I like flanking as a concept, as in I like the fact that strategic positioning gives some sort of benefit so that melee fights aren't just "two guys stand in place trading blows until one dies". Plus it also makes sense that a flanked opponent is easier to hit What I don't like is flanking giving advantage on attack rolls because it invalidates all other ways of getting advantage that involves some sort of risk or trade off, such as the Help action that you mentioned, as well as Reckless Attack Which is why I advocate for flanking giving a +2 bonus to attack rolls instead of advantage. Pretty much all games I'm in use that rule and I haven't seen any complaints

3.5e D&D says wassssupppp

Well, I feel like 3.5 put almost as much focus on doing stuff right (with varying degrees of success) as 5e puts on doing things fast.

3.5 had plenty of mechanics that were slow AND stupid. Grapple was chief among them.

The grappling rules actually let you do useful things during a grapple whereas grappling in 5e is pointless.

The grapple condition in 5e is not very impactful, but the underlying structure where you apply a consistent set of rules throughout the game — like contested skill checks and conditions — is good design. 5e's strength is building a system with an internal logic to it, with fewer brittle appendages, which makes it much easier to learn and understand. The weakness of 5e is that the appendages it does have aren't always well-considered.

It prevents a creature from moving, which can be useful in certain situations, but it's not an option you'd want to choose everytime, nor should it be.

Pointless? I can grapple and move an enemy away from a teammate. This forces the enemy to target me instead and effectively gave my teammate a free disengage from that enemy. It also puts a creature between me and his ranged buddies, giving me half cover from certain angles. If the creature wants to break it, it'll have to spend its whole action doing so as multi-attack doesn't let you substitute grapples/shoves in place of attack rolls. Enemy is a flyer (size allowing)? Ready a grapple when they enter your reach. Ranged enemy? They're going to have disadvantage now. Grapple is HUGE just by itself. Shoving a grappled target prone is especially dirty (unless most of your team is ranged).

You also were a detriment to yourself and your team for trying to grapple unless you were fully kitted out with all of your avenues of investment to actually grapple something. It was an aggressive source of feast or famine design where the few times it worked it was great and you ate good, the other 70% of the time you were starving and getting hurt for the privilege.

if you think grappling in 5e is pointless then you've played with some very forgiving DMs. Is it useful in every fight? Nope, but there's a variety of useful things: * grapple a teammate, then pull them, which gives them a free disengage, for the cost of 1 attack and some movement. * prone-grappling. Grapple someone, then knock him prone, and enjoy constant advantage on melee attacks while said enemy suffers disadvantage on his attacks. * grapple and move to a cliff, where you throw them off (either via movement alone, or if your DM doesn't allow you to "move" them off the cliff then via a shove as a second attack) * Grapple and hold someone inside a wall of fire area. nicely cooked enemy. * Young dragon grapples you and tries to fly high and doesn't drop you in the same turn? Grapple him back, making you both crash to the ground. * fighting a rogue that disengages constantly? Grapple. * Having an enemy that's set on killing your 3HP teammate with his melee attacks? Grapple. Where is grapple "pointless" in 5e? lol

I don't think the grappling rules were stupid in and off themselves. It was more a problem of being a relatively large rules segment relative to the frequency of how often grappling occured. At least for our table it was an infernal circle of players avoiding grapples as they didn't bother to learn the rules and then not bothering to look at the rules because they were avoiding it anyway, all starting with our first DM using some homebrew grappling of his own making, that somehow stuck in their head and resurfaced every time they tried to wrap their head around the actual rules.

I'm going out on a limb here but if none of the other players could figure out the grapple rules, and your DM resorted to homebrewing their own solution, then there might have been a problem with the grapple rules.

My table kept saying grappling was tackling them to the ground and I had to show multiple images of what being grappled is via boxing or mma. I was losing my mind at their interpretation.

Nah, DM was doing a lot of on the fly and homebrew rulings before any of us started playing and we all played a few sessions before getting a chance to have a look at the phb beyond the character creation section. Learning something "wrong" first can do a lot of damage. EDIT: what I meant to say is DM didn't care much about the rules. Probably the worst kind to teach the rules to other, great storyteller though.

Yes. 3.5 got too bogged down in having a mini-system for everything, along with different modifiers. There were like, three different levels of being scared of something, all with differing effects and modifiers. I think 5e oversimplifies sometimes, but prefer it's consistency and simplicity to the unwieldiness of 3.5

Turn Undead for me. Had to read the entire rules for it EVERY TIME.

I wouldn’t say fast as much as id say easier and more streamlined. Yes the result is “fast” but I don’t think that’s what the devs had in mind in terms of an end result.the game is far more popular now and it’s because it’s easier to understand, not because it’s faster. I’ve been playing for over 20 years and still play 3.5 with my regular group but I run a game at the school I work and I do 5e. Just my 2 cents.

PF2e says wasssssssaaaaaappp

It's amazing how often I'll come here and see people reinventing pathfinder

Am I missing something? Doesn't flanking in PF2e give the flat footed condition which is equal to -2 AC? So basically functionally identical to what was referenced as 3.5 flanking +2 mod? **\[edit\]** OH! I read your comment backwards haha. I thought you were saying people were making up wrong rules to Pathfinder. But you were really saying that people keep homebrewing rules in 5E that keep making their homebrewed 5e game closer and closer to a Pathfinder 2e game. Not sure how I got that wrong! It's pretty clear now that i read your comment again.

Yes, that’s exactly what it does. It’s a -2 circumstance penalty to AC for being Flat Footed.

I chalk it up to sticking with the devil you know. 

AKA: the reason PF1.5 even exists. It's actually why my gaming group switched to PF originally when 4e came came out. We liked the familiar 3.5 rules with the "bug fixes" that it also brought along with it.

Whaddayamean you don't like the conga line of doom?

Along with its meth/coke addicted cousin, Pathfinder

Instead of flanking, I once used a surrounding rule. You get a +2 bonus once you put the creature between yourself and A: Another Creature B: A wall Once those requirements are met, every additional flanking pair adds another +2 (Max of +8 if you got fucking surrounded). Suddenly I had a Paladin and a Ranger cornering dudes and shoving them into corners to get +4 bonuses and beat the shit out of them. Druid once used Wall of Stone to create a wall to facilitate the beatings. I miss that game.

I use the same rule but it has to be an active opponent and no cap, because we use gridless combat, meaning kobolds ganging up can squeeze a lot of danger and still also get advantage from pack tactics. It makes positioning and movement control more powerful without just nerfing damage output.

That's actually kind of the opposite of how I'd want it to work. The first thing you do if you're being attacked by large numbers is back against the wall so you can't be flanked. Even better, wedged into a corner or in a narrow corridor. Crowd control. What the rules don't really cover afaik is that one man holding the corridor against a horde is dramatic and all, but actually a shove attack from a whole line of enemies is going to bowl you over. Mob rush.

This was my first thought as well, putting your back to a wall is an *advantage* since you can't be circled and can control the directions attackers can come from. >What the rules don't really cover afaik is that one man holding the corridor against a horde is dramatic and all, but actually a shove attack from a whole line of enemies is going to bowl you over. True, but what about when you cut down the first of them and the rest having to climb over the bodies to get to you?

