The Video is Sponsored by dScryb: dscryb.com/packtactics Please check them out and if you like what they do and want more stuff from them, use the coupon code PACKTACTICS (not case sensitive) for 10% off your first subscription! Thank you very much dScryb for sponsoring this video!
Kind of funny, I was trying to remember what the name of "dScryb" was? I found them earlier on...think it with Mr. Rhexx(?), but got distracted and didn't order it! Forgot about it and then had trouble finding it when I tried to go back! Until today! I just ordered it right away (no more dilly dallying and forgetting lol)! Thanks to you and them! Looking forward to it as a great campaign tool!
Another optional alteration to the optional rule: Only Rogues gain Flanking. That way, only Roguish enemies gain advantage against the party, Conjure Animals would only give advantage to the Rogue, etc. This becomes less of a lateral downgrade to melee martials, and just a minor direct buff to Rogues, who could honestly use the help in 5e. Sure, Rogues can gain advantage through other means, but... well... why not give them a bit of a freebie, on occasion?
@@LucanVaris I basically do the same at tables for rogues but rogues advantage from flanking can't work on player character to stop them annoyingly team sniping, how you been since last?
if they bring back the 3.5 AoO rules they'd need to replace the Hold the Line feature for cavalier, since it would just be a shittier sentinel at 10th level. perhaps they could move the current subclass capstone to 10th level and place a significant boost to mounted combat at 18th, also flanking is a better alternative to Reckless Attack in melee, since RA gives all attacks against you advantage until your next turn. you can still reckless attack with thrown weapons for ranged advantage
@@arnijulian6241 Mostly just chilling around. Kinda surprised that you have team-sniping in your game, considering how most parties should be willing to work together.
I’ve never run the DMG flanking. We still have flanking, but it’s a +2 for the players engaged in the tactic and then we do “surrounded” for advantage.
My is to simply stack advantages, you are flanking using a reckless attack against a monster in Faerie Fire, roll 3 extra dices take the best one (lots of crits), It also fix some weird cases with disadvantages, likes, for stealth where plate user have no penalty running. or blinded archer not needing to disengage for shooting in melee.
@@general_shear I used to do it as a -2 to ac, but in larger battles sometimes I’d forget about it. My players never forget a bonus though and, even though it works out the same, I enjoy letting my players feel like they do more instead of the enemies doing less.
@@philippebelisle8292I use a modified version of this and add +2 for each additional instance of advantage. So in your example, the player would roll with advantage +4.
This is why I run "Back to back" flanking in my games, it functions mostly the same but if you are adjacent to an ally, you are safe from being flanked. It makes combat more dynamic while also not making it centralized around flanking, combined with cleaving and Melee starts to look pretty fun.
I do exactly this, but give flanking a +2 that you can only get if you don't have advantage from other means. So advantage-granting spells and conditions aren't made obsolete either
This doesn't really solve the problem that enemies usually outnumber the party and therefor benefit even more from flanking with how they have more allies to enable their own flanking and disable your flanking. In fact, it worsens that problem.
Use my rule - flanking works inverse to cover. If two allies are on opposite sides, you give -2 to ac on the enemy. If 3 allies make a triangle around the enemy, you give -5.
Flanking can be fun if 1. Your party has multiple melee martials and 2. It is something that can be denied. Setting up something where two or three MM's deny a horde of enemies flanking is incredibly fun for the players (particularly if they are something the players can then rip through- minions or low level monsters for example)
True, mostly. I think a problem with that is that other 5e rules will probably need to be modified as well, because technically anyone could simply use 5e's "disengage" action to avoid any AAO's to set themselves up in a flank position. If we decide to nerf or get rid of disengage, we might as well also bring back the 5-foot step rules to replace it. At this point there's likely a ripple effect of other rules or abilities conflicting or making less sense anymore, and... maybe we should just be playing 3.5 lol
@@Brandenfascher the cavalier fighter's Hold the Line feature would need to be replaced since then it would just be sentinel but worse at 10th level, I left a reply on Pact Tactics' pinned comment with my idea of what to do about it.
