think it will just need to advertised as such.