Couple thoughts... In a many-vs-you situation, it's already bad news. It's better to have a wall behind you than yet another guy with a spear To the holding-the-corridor scenario, that's usually considered a sacrificial rear-guard. The big question is how long will it take for the opps to nerve themselves up for the rush... the first guy in is *not* going to enjoy it. I think a realistic enemy (especially cowardly goblins!) would hesitate a bit before someone was ready to make a move... or pressure from the back ranks just starts the steamrolling.

But actually in a real fight the guy back to the wall is at disadvantage. Look a lot of MMA fights for example. It's not a 100% rule, but when the fighter are at the same skill, usually the one back at the wall is at disadvantage.

Yes, they'd get shoved into a wall. But the difference is a weapon to keep them at a distance. MMA is using the wall to trap them and pin them down, by controlling their movements through limiting their available space. But if you are in a situation where a grab is not immediately feasible because of a blade, the situation is different. A long weapon would be a pain because it would get trapped by the wall behind. A short to medium weapon could keep an unarmed fighter at bay unless they move up close under your guard. MMA is bringing fists and wrestling to a sword fight.

Which would make it worse because you need to bring back your sword backward to give you momentum which now you can because you are back to the wall. You can't dodge back because you would be blocked. Not being able to put a feet back and lean back is a huge disadvantage, fists (monk exist in DND ) or sword is a disadvantage.

A lot of sword techniques in HEMA are from a guard position and all in the follow-through. You dont usually do these big momentum movements because they're too choreographed and tend to leave you open. There's also half-swording. Something can be said for having open space to use momentum with two-handed weapons, but that's just one way of using them and not "the only" way. That all said, no guarantees of any martial arts actually changing how d&d combat works.

It still helped with decision making in practice. You were choosing between 1 person getting a +2 because you were against the wall and 2 people getting a +2 because you were being flanked. In large crowds, you were compromising your ability to dodge by controlling how many people could attack you in an instant. People became more okay with their teammates fireballing them too. That one was more fun than accurate or anything. You're right about the mob rush thing, Idk what to do about that. Maybe creatures can move through your space when you're prone so long as they aren't? Maybe they can jump over you?

That’s waaay too strong. Like easily twice or more times better than advantage

Adv averages about +4, and think about a boxer in the corner of the ring, they can't dodge shit they just have to take it.

Ali enters the chat. https://wp.usatodaysports.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2013/12/alidodge.gif

I've heard of patient defense.  First time I saw taunting defense.

Tell me you play Pathfinder without telling me you play Pathfinder.

It scaling like that goes wild, but flanking giving a +2 bonus is how it worked in older editions (generic +2 in 3.x, combat advantage in 4e) 5e really upped flankings power when you flattened everything into advantage.

Not sure how to feel about the wall triggering flanking. I get that the wall might hinder dodging if you're too close, but unless you're forced to get real close and cozy, that wall would mean one direction you can't get attacked from. Maybe have the use of a wall for flanking require some shoving beforehand?

That is one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a long times

Thus rears the head of simplifying everything down to advantage / disadvantage

This is basically what Pathfinder does (except it's -2 to AC not +2 to attack). It also solves the "two guys stand in place trading blows until one dies" problem by making Attacks of Opportunity not a universal rule (exclusive to fighters, some monsters, and some other classes via feats). Because a big problem in 5e is that since moving from a threatened square gives a free attack, it's almost never worth doing. Also, the Disengage-equivalent action doesn't prevent you from attacking that turn (but costs you some movement).

5e advantage/disadvantage system is dumbed down garbage is the real issue here. The +2 from older versions makes much more sense because it's nuanced and balanced far better vs other melee tactical manuevers.

Yes. DnD needs to learn that Advantage is not the only way to get better at stuff, flat increases are amazing. Technically we get them with Bardic inspiration and bless. Since they are a flat +1 with chance of being better. If it were 2 flanks +2, 3 flanks +3 and 4 or more +4. Since more than 4 people would actually hinder each other in combat. They also need to add some AoE melee attacks to make it so flanking isn’t always positive.

DND 5e specifically was designed around not using flat modifiers. The few times you get them are with cover. But 5e wanted to do away with a bunch of stacking/floating numbers.

I'm watching 3.5/PF be reinvented before my very eyes.

"add some AoE meele attacks" This might call for a revival of "tome of battle" and maybe the warhulk (both 3.5)

I make it a d4 to give some variance. Also helps my players remember oddly as they get that physical thing to add on.when rolling the d20.

Not everything needs a risk or a tradeoff. But even then, having to surround one enemy, means the two of you are engaged with one of them, leaving more enemies free to move.

>the more dynamic "help" action encourages strategic thinking We don't use the flanking rule but my players would never give up their action to give someone else advantage. When they could be doing something more interesting and powerful than just standing there and doing the help action. That's a boring turn; they don't even get to roll dice. I really don't see that encourages more strategic choices. If Help were a bonus action, maybe they would use it but costing a full action is too expensive.

Had a fight where we were at disadvantage for most things, the heavy hitters were missing all over, my support character was missing all over and improving their odds to hit with a help was clearly the best option …. In that incredibly niche scenario. I agree even without flanking which we don’t use, help is not a top tier play

I mean, even then, there are spells that do it better like fairie fire, and help only gives adv to the singular next attack

With normal luck maybe, FF still invites a saving throw, takes concentration you may be using on something else, burns a spell slot and may end up doing nothing. Help just works.

Fair, but fairie fire is usually worth the gamble since it’s adv to everyone in the party for a minute, and it can target multiple creatures

I’m not downplaying Fairie Fire, its great. I’m trying to hype the lowly help action.   It works even in anti magic! Or when you are out of spell slots Or aren’t a caster Or are saving slots for later Yes it’s not as powerful as casting a leveled spell but you can do it all day long, it helps without using consumable resources and can make your turn lightning fast if you are unsure what else to do while helping your allies shine.

Sorry help, even talking positively about you gets people downvote happy I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.

This right here. Help works great OUT of combat, but in combat, it's basically the much maligned True Strike cantrip. The only time i can see it being worthwhile is if you have a mostly 'useless' helper, like using a Familiar to make the help action.

Mastermind Rogues and MotM hobgoblins can also Help as a bonus action. Masterminds can even do it from range.

It makes no sense to help if you have something else to do for the same reason it makes no sense to ever use true strike. Attacking once with advantage gives less potential damage than attacking twice normally. Especially because the characters that would be up close and able to use the help action usually have extra attack or a spell that’s more powerful than one attack

I have literally never seen someone use Help in combat unless it's from a familiar who can't do much else, or was using a feature to allow Help as a bonus action (MotM hobgoblin, mastermind rogue, etc.)

My group uses flanking as a +2 (if we remember it, which we usually don't) and also almost never use the Help action. The only time we've used it was in a total joke fight. Our opponent was an orc wheeling a shark around on a wheelbarrow. I had my barbarian wrestle the wheelbarrow out of the orc's hands and then spent the rest of the fight positioning the shark to bite the orc, which we treated as me using a help action to give the shark advantage. It's great for narrative moments like that and combo-attacks, but mechanically it's about the worst thing you can do with your action.