That would only make combat more boring, as it encourages you to just stand still and not even move. At that point, just don't have a battlemap or movement speed or grappling or shoving at all.
@@5AMACE ignoring the 5e disengage action, I'd agree. I have to say though, when using the 3.5/pathfinder1e rules as a whole, rarely have I seen anyone standing still engaged in melee combat with the 5 foot step rule. In those systems it also made any group of basic melee characters far more menacing and dangerous to escape from (which I consider a great benefit for martials as an inherent control feature). In 5e, the disengage action makes escaping a basic group of melee combatants easy and worry free no matter their positioning, making the sentinel feat or specialization in grappling a requirement for melee combatants to reliably threaten and control within their reach
I rule flanking as that all allies get a +bonus equal to the amount of allies attacking the enemy. Same counts for the enemies. It makes a lot more abilities good combined with flanking
If you are really that concerned about this one tactic, maybe change up the boss battles? Instead of 1 big enemy, have the enemy also have a few other people for the party to fight in the room. Boom, flanking "problem" solved. Now martial fighter 1 is dealing with threat 1, martial fighter 2 is dealing with threat 2, and the other players are trying to deal with threat 3, or threat 3 and 4. I understand some enemies, like a dragon, are probably by themselves. But if before and after that fight the players are confronted with more than one enemy, it won't feel the same way.
My concern with this is that it can super swing in favor of monsters. One character gets surrounded by 9 wolves is dealing with way harder odds than one wolf surrounded by a party of 5 players.
We extensively used flanking with: advantage, +2 bonus, and +1 bonus . After years, the three groups I play (or used to play) adopted the +1 rule. It gives enough incentive to flank without being a mandatory position, which would become another minigame.
Legit go have a mock battle with a few friends. Have one stand on your side and one stand in front of you. You will quickly learn why it gives advantage lol
@@zwidowca1 the issue is advantage doesn't stack so a lot of martial abilities (like reckless attack) or strategies (shoving enemies prone) are basically redundant.
@@zwidowca1 I've got a crazy prospect for you. DnD, and real life, are different. *dun dun dunnnnnnnn* @team_orchid Mostly, it's because everything that doesn't just give a +1 or something, gives advantage and disadvantage.
@@vlscgcoih963 I've got another prospect for you. I've made a point and you did not. Your comment added nothing. It stated a fact, which had 0 bearing on the conversation. The point is if you have any factual experience in melee your POV on tabletop combat is different. Especially if you get to fighting in formations. Your opinion does not impact what reality is. And FYI real life experience can be applied almost directly to tabletop if the context/situation is right. Being an ignorant does not do you any credit...
@@GamerKiwi I'm not saying it is flawless but it just kinda makes sense. And the redundancy can be blamed on the fact that... well if you already massively ountnumber and outflank and outdo your enemy is various ways, you just cannot gain any more benefits in a fighting scenario. It is logical. Sooner or later you'll have such a crowd around the enemy that you won't be able to swing your weapon. It just is what it is. It is shit design but it does mimic reality to an extent. And i am not defending it btw.
I use a slightly homebrewed marking rule. A when a character makes their last melee attack on their turn, for their bonus action they can mark that target. On the target's turn, to break the mark they must first either attack the character marking them or disengage. If they try anything before attacking or disengaging, including bonus actions, the marker makes an AoO with advantage. The the action economy are the same as the optional marking rule in the DMG. Think of it like the character pressing their attack, the target can fight or flee, or be stuck.
So, once more, hacking the actual good ideas that filled 4e into 5th in a frantic attempt to give it some depth. Why is it like this! Why is it continually this way! Congrats btw, sincerely, for putting in a good houserule that the game really benefits from, but why the heck aren't more people playing 4e when such a huge amount of the 'houserules' and alternate rule stuff people are doing in 5th literally just putting back in stuff that was thrown out in the transition from 4-5 for no good reason. The last nine years has basically seemed to consist of people frantically trying to reinvent the wheel!
