D&D 5E 5e Flanking - the good, the bad, and the broken?

[doctorbadwolf]

My big thing is it does not improve the game at all. I have played a lot of games both ways and IME it brings nothing at all to the table other than extra math.

At your table, sure. I’ve seen it be nothing but a positive.

We established a long time ago that our gaming experience is so different that we might as well play different games.

YMMV, but I think in general more people have had the experience I have with it.

Okay?

 

[Ancalagon]

I changed Flanking to:

When flanking, you score a Critical Hit on a 19 or a 20.

It's been a really fun change!

Nice!

I was going to suggest "make the attack more damaging". Perhaps roll damage twice, keep the best? but crit on 19-20 is beautiful.

 

[RangerWickett]

Somewhat related, I've liked the house rule "If you have advantage and both attacks hit, you score a crit. If you have disadvantage and both attacks miss, you fumble."

 

[Charlaquin]

Granted that the PHB describes advantage as being roughly analogous to a +5 or +6 (can't remember which) you suddenly see how flanking absolutely destroys bounded accuracy.

Ok, I know this is tangential to the topic, but… no. The PHB does describe advantage as roughly analogous to a +5 bonus, and that’s technically accurate, but it’s a massive oversimplification and it leads to confusion like this.

So, what advantage does is it changes the probability curve of the dice roll from a flat line to a bell curve. It really isn’t equivalent to a flat bonus to the roll at all, but rather, a dynamic bonus that depends on the target number you need to hit. If you need a 10 or 11 to hit, it’s about equivalent to +5, but if you need a natural 20 to hit, it’s worth less than +1. Basically, advantage just decreases the variance on checks. It’s most helpful when your chances are close to 50/50 but doesn’t make much difference if you’re unlikely to succeed in the first place or already had a high chance of succeeding anyway.

Because if this, advantage doesn’t break bounded accuracy. It makes your rolls much less swingy, but it doesn’t actually allow you to hit a higher AC than you could have done anyway. +2 AC might have less impact on the average roll you’re likely to make, but it has much more impact at the extreme ends - the bounds - of your accuracy.

I'm also thinking maybe Advantage in general just grants +2 instead of multiple dice, to rein in the numbers overall.

That won’t rein in the numbers, it will shift the range of numbers the PCs can and can’t hit, which is precisely the thing advantage/disadvantage and bounded accuracy were designed to prevent.

 

[loverdrive]

Results of flanking, picture colorized:

 

[Blue]

Deleted

 

[Stormonu]

I use flanking all the time, but I tend to use hordes against PCs, so they are usually the victim instead of the benefactor. The party has learned some caution and tactics though, including using choke points, buddy systems and putting backs to walls to avoid getting flanked.

Movement around someone once in their reach has been something that’s bothered me for handling in 5E (not a game breaker, but annoying), but I think I’m going to try and see if making the reach area “difficult terrain” helps any with that.

I also use disadvantage when firing ranged weapons into melee combat. I know that must annoy the Warlock, but it’s also made him a lot craftier.

 

[Norton]

I've been allowing both flanking and cinematic advantage and the players go straight for conga every time. I thought they would find it as boring and "game board-y" as I do, but they seem more invested in surviving so it's okay by them.

I have been considering the +2 bonus alternative to advantage, but also allowing for a reaction attack from the target, perhaps at disadvantage, since a PC should be risking something by getting into a target's melee range in the first place. The target doesn't have to use it, but he would be swiveling his head madly in a fight where danger is coming from all directions and should certainly be prepared to meet it if he chooses.

 

[Jmarso]

All the 5E games I've been in have used the flanking rules, and I've noticed that it tends towards situations where the players are striking with advantage almost every round. I see that as a problem, but I do like the 'realistic' aspects of it in the game.

So I think it may also be time to re-introduce some other 'realistic' aspects, to include moving more than 5' within the reach of an opponent produces opportunity attacks, and any creature or opponent with reach (or wielding a weapon with reach) gets a free shot as an opponent closes to adjacent melee range. This makes thing a little more granular and wouldn't be popular in some groups, but it would present some risk in going for the flanks every time.

Of course, these rules would work for players as well as against them.

I like the cinematic advantage option, as well as the Crit on a 19 or 20 when flanking idea as well. Both of those are also worth a try.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've played with both - I wouldn't say it's a huge deal either way, and how big a deal it is depends on party composition:

1. Just because flanking is allowed doesn't mean you always have a flanking buddy. A party with a lot of frontliners will get a lot out of it, a party with ranged attackers, casters, and skirmishers will get a lot less. This is the main reason it doesn't have a big impact: you need to build the party in certain ways to really abuse it.

2. There are a few build options that are suddenly much less useful (ie the Samurai's Fighting Spirit) but savvy players will see it coming. And those aren't even really useless so much as situational. But a few character options become less cool.

3. I prefer the game without, though, simply because I find it adds very little. It's not the cost, it's the lack of value. Flanking did not make anyone more tactical or thin more deeply about the game. It's just another fiddly combat rule to keep track of.

Edit to add: it makes pet options, like Beastmaster and Pact of the Chain, potentially a lot stronger. This might be a positive, since those tend to feel underwhelming.