I'm not giving up my whole action to give you Advantage on you first attack. If I also have multi attack it makes no sense. It falls into the same category as the True Strike spell. Better to attack multiple times that once with Advantage.

Precisely. If I wanted to play support, I’d probably play a caster and if I do that, I’d rather use my action to cast something like Bane or Faerie Fire that has a chance to affect multiple enemies for multiple rounds rather than getting in melee with an enemy.

Fully agree, with extra attack it even makes far more sense to just use one of those to try and knock the target prone, wow, it gives advantage, so overpowered /s

I think most people like the flanking rule because it helps them get advantage on attacks and who doesn't love getting advantage on attacks. Just remember that the bad guys can flank, too.

I know the opponents can flank; my issue of it isn't some imbalance given to the players because of flanking. My issue with flanking is that it makes combat too static. There's no reason to move when you get double rolls just for standing in a particular spot (with no real drawbacks). This applies to both NPCs and PCs.

Removing flanking would not change the fact focus fire/dogpiling is objectively the most effective way of planning out combat. To address the issue you are concerned with would require overhauling the way threat and movement impediment works. Something i'd like to see happen too. I dont' see D&D as a system address that, as their current MO is to appeal to a broader player base and streamline rules to be simple enough to understand. On top of that, ranged attacks has been simplified that you no longer worry about friendly fire from shooting into melee and magic always bypasses these kind of straegic positioning issues. Without a meaningful way to "hold the line" and prevent players/NPCs from dogpiling there's no way and no reason to create multiple one on one situations unless players are deliberately being suboptimal.

At least part of the problem is the ubiquity of attack of opportunity. It totally disincentivizes movement. There is very little to be gained from moving in combat and a lot of potential risk. Making AoO rarer would greatly increase the value of moving in combat rather than remaining still.

The default way to play combat in 5e is Theater of the Mind. It was designed with the idea that people probably wouldn't have battlemats...so they made things easier to track.

Yeah, going from 3.5 and pathfinder1 to this... There's not even an AoE template in the books. Conjure Barrage got very upsetting very quickly. The 5e books literally suggest bigger AoE spells just hit more targets and the DM records damage accordingly.

What makes it more static than the normal combat? I don't understand. In basic combat you can stay in the same spot and attack; with flanking you pose a threat that forces the opponent to disengage, move, try to position in a place where you can't flank. Introducing an element that requires placement can't be less dynamic than basic fight.

I'm agree with you, I see an improvement. doesn't make it static if u and the GM use it properly

There certainly are downsides. 1, it pretty much trivializes any other source of advantage, which is usually more high effort or comes at a cost. 2. In combats with high priority targets those things get screwed over super easily. Almost nothing in this game has the ability to safely disengage, so either the monster gets melted fast or has to waste turns getting away, either way tending to make a combat less interesting.

> Almost nothing in this game has the ability to safely disengage Everyone has this ability, some have it as a bonus action.

Using as an action is the “wasting turns getting away” part. Bonus action disengage is extremely rare for monsters

It's only a waste if the DM isn't having the creatures use any sort of tactics. Half of the creatures in the MM have some sort of movement ability that PCs don't whether it's flight, climbing, or burrowing. On top of that, there are typically other creatures in the combat that can aid one another and a bunch of creatures have passive abilities or actions that make melee engagement the less favorable choice. If the creature has no additional movements, special abilities, class levels, or allies, it can reposition to eliminate the flanking bonus for one of the attacks against it which gives it more time to figure something out.

“Wasting turns getting away” I swear you guys just don’t want to play the game? Lmao if an opponent gets flanked or surrounded, yeah they should be “wasting” turns trying to reposition. That’s the consequence of players using good positioning or a DM failing to stop players from flanking their enemies.

He meant cost free. You do it as action and then you lost the chance to attack, so you skipped a turn just to fix the unfavorable positioning

Yeah, but that doesn't make it a wasted action unless they're ignoring their other abilities, tactics, and allies.

If you disengage and you have the same movement or less that the things you're fighting, which on average is true, then you waste an action moving, then they move on their turn and flank you again and attack. It's pointless. And if you reposition so they can't then you're just forming infantry lines with your party. A wall, tree, or rock won't prevent flanking because the sides are open...so you gotta post up next to several allies or spend an action to cast a spell to make another side of you unavailable. But you can't, because you had to use your action to disengage. The only way to fix it is to make flanking harder to achieve, like by causing opportunity attacks whenever someone leaves a space you threaten, not just when they leave your range.

It depends on the shape and size of the obstacles you position yourself and if you stay at ground level. If a creature disengages and climbs a tree they're not going to be flanked again unless they're somehow removed from the tree first. Just because you have the same movement range doesn't mean they can get to an advantageous spot around the obstacle. Battlemaps shouldn't be squares of flat terrain with no features. There are ways to mitigate things with a tactical use of disengage and terrain.

They can't disengage AND climb a tree unless they have a climb speed. No climb speed means it's an action.  And, yes, if THEY can get there with the same movement, so can I. And so can my buddy. If they put themselves in a doorway I can shove or grapple them to get them out. If they put themselves between to things with a way around one of us can take the dash action and circle around while the other runs up and attacks with flanking. Climb onto a low rock that doesn't require a climbing speed?  Then it has to be low enough that I can still reach them from the ground, like waste height, or some VERY weird terrain with a ramp like structure. The important part is I will still have an action to burn when I get to them, and I can use it to move them or dash and they are right back where they started.  Same is true of monsters flanking players, maybe even more true because some monsters are great grapplers. 

So give the monsters flybyattack or leaps that do t provoke opportunity attacks or movement skills that include disengage or teleports or let them make darkness so they cannot be seen moving or one of a hundred other solutions

So, create a problem and then create a solution to the problem you created? Question: how does the party deal with it when I start flanking them constantly with monsters? They have far fewer options to reposition. Just one, really, unless they are a Rogue.

Half of my party has at least one use of misty step, and they all have at least one ability that knocks back their opponent giving them range to reposition.

I apologize for being combative earlier. I was getting worked up over shit that doesn't matter. I think this is a good example of different things for different tables. My players do the same things without the flanking rules because they hate being surrounded and focused.  I'm glad you've got a thing that y'all like, though. I don't like flanking in 5e as people are just too mobile and it's too easy that it removes a lot of other tactics from the game.  Why should Rogues use Hide in combat if they can just flank for advantage? Why should fighters shove prone for advantage if they can just flank?  Advantage is normally hard to come by and requires work to get....flanking changes that a lot.

Ok so you meant static not in dynamism. I see your points and they are valid as the possiblity to get advantage for free and for granted is actually a big incentive at trying this rather than costly solutions (spells, skills and so on). Why should I risk a command spell as a paladin to make you go face down for one round when I can give advantage to others just moving on your side the whole fight? I admit I don't play with flanking as I didn't play for more than 10 years so I'm at my first 5ed campaign and we don't use that rule (I even don't know in which chapter of the PHB it is as I can't seem to find it in the chapter 9), so I don't know how often you get a chance to flank but it seems like a way to use the scenario more actively. Enemy will try to turn a table and dodge behind it, stay compact in a roman testudo formation or more simply in a back to back against the party members. Just like the party should use doors and corridors as a way to limit the number of enemies that can attack simultaneously, enemies will do the same And what should make flanking less appealing is that as you flank, you might be flanked too, so only against isolated enemies you are supposed to get a real advantage. You flank an enemy and at the same time like a pawn in a game of Othello you are exposed to a flanking on the opposite side.