Flanking boosting casters is something I learned early as a GM. I was/am a total noob and my two player party was murdering everything. Well the monk was because I had no idea how to prevent him from short resting between fights. Enter the lizard shaman that cast circle of jaws around him (conjure animals, 4 crocs, all advantage, grapple on hit.) luckily the ranger broke the caster's concentration or it would have been a tpk We gained a lot of story fun out of it though. Monk has a fear/hate for scaled things now and very gnawed legs.
The demonstration at 2:30 makes me think the solution might be to grant opportunity attacks whenever a creature leaves a threatened square, like they did in 3.5e... that would make it more difficult and/or have a cost for characters to move into the flanking position
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 it would also make the cavalier fighter feature Hold the Line redundant, which Pact Tactics complained flanking did for Reckless Attack
No, he does not do it. Quite the opposite. That rule makes correct positioning important, picking the right square to attack the enemy without cornering yourself. And the current AoO rules of 5 don't incentivize movement either, it doesn't matter that you can move around the enemy without provoking opportunity attacks if you have no reason to. And no, the flanking rule isn't a reason for it, because you only have to move once.@@tomraineofmagigor3499
I run with the less popular Facing rules, typically tweaked a bit for each game depending on player feedback, which introduces some interesting opportunity cost to setting up the equivalent of a flank (which is technically just attacking while unseen, but without having to Hide first). 1. Circling an enemy at melee range absolutely _does_ provoke opportunity attacks as you move out of their field of view. 2. You can use a reaction to change your facing outside of your turn, so it takes a bit more work to actually get behind a target who's playing defensively. 3. Putting your back to a wall or an ally keeps you mostly protected.
the "so many" is like 5 actually and 3 are barely used anyway and the other 2 either only last for 1 attack or puts your character in quite the pickle if you use it regularly
Does it though? This is my problem with this video. I don't have a lot a of DnD experience, and definitely don't have statistics about what is in this video, but nor does the creator when it comes to statistics. So he relies on his own experience which can be biased. So a lot of what he says can be countered the same way, and the rest seems flat out wrong. For example your point and his first point regarding tactical advantages: He only considers it as a tactical advantage when moving a little bit to the side and that is your only choice. But it is not, he just doesn't consider all the other, the real tactical benefits. He just didn't think it throught, nor do you what benefits this can give, and how it works. And the part about devalueing certain spells and abilities, what is not considered, that it improves many others. Every situation devalues some spells and abilities and improves others. And if some spells and abilities become more worthless because of this it doesn't necessarily means that flanking is bad, but maybe those spells and abilities are bad, and need to be buffed. Secondly he says that this is negative addition for melee martials, but the reasons that he brings up doesn't support this, instead it reveals the real tactical benefit behind this, and what flanking really nerfs and buffs: He says that it benefits those that are more numerous than their enemies! This is what it really does!!! It doesn't nerf melee at all! You could have all ranged heroes, and the enemy could get close and flank you. What it buffs is number advantage for melee martials. Will this buff monsters more often than the players? Yes, as there are usually very few players. But really, it depends on what campain the DM runs. But as i've mentioned, it buffs a lot of abilites that can slow, displace, restrain, or in other ways can shift the numbers advantage in your favor. This is the true tactical benefit! Now if you separate one or two enemies of a larger group, you can get rid of them faster, which means a bigger benefit for such tactics. Also makes tanks more valuable, which is more likely to benefit players than monsters. (And also this is why it is problematic, when people instead want to give ATK bonus, because for high AC characters that is worse to fight against) Really this feature is there to make fights more realistic, as all rules in D&D is really there to create a simplified framework for reality, instead of using calculus gradients and vectors. It won't be perfect, but it will be more realistic, and that will feel better, because it feels more genuine, and more familiar, that you can understand on an instictual level. If you get surrounded in real life by multiple enemies, you are F-d! But this is why i also like one of Pack Tactics homebrew advice in the end, that if you are flanking someone, and you are flanked, then they cancel each other out. This would make it even more realistic, and could maybe get rid of the "conga lines" apparently plagueing D&D battlefields all over the world! :)
@@tamasdukan1495I was simply destroyed by a crowd of enemies in a campaign that I'm playing. I am the tank of the party and I don't feel like a tank, and the reason is a rule that banalize the advantage.