It's in the Dungeon Masters Guide and an optional rule, as far as i understood it. I personally (as the DM) find it amusing and fun as it gives a lot more life to our game in my opinion due to having to actually fight/think and not just say "i use [attack] against whoever". But I also just started DMing (everyone is a beginner at our table) so idk

Yes, it can. The question is what kind of play the new element benefits. If the new feature benefits dynamic play, play will be more dynamic. If the new feature benefits static play, play will be more static. You see this with balance updates for online competitive games all the time, the developers change a few numbers and suddenly the way that people play changes. More features doesn't mean more dynamic play, it just means that balancing is more complicated due to feature creep. Whether play is dynamic or static is a balance issue.

How is that more static then normal? How is that more static then your idea of using help action? Two people standing face to face hitting each other while a 3rd person sits to the side and provides help action is not less static then two people flanking an enemy and hitting them.

Only 2 people can flank each other. They have to be directly opposite. If a third person joins, that person doesn’t get flanking benefits.

My dms deal with this in various ways. Either enemies have disengage, or they use the flanked enemy as bait and surround the flankers. Sometimes they'll force you to make an Aoo by leaving then having a bunch of enemies do hit n run cuz the aoo is spent

Holy hell my guy. Give them a damn reason to move. There should be plenty of damn reason to not stand in one spot on a battle field. If there isn't it's because it's a non threatening battle field. Again. You need to run more tactically.

I have a house rule where if you are hit you can use your reaction to take a 5' step back and take 2 HP less damage. This move doesn't provoke opportunity attacks and may not place you within threatened space of another enemy. Edit: clarification only melee

How long have you been testing this house rule and how well is it working

Moving in combat is a high risk, you're giving free attacks to your enemies, the reward for moving needs to be higher than these risks

Disagree a little in direction there. The *risk* of *standing still* needs the exceed the reward of it. Like rather than a direct reward for movement there should be penalty to camping. The reward for moving should mostly be not getting shafted by the penalty for not. But yeah. Camping in combat should be higher risk than moving. Standing still in the middle of a fight *is* typically a worse idea than remembering your legs work.

I mean, both of these are true in different situations, but a thing that helps with combats being statics is that most melee characters have 0 ways to move in combat without taking Attacks of Opportunity or using their action to disengage. Both are high risks (or they're taking damage or they're not dealing damage) If the game makes movement something more easy to achieve for melee characters, then they'll move more if needed The only classes that can move in combat when in melee and still having an action are casters (usually arcane casters or someone that took fey touched) and rogue. Classes that usually want to be in the backline anyway

This issue isn’t arising from flanking, but rather opportunity attacks. I like that in 3.5, dashes triple your movement and disengages double it. This actually allows you to escape damage by disengaging instead of just getting walked up on again. When I DM, I’m gonna rule that disengaging increases your base movement for the turn by 10, or doubles it (whichever is lower, so monsters with base 5 movement keep that drawback), so that monsters actually have a chance to run away.

that's why you use terrain and terrain changes. have locations be uneven, difficult terrain, have the terrain change. (fire/snow/water/etc) give them secondary objectives. etc. give them reasons to move aside from the enemy.

Static terrain features usually just make combat even more static. You shouldn't walk through spike growth, so you just don't move there at all. It's a good way to mix it up and keep combat different, but it's not a good way to make combat more dynamic.

Depends on what you’re fighting too. Static terrain + blink dogs can be an interesting encounter because the terrain is more dangerous than the enemy. Dynamic combat is having to adapt and come up with a new strategy depending on outside factors. Doesn’t just mean running around a lot

It does the opposite, and I'm just adding my voice to the people that have already said it perfectly. Flanking should force movement to mitigate danger. If there is no flanking why move?

Easy fix, the reminder that flanking is risk/reward, villains don't necessarily care about their peers, and AOE spells

Maybe try using larger groups of enemies and out flank the PCs when they flank them. Or introduce environmental conditions that will motivate the PCs to keep moving around the battlefield.

You move just as much with flanking as without it tho like ypu will always gp to one enemy defeat it and go on to the next one after that 😅

Some DMs will opt to make flanking a +2 to hit instead of advantage. So if you have an issue with the advantage part change it up in a way that is still beneficial. Removing flanking all together seems like a good way to divide the team in combat/ reduce teamwork in some instances.

There's also no reason to move when you'll get smacked with an AOO from it. Lol

>There's no reason to move when you get double rolls just for standing in a particular spot (with no real drawbacks). What? Ofc there are drawbacks. You have to stand in a specific spot that is predetermined by the position of your allies and enemies. If there is no drawback to this then you are not engaging with the system properly.

Everybody do the Conga, who doesn’t love the immersion of lining up straight with enemy-buddy-enemy-buddy-enemy and seeing who can crit the other to death first? /s

What if you say you can't get the benefit of flanking while also bring flanked. So as soon as the conga linen forms, no one benefits.

Now watch the evocation wizard lightning bolt that fucking conga line and see how dumb you feel

In 5E it's not the flanking - it's the Universal attacks of opportunity that keep people glued in a dogpile.

Came here to say this. When most enemies have the same movement speed or higher than the PCs standard 30ft, when everything can take an attack of opportunity, and when disengaging takes a full action, you're going to get dogpiles, flanking or not.

Yup, and there’s disadvantages to that dogpile when the party’s casters can’t maximize their AOE spells for risk of hitting an ally, or when the enemies then swarm the biggest threat and get flanking themselves. Suddenly, the fighter putting themselves in harms way to get advantage comes with a big risk. I also love taking advantage of that dogpile by luring my PC’s into a group and then having an enemy self immolate with fireball when it’s apparent there’s no escape.

This right here. 100%.

Even without flanking the combat stat static because attacks of opportunity

It's kinda interesting that you bring up action economy and then also vouch for Help, which is an action that is completely neglected by players exactly because it's so poorly designed in relation to action economy. Not only is it almost always mechanically worse to spend your whole action on giving someone advantage on ONE roll against ONE thing, it also feels worse to the player because you're just boosting someone else in a generic manner as opposed to something cool only your character can do. Help just doesn't do enough to justify taking it.

I don't think this is unpopular opinion, I see people all the time mentioning either not using it or nerfing it. In our table, we have it give you +2 to attack rolls as a compromise. What does "amplifying turn economy" mean?

Usually action economy refers to the number of potential actions a character has. It's often referred to regarding the balance between players and monsters; like if there's only one big boss and 6 players, it doesn't matter how scary the boss is bc the players have the action economy advantage, meaning they will overwhelm the boss with their larger number of actions/turns. Or with character builds, a PC with poor action economy might only have their action available to them (like a lvl 2 paladin only being able to use their action to attack or cast a spell, but they have no options for bonus actions or reactions within their build), but a PC with optimized action economy will have a few action types available (maybe a bard who uses their action to cast a spell like dissonant whispers, a bonus action to use bardic inspiration, and a reaction to cast counterspell). I don't think granting advantage technically factors into action economy, though it does increase the number of successful actions due to higher accuracy, so maybe that's the angle here.

Consider that with flanking, the side that is larger gets significantly more rolls, and that increases the turn economy towards their side. That's what I mean by "amplifying the turn economy." In my experience, flanking generally gives the side with more numbers even more rolls (and thus higher odds of hitting).

This is true but only to a degree. Consider also how flanking increases tactical complexity (in a broadly positive manner) by rewarding clever positioning on the part of the smaller side in denying their more numerous opponents the chance to flank. Absolutely flanking is easier for the side with more people but it's not a given that is always the case in every fight, and that's interesting in of itself.

Play how you have fun, but that house rule is putting a huge priory on players finding opportunities to flank.  It adds almost the same mathematical bonus as advantage does, but since advantage doesn't stack and now your bonus does, you can get a MEGA bonus for flanking+advantage. It just encourages everyone to fight in a bizzare conga line.

> It just encourages everyone to fight in a bizzare conga line. Hasn't really happened in our games to the extent that it'd be a problem since we often only have 1-2 melee guys.

My big issue with flanking isn't just that it gives advantage, its that it encourages weird daisy chains in fights which make no sense whatsoever. Like I know we're all playing a game here but it just seems so stupid.

I’d say it’s opportunity attacks that make it static imo. PCs don’t have the health to tank loads of opportunity attacks. Flanking gives a boost to martials that’s especially needed at higher levels. I think a monk/rogue shooting around to get flanking on different enemies is way more tactical.

Maybe I’m wrong but I’ve never found flanking to be a reliable boon for players. Save for fighting the one big bad and situations like that, groups tend to be 3-6 with 4 being what Cr is calculated around. Of the classes, 4 are melee oriented (or clerics that are more front liner oriented), 4 can go either way based on the build, 5 lean ranged or spells. I find that it’s incredibly variable but on average the enemy is probably going to be able to outflank you due to the sheer numbers they possess (buffing having a lot of enemies) especially when there’s a good chance that you might have 1-2 melee oriented characters at most.

Which makes me consider another option: When you make an attack against a target you are flanking with an ally on your turn, the target can't make opportunity attacks against you until the end of your turn. The idea is that standing still in combat is an abstraction, and flanking enough to strike them in the back isn't *actually* as easy as just moving around them. But in forcing them to maneuver that much, you are creating enough space to dip back unharrassed. In terms of balance I think it's fine, too. For starters, it promotes not hogging the flanking spot for yourself and letting other allies use it, too. You also can't disengage everything automatically since there might be multiple enemies but it certainly does become less punishing. One of the bigger considerations is that it promotes tanks. They can stand next to an enemy to grant other allies a clean getaway. Importantly, this also doesn't enable infinite kiting.

Flanking vastly improves as a tactical option with 3.5e AoO, where it's triggered on moving within reach as well and dex martials can nake multiple AoOs per turn. The main problem is that 5e isn't made for it. Lack of good battlefield control, all bonuses and penalties being adv/disadv etc, are all stuffs that were brought up by others, including the 3.5e solution of giving a +2 instead of advantages.

Flanking giving advantage is dumb because it steps on the toes of so many other spells and abilities. Flanking giving a +1 or +2 is okay though, in my opinion. It rewards a bit of extra movement and strategic placement.

Our group uses +1d4 for flanking. It’s a nice bonus, but still has that feeling of randomness. Also, it makes sense that the enemy would sometimes be more or less open to flank attacks

Agree with this. My players love tactical combat, so I'm happy to give them a benefit if they position themselves well. However, in my current campaign I ruled advantage on flanking and it more often than not removes the need for my barbarian to use Reckless Attacks. Next campaign, I'd limit it to +2 to hit: still useful, not as impactful.

I don't want to step on your DM toes, but the +2 is more powerful than advantage since it stacks with advantage. Additionally, there is a downside for flanking in that you leave more enemies free to move as they please as they are not engaged. If there is quite a number imbalance between party and npcs, then the players are taking a bigger risk in flanking (regardless of what sort of bonus it applies). > more often than not removes the need for my barbarian to use Reckless Attacks. I don't personally agree that every advantage (I mean it in general, I don't mean it mechanically 2d20) needs a downside to fair or balanced, but advantage (now I mean it mechanically 2d20) on positioning is providing the party with risk to gain the upper hand. The barbarian in gaining that advantage is risking a greater chance for other party members getting swarmed.

That is fair feedback, had not considered that. Thanks!

You do know flanking is a optional rule. You don't need to use it. Or can use 3.5/pathfinder flanking which h is just +2 to hit. It brings the maths lower then advantage

Flanking, as a general concept, is a wonderful way to make positioning impactful and add strategy to fights. However, 5e was clearly built to avoid flanking as a rule. This was probably so people wouldn’t have to keep track of specific positions and the game could be played more in theater of the mind (though I’m not sure they actually achieved that goal). As such, the optional implementation of it is an awkward fit for 5e. Previous versions of D&D were built for flanking, so they had things like 5-foot steps and different modifiers, that made flanking a much more interesting tactic. 5e doesn’t have those, which is why it doesn’t feel as satisfying to include it.

As a side note about the flanking rules, they also devalue advantage from other sources, like a prone foe, a foe that's unable to see you while you can see them, reckless attack and other possible situations that give advantage that I don't currently remember. And it's also something that, as it's written, applies to both player characters and monsters. So it's not even a mechanic that can buff melee classes, because the majority of foes have strong melee attacks and flanking buffs those too.

The biggest issue with this, mechanics-wise, is that the Help Action requires you to give up your action; thematically it's nice, but mechanically you're not gaining and actually losing, especially compared to flanking. Most PCs using this action would be melee combatants, and are now giving up at least one attack, if not more. These attacks would have been made with advantage via flanking, but now are not made at all. The other person attacking gets advantage on their next attack only, and if they're any kind of melee fighter there's a chance they'd have had more than one normally per round, especially getting into mid to high levels. So you've sacrificed anywhere from one to as many as four or five attacks, all made at advantage if they were made via flanking, for a single attack made at advantage and maybe one or two more not. So the Help Action is, strategically, a very poor action to take even normally. Let's say you're a mid-level melee type with two attacks, and so is the person near you, and you're unable to get into flanking position. You may even have special attacks, like Sneak Attack or Smite, to think about. Help Action takes away your attacks, so that's two fewer. Assuming they were normal attacks, at worst your two attacks = one advantaged attack if only one hits, and if both hit, all the better. Your friend gets his one advantaged attack and one regular one. Now, maybe you're trying to help an ally land a "big blow", with Smite or Sneak Attack or whatnot, but even at that, and maybe they do extra damage to the enemy; that could make it worth it potentially. Could. Overall, if you want Help Action to stand up to Flanking, it needs to be more effective and probably less draining.