@@tamasdukan1495 Well, if I run away my friends dead (I have a movement block ability to stop my enemies) and the creatures could surround me again. It was in an open battle field and I don't jump in them attacking, I tried to mantain distance to use my PAM and even in this case it's useless, I'm reduced to a pile of nothing.
In our games, we simply allow advantage to stack. If you have two ways to get advantage (such as flanking + pack tactics) then you have double advantage, and roll 3d20 on your attack roll instead of 2. There haven't been any major issues with this, as flanking no longer removes other options. The general consensus of the group is that if the players get to do something, the enemies can do it as well.
I've been thinking of trying flanking as giving a +1 bonus for each ally adjacent to the target, to a max of +3. I've also considered limiting opportunity attacks to only characters that specifically have something that gives it (either a feat like sentinel or war caster, or a class ability, and perhaps some martial classes like fighter and Monk) still requires some testing though.
I have adopted a "reverse cover" system for flanking. +2 for being at a 90 degree angle. +5 for complete flank. Yes this is a more significant change than the common +2 homebrew that people use but I think it makes sense and if cover doesn't break banded accuracy than this should be fine too. I also add the conditional of you can only get the bonus to flanking if you are within 2 sizes of the creature you are attacking (both up and down). IE a gnome can't get flanked by or flank a size huge creature.
Haven't had the opportunity to try it, but I would like to try giving flanking an additional proficiency bonus to attack rolls instead of advantage. That way it scales with level and allows advantage to stack.
Just give a +1/+2 to flanking. Alot of tables do it. I do it.also add if the monster/player has high enough pass perc /the monster doesnt have really sides(like beholder whit his 20 million eyes or jellys) you /him are immunin to it
@@victorholmes7075 But at later levels it scales to +4, even +6 if you go really far, considering they are already adding their proficiency to their attack rolls, it becomes +8 - +12 to hit before adding their modifier, enemy AC usually goes as high as 19 - 20. So +12 (from 2*prof) + 5 (from main atribute) + any magic item ( probably +2) = 19 meaning they auto hit anything from any roll of 2-20 on the d20, so 95% chance to hit, which stacks with advantage.
The way I run it, is that every creature has an “occupancy score”. For wizards it’s 1, for rangers and such it’s 2, for fighter and monks it’s 3, and having a shield can up that number by 1. Most monsters have a 2 unless they are well trained battlers. Whenever a creature is surrounded by more creatures than its occupancy score, all of those creatures get a +2 to hit for every creature above that score. This is fun because it means the casters can get overwhelmed by 2-3 goblins, but the martials (who have limited AOE options) can deal with crowds easily. Also, if they ever successfully trap and surround a monster or boss, they get a good round of hits in before it tries to leave. Also, more than once, they have baited enemy casters and demolished them easily. Overall, it allows for traps and strategy for my players, and makes the martials feel like cool tanks. Note: We use alternate martial rules (Check out Laserllama’s stuff on GM Binder, so our martials are already more capable than base 5e martials.)
My friends and I have tried using modified versions of Flanking. Instead of receiving Advantage with 2 allies flanking an enemy, they receive +2 to hit instead. Once a third ally is added, Advantage kicks in. Also, you can only have one flanker per side so you can't have one ally on one side and two on the other for the added bonus. The third ally has to be behind the enemy (which should be advantageous) or directly in front (risking attack). So the side-flankers would get +2 to hit and the rearward attacker gets Advantage.