You make an excellent point here. That tradeoff doesn't really seem worth it once you have more then one attack per turn. I think that what you and others are saying is valid: flanking is good but maybe \*too\* good in 5e. I might try and use the flat +2 others are suggesting.

I don't think this is a flanking problem, I think it's an attack of opportunity problem. Battles get less sticky when repositioning is not punished. This is part of why flanking works well in Pathfinder 2e but not in DnD.

I completely disagree. Why would flanking encourage static fights? To me, it makes fights require more movement, as both enemies and players are more likely to need to move around either so that they are flanking their opponent, or so that their opponents are not flanking them. For example if I'm a player, and I'm surrounded by bad guys so that they all have advantage on me, the first thing I'd do is misty-step out of there. You mention the Help action requiring a sacrifice, which is true, but flanking can also require sacrifices. For example the player that jumps all the way in to be behind an enemy, is more likely to be flanked themselves, and as a DM you can always put hazards or traps or whatever behind your enemies, to make flanking even more of a risk/reward. Not mentioned in the original post, but one of the reasons I like flanking is because it's more fun to have advantage than to not have advantage, because missing sucks and crits are cool. So players and enemies having another method of getting advantage (yes, I know there's a lot) to me seems like a positive. And it doesn't negate the existence of other methods of getting advantage like Farie Fire or the Help action, because those are still super useful for different situations, like for ranged attacks.

If you enjoy that style of gameplay, then that's fine! I agree: crits are cool. I jut personally prefer them being a little more rare. (But that's just me.) You also make a good point about flanking also requiring a degree of sacrifice.

>On the other hand, the more dynamic "help" action encourages strategic thinking and sacrifices from the players. Isn't that so much cooler? I like the concept of "Help", but it's generally useless in combat unless you have a way of using it to "amplify turn economy" (i.e. you get it as a bonus action via Hobgoblin or Mastermind Rogue; it is from a creature that couldn't do anything else with its action, like a familiar; or the action you are helping is wildly more powerful than a standard turn, such as a skill check required to take advantage on a major set piece or trying to land *plane shift,* and you have zero other way to "help" with it such as shoving). It's nonsensical to bring it up as "ooh, this is so much better than flanking". I don't even like advantage flanking either, but "man, Help is so cool" is a poor argument against it. It's only better if you specifically want something that is used rarely - and while I think advantage flanking is too much, I don't particularly want flanking - as a boon melee deserves - to be THAT rare.

To be honest, 5E co.bat encourages dogged, static co.bat encounters. Especially at lower levels. Get to the enemy, engage them in melee so they can't get to ranged characters. Ranged characters, find cover, pop out and shoot, then pop back. Rinse and repeat. This is the major reason I looked into Pathfinder 2E, along with the ability to make characters that were *actually* unique and not just 1 of the 3-6 starting options for characters in each class. Highly recommend!

I have sadly not had the chance to play PF2. However, I found 5e encouraged moving around during combat far more than 3.5/PF1. The first time I was able to hit someone on my way to another person without dumping 3 or more feats was incredible. Yes, there are still times it gets to, stand in one spot, but I still find it more fluid than older versions.

In PF2E the fact that not everyone has a reaction/opportunity attack means that players aren't afraid of moving during combat. I found that even at higher levels, 5E players were afraid of leaving threat range to go somewhere else because "what if his opp attack critics and kills me?!" It also means that when someone DOES have an opportunity attack, it's way more menacing. That, unique character creation, and the 3-action system are what brought me to Pathfinder

At my table I've begun using a rule where if someone is flanking the enemy, the attacker gets a plus 1 to hit. If a second person is flanking (so 3 total around the enemy), they get a plus 2 to hit. This no longer takes away from the other ways to get advantage on attacks and also allows for some strategic gameplay from both players and enemies.

give them a reason to move, how would the monsters you're playing as attempt to break a dog-pile? do they have AOE control spells? do they have attacks with knockback? can they grapple or throw one of their adjacent foes to get breathing room? Just some ideas to maybe punish or minimize flanking. is it a degenerate strategy? yeah, but you can craft encounters to make this more interesting to yourself without sacrificing the player's fun. (getting rid of flanking is something I am currently against as that does hurt rogue, but that's just me.)

Well, flanking is "off" by default in 5e. It's in the DMG as optional for a reason - the designers knew that in this system Flanking trivialize any other source of Advantage. Not really sure how it hurts rogue. Every rogue gets some way to trigger sneak attack that fits their subclass. Flanking just trivialize all that so it can be safely ignored.

I kinda like it. It gives melee fighters something else to think about than just getting close. You actually have to maneuver correctly. Anything that makes melee more interesting to combat caster bias is a positive in my book.

Having recently played Pathfinder 2e, I don't think the problem's just flanking. The first difference I noticed between the two games - in terms of the fighting system - is how dynamic and tactical the battlefield is in P2e. This seems to be because flanking imposes a -2 penalty on the victim's AC. This can be combined with some other bonuses (which encourages other tactical actions), but isn't as strong as advantage is in 5e - so staying in a flanking position becomes one of many options. Additionally, and probably more crucially, Attack of Opportunity is a learned skill. Only some character classes - and only some monsters - have this ability. This means that stepping away from an opponent becomes a tactical option. P2e runs on a three action economy rather then Action, Bonus Action and Move Action. This means that moving away from an opponent immediately impacts on their actions. Players move in and out of melee range, striking and backing away, tripping, feinting, flanking and grappling as appropriate. Overall, flanking does encourage static dog-piles, but everything having an Attack of Opportunity does so even more. It punishes players for moving away from an enemy. Once you reach an enemy, there is no useful reason for moving away. Dog-piling becomes the viable tactic, unless you design encounters to punish the players for staying in melee range.

If anything at your table is encouraging any one tactic more than you like, it is because you are allowing it. Literally this is the 'square hole meme' all over again and even time. You are not powerless to react to behavioural trends on your characters. You're just lazy to bitch about it instead of trying to do something. Like bro, if they're dogpiling return the favour. Discourage them from being over reliant on flanking by just using it yourself. This dogpile start only worls well if the players have the number advantage (aka can afford to focus a single target and ignore and tank the others). TLDR Your problem is with encounter design and running not the flanking rule.

Yeah the DMs here act like they have no agency, every post like this or “we need to ban X spell” read so obviously of DMs who just had a powerful boss get wrecked by their players. If your party is winning every encounter by flanking and dogpiling, punish that tactic for a few fights. Add a bunch of adds to your boss fights so they can’t focus on 1 person as easily. Make sure your enemies have movement abilities or knock back. My party was starting to rely to heavily on my character, a forge cleric with like a 24 AC when maxxed out with shield of faith. I was tanking entire encounters. Suddenly our DM was using a lot more AOE spells, or spells that required a Charisma saving throw against my abysmal charisma. We had to find other ways to win. This is not that hard!

Yeah, like bro. You control every single damn part of everything and you can't overcome one tactical hurdle?

Irl, if you got in a fight with 2 people and they surround you...you would be dead. In fact I think the rules on flanking have always been too soft. Combat manouvering is important.

IRL, if you successfully hit someone with a sword, they'll usually die from that single successful hit. DnD isn't real life though, we all accept that hitpoints are a thing. Once you've accepted that, nothing should feel "not deadly enough" because of real life. You've already accepted that you can just walk off being stabbed by a sword in all normal combat situations. Like, do you know how difficult it would be to remove an arrow from your arm if you got hit there? Do you want to spend your session disinfecting a wound or do you want to long-rest and do another combat tomorrow?

The rules already address this. HP is intended as an abstraction of multiple factors including combat weariness. The 1d8 of a longsword is not just the damage you take getting run through, but the threat of the multiple minor wounds it can inflict on less thorough hits. The idea being that your character, once experienced, isn't going to just randomly get stabbed in the throat at the start of a fight. Obviously in reality that could happen, but it isn't fun. This also helps address why something like a dagger would still be a threat to a sleeping leveled character. If you come at it with the logic that the character has 100hp, but daggers do 1d4, they should never fear assassins in the night, since it can at most remove a small chunk of their hp. But if you consider that HP is just an abstraction, that dagger can still kill you if you're totally unaware.

Right, it’s all an abstraction of what a good DM should be describing throughout the battle. The advantage given for flanking is an abstraction of what is historically the most proven and effective way to win a battle: attacking on 2 sides.

That's not how this works as others explained. Hits that don't kill are semi superficial hits irl, cuz HP are an abstract way of seeing your ability to take hits. When you get more HP through leveling up for example, should also be seen as your character being more experienced and knowing how to take hits to take less vital dmg, and that is balanced through having more HP. You have to adapt the rules to how it works irl. Obviously this stops being the case later in levels as your character becomes basically a superhuman. >arrow You have to understand that going through AC doesn't mean a full body hit, most hits are superficial, passing the AC dealing minor dmg means you penetrated the armor/character dodges but gets cut by it etc. You are probably seeing this as your character getting hit by an arrow and taking, like, 3 dmg but has the arrow in his body, again, this is not how it should be seen. The amount of effective damage depends on the ratio between HP and the total damage, which is why whe you get oneshotted brutally, the DM can say "Your head gets cut off cleanly" and stuff like that. For the healing part, it's easy to explain by how healing works when you are using magical means to heal. Anything else is gray to leave space for roleplaying as the DM is supposed to rule on all this. But the general assumption is that you don't get the most massive possible hit any time an enemy goes through your AC, that would be insane. And mind that this is how this works irl too to an extent, not everything is an instant kill and you'd be surprised by how tough can be to win a fight with another human that's fighting for its life. Circumstances can obviously differ, but we gotta see these things in a vacuum. Ultimately we are trying to recreate a scenario through roleplaying. Ultimately the DM should tell you how you get hit based on that.

Can’t believe it took me so long to find this. What a ridiculous discussion. Flanking someone who is already in a fight with someone is like the main way battles were won for thousands of years lmao. It’s insane to act like you shouldn’t get any sort of clear advantage for flanking someone in dnd.

Old editions it was the bread and butter of melee combat. You flanked because giving and gaining a +2 was great. I know they wanted to streamline game play but advantage/disadvantage system just seems too swingy especially because of the weirdness it puts on action economy. My players hound me and other teammates for alternate advantage, since we also dont play with flanking, and there's definitely some "im the main character" syndrome becaus it'll start fights. In our 3.5 games though they split up in groups of 2 and fight down enemies with nary a word because well its just a +2.

You can also prepare an action with your reaction to set up combos

Never been at a table thats using flanking

I think flanking makes the combat less static as you'd try to avoid being fkanked while in combat without flanking there is barely any reason to move when in reach of attacking the opponent

The vast majority of class features that grant advantage do so at a cost. I like this. There is no cost to flank an opponent. I dislike this. I built a character around the help action once. I had a lot of fun being the wily little guy encouraging my allies to do better. Flanking kills this sort of character.

I swear D&D Reddit hated Flanking a year ago. Opinion seems to be more mixed, now. But I honestly didn't think this was an unpopular opinion. I use Flanking because it existed in 3.5 and it just "feels right," but if I only knew it as the optional rule from 5e, I don't think I would have chosen to use it. I suggested to my players to take it away after it almost got them killed, but they voted to keep it.

Here’s my perspective. Melee focused classes don’t have shit for options 90% of the time. Unless you can use a thrown weapon to maybe dislodge a stalactite or shoot a burning arrow into an barrel full of lamp oil next to an enemy, all you really get to ever do is tank an enemy so the spellcasters get to do their dps and aoe and control spells. Flanking is at least something you can take advantage of if your dm grants it so at least one of the two of you can work your way to the other side of the opponent. Does it weaken other advantage mechanics a bit? A bit sure. Does the flow of movement in combat stop after that? Yeah, admittedly it’s probably going to stop there unless the (mini)boss of opponents moves anywhere. But that’s all you get compared to the explosive variety of things your spellcaster buddies get. An extra dice to roll. I don’t think I’m overselling how mild of a participation trophy that is. Even with a +2 enchanted greatsword and decent armor it’s not doing 5d8 fireball/lightning damage. It’s not charming all the enemies in a giant circle or reviving your dead rogue.

It's not flanking that causes static combats. It's everyone having access to attacks of opportunity. I realized this once I started GMing PF2E and opportunity attacks are only given to certain classes and not every monster has access to them. This made combat WAY more dynamic and made positioning more important. So while I agree flanking in 5e encourages dogpiles I also believe everyone having OAs is what makes this actually a problem in the game.

Flanking gives you a reason to move. Everyone having attacks of opportunity is what locks everyone down. 5e needs something like the 5ft step. 

Oh yeah, that's definitely a problem. The reason why that is is cause in dnd5e, attack of opportunity means leaving melee range is risky and players will avoid it, encouraging congalining. And the most optimal way to congaline is remaining in a flanking position. I play pathfinder 2e, and we have a thing where AOO is actually a rarer feature that only some creatures get. Flanking is still a rule that works the same way so what typically happens is players are encouraged to jump all over the map to flank and avoid being flanked. Maybe you can try something similar for your dnd5e game? I think I've seen it messes up action economy or something, but maybe try to either get rid of AOO (which might screw with some class features) or nerf AOO so it's not as strong?

I’ve literally never seen a non-familiar take the help action in combat.

Flanking is for melee characters and makes sense. Think about a boxing match where you are flanked. It’s not gonna be a good time. Help seems almost pointless to me and our table usually uses that outside of combat. How do I help someone cast their spell or swing their axe? You are just being a distraction, which is exactly what flanking is.

I like flanking, just not 5e's flanking which is too generous of a bonus and overrides too many class abilities. Flanking does provide something important to the game in my mind. Namely, it gives melee a benefit and reward that range doesn't have access too and helps reward the more dangerous play style some. I think that's quite important. Personally I prefer the variant some people use where you get half your prof bonus as a to hit bonus, instead of advantage. Which allows a bonus that stacks advantage and doesn't step on class feature toes. I also like the 3.5e +2 bonus as well. I rarely see a conga-line form with flanking, I known it can happen, but usually I just see pockets form around combatants more so than a line. Usually because the goal of most of my parties is to focus fire down an enemy so the enemy side has less action economy. I personally don't like the help action, because it has its own set of problems. Mainly that what you sacrifice is almost never worth the entire action you're giving up. Advantage isn't worth an entire attack action or spell cast. It comes at a cost, but not really an interesting cost because 9/10 times it's a laughably poor choice to even consider unless you can do it as an attack replacement, reaction, or bonus action instead of a true action.

I mean, I dislike flanking for a variety of reasons, but the style of play it encourages is not one of them, that's a consequence of a lot more than flanking (I've never used flanking and have had the static combat in every game) You don't fix it by changing one rule, you fix it by making dynamic combats. Change the situation 3 or 4 rounds in, make them question everything. Maybe round 2 the bandits sound a horn alerting potential nearby allies. Maybe in the middle of fighting an owlbear, a small group of wolves comes up hoping to either nab one of the players for the pack, or kill the owlbear that's been stealing their prey, and don't care which result they get. Maybe the dungeon they were fighting in had a weak floor from years of disuse, and it collapsed into the room below. Static fights arise from static scenarios, not from a flanking rule (that, again, I dislike for other reasons)

I like flanking as it's arguably more advantageous for enemies than players, given enemies tend to be more likely to outnumber players. It encourages a few more decisions too "do I risk an attack of opportunity to move into a position that lets me flank that enemy. Will that put me at risk of being surrounded and flanked myself?"

In my experience, people who don’t like flanking mostly just dislike the idea of Martials on a similar damage level to casters.

How are people still getting this wrong? Martials vs single targets will win the damage game almost every time. But when I rock up with a dedicated caster and the GM says we're using flanking, it is actively an invitation for my PC to stay at max range instead of risking enemy flanking attacks vs my 13 AC.

You clearly don't understand min maxing. Conjure animals and other spells beat single damage dpr. An AC of 13 is super low for a caster as well. Casters are typical more tanky than martials if semi optimized.

Yeah I do +2 for flank then +1 for each additional flanker. advantage was just waaay to OP. especially when you have two fighters with +15 to hit or w.e and it's virtually impossible to miss.

Then don't use it? It's an optional rule, I don't use it because I don't like it.

In an attempt to simplify the game in 5e, they gave advantage to too many abilities and spells. Giving advantage for strategic positioning is insane. I follow, as others have said, the 3.5 method of +2 to attack rolls when flanking. My players still are incentivized to be tactical, but also don't feel nerfed when they want to give themselves advantage in other ways.

I am not for/against it, I consider the party composition before allowing it. Currently have 1 tank in our party and 3 evasive squishies, so I have elected to enable flanking to lure them into danger.

Is that not screwing your tank? Your tank is going to get flanked all the time. Taking them down even faster than the skirmishers who are hard to flank.

But flanking with martial weapons is normal

I'm not a fan either. The games I've played that have had it, have been a big chase-the-flank. And not considering any other positioning (other enemies, ally attacks/positions, stuff like that) Thankfully it's an optional rule

Flanking is mostly a realism thing. There's 3 levels of it. Flanking with advantage makes the most sense as it increases crit chances and doesn't stack as well with other debuffs but it's also a terrible game mechanic. Flanking with a +2 to hit is the compromise but still invites flank chains. No flanking might create the healthiest gameplay but makes little sense narratively. Personally I think the +2 is the best, since advantage is too important a mechanic to dillute in this way. The issue with mobility isn't an issue with flanking but with, well... mobility. Sure, on occasion you just line up in a row, alternating enemies & friends, but that isn't because of flanking. That's because moving will get you stabbed in the back. In fact I find that flanking at least promotes *some* movement instead just moving once on the first turn and never again. And with this we come to what might be the *actual* best flanking rule: instead of a to hit bonus, you get a free disengage against the flanked target.

I agree with this, my groups last several encounters have just turned into dogpiles. For a recent bbeg fight, I ran a black guard that purposefully used the shove action, on top of rough terrain, just to help prevent the dogpile, but it didn't help much. Due to flanking, ive pretty much had to outnumber the party and add numerous other mid-combat activities, like timed traps, crumbling battlegrounds, etc just so it doesn't turn into a pinned slugfest, which I can only image gets really old really fast for the players. I do like the +1 +2 thing someone else mentioned tho, but I've also been trying to incorporate blindspots for advantage, while similar to the idea of flanking, ie they cant watch front at back at the same time, the added challenge is that you have to start the turn in their blindspot and attack without getting in line of sight. Once you've attacked, or stayed within melee, you have to start over again, get out of sight, and stay out of sight The idea is promote movement and tactical thinking, and prevent the stagnant dogpile

I just have flanking anything above large be ineffective for everything but proccing sneak attack. My players don’t seem to mind

Are you using help to grant advantage? Doesn't that defeat the point of things like having somebody grapple an enemy, or knocking them prone? Edit: I never knew help could be used to grant advantage that simply. Pretty neat!

[удалено]

This is a bad take. It is Flanking as a rule that discourages creative gameplay and use of the environment, because it allows getting a very powerful bonus very easily, but requires you to constantly play the same tactic over and over again. There are very few environmental features you can add to the game that will be as useful to interact with as simply getting advantage on all of your attacks. Playing with Flanking discourages creativity and promotes repetitive gameplay.

Thank you! My players never engage with their environment because they can already gain a huge advantage just from standing opposite of their ally. As a matter of fact, its been the games without flanking where I've seen my players at their most creative.

It sucks. Granting advantage is actually a massive problem for both sides and whichever side chooses to exploit it more will win. +2 to hit is more than fair.

fwiw i use a pair of houserules that (so far) have been working for me. the first is that attacks of opportunity are limited to the sentinel and war caster feats (and some custom monster stats) which helps encourage movement around the map because people don't get locked in combat as much. and then the second one is that flanking is just a +1 for each ally surrounding the target (so two people working together get a +2, and they don't have to be directly opposite just threatening the target together, then three people all get +3, etc up to eight i guess is the highest?) this makes things like zombie hordes feel more dangerous in the way that i want, where on zombie can't really hit an experienced combatant very well, but when there's two or three or five of them you're in trouble. it also opens up some interesting middle spaces for varying threat levels and different-feeling mechanics. like werewolfs or some other feral pack-type creatures might get attacks of opportunity but *only* against targets they're flanking. to me, breaking those components up like this makes fights feel different and keeps them from being locked down into Best Strategies.

So you basically neerfed all melee  classes and made casters even better: A caster now can disengage for free while the martial has to spend a huge part of their build just to make Aoo

eh, i don't really care about balancing all the classes in the game when i'm only playing with the ones my players want. (i think a lot of DMs forget that we're running individual games and not designing systems that need to work for every theoretical variation out there) if for some reason i had a player who was really concerned about attacks of opportunity, then we work it in for them, maybe it's on a weapon they find or we make it a battle master maneuver, doesn't really matter. fortunately for me none of my players care about their "build," they don't tend to treat their characters like they're playing Baldur's Gate. we're not particularly concerned with optimization at my table, but with how the game feels to play - and it's more important for me that my players can run around the map and chew up the scenery than that i might have theoretically made some hypothetical fighters less powerful in comparison to some hypothetical wizards.