I give +2 to hit for flanking and +1 for half-flanking. If you're looking at your keyboard's numpad, flanking would be if you and a friend were on 4 and 6, while your enemy is on 5, and half-flanking would be if you were on 4, your enemy on 5, and your friend on 9 or 3. Basically, if the line that you draw from one ally to the other touches only squares occupied by the enemy, you get full benefit, and if it touches squares that have the enemy in them and squares that don't, half benefit.
I made a filthy homebrew rule to deal with getting multiple forms of advantage. You add extra dice to the higher roll based on the amount of sources of advantage. (1d4 for 2 sources, 1d6 for 3, 1d8 for 4 etc.) If it's an attack roll, treat the result of all the dice rolled as a single roll when considering critical hits. They have to be different sources, so you can't just stack pack tactics a bunch of times. That way players are encouraged to synergise advantage sources, which is great for barbarians and battlemasters and benefits AOE-focused characters like wizards less. Enemies are less likely to have a diverse pool of features like the party.
I've been playing Pathfinder/DnD 5e for about 11 years now. We did allow the enemy to flank and for that reason I generally didn't like the optional rule. However, we made flanking only effect Melee Weapon Attacks, unarmed attacks, and natural attacks only. No ranged. No spells.
in my games, instead of flanking, i use a +2 if you have an ally also in melee with you (2 people), and a +5 if theres 2 or more allies with you (3+ people)
My biggest issue with flanking is that it is ALREADY a superior strategy that doesn’t need to be further rewarded. It is always better to focus down one enemy rather than spread the pain because it means one less attack and thus less damage for the party in the next round. It would be like granting an attack roll bonus when using a damage type that an enemy is Vulnerable to.
My DM runs flanking and Ive always liked it. Here are some caveats 1. He rules case by case whether creatures are clever enough with combat theory to actually flank. This rules out a lot of enemies and conjured animals. 2. I personally agree that if you already have advantage it should be +2 to hit or another benefit. Perhaps even a fun boost like an extra damage or flat damage buff
I adjust flank rules to allow for a bonus/adv when you are actually flanking (attacking from a different angle to a fellow attacker). Not from the front, but from the side.
We use flanking this way. There has to be at least 2 creatures next to the target. 1 has to be infront and 1 directly behind the target. Only the one that's behind gets advantage, but it's the DM's decision. For instance, if I've moved from infront of the target to behind it, the target would know that I was there, so flanking would not apply. If I came from behind, flanking would apply.
i have a personal homebrew Flanking, instead of adding advantage, adds +1 to the attack roll for each additional creature capable of attacking the enemy creature in melee range. with a top of +5
I often consider different rules for different classes of creatures. Well, not that kind of class. But classify enemies into boss level, named lieutenant type, mostly unnamed typical types, and a return of one-hit minions. I classify PCs on the same level of lieutenants being exceptional heroes, and most town NPCs as typical unnamed. (And yes, I still carry minions forward from 4e, I liked that they were just bodies on a field and only dangerous in numbers, and really useful as a speed bump to gum up tactical situations or as a clump to make sure the wizard who prepared fireball one massively satisfying turn.) If I were to do flanking, I think I'd give the ability to PCs, enemy lieutenants and above, and possibly the occasional unnamed enemies if they have lore that they're particularly militaristic or tactical. Though those tend to already have an ability that works better like Pack Tactics.
My table's rule for Flanking is close to your #2 suggestion, but with a bit of nuance to discourage conga lines. If there are two players flanking, they gain a +2 bonus to attack (or negate half-cover). If there are 3 or more players surrounding a single target, they gain a +5 bonus to attack (or negate three-quarters cover). So if there are flankers involved, it's far more valuable for EVERYONE for that third player to be adjacent to the flanked target rather than whatever flanks one of the flankers.
The way I deal with flanking is to just make it a +2 bonus and I dont allow minions (as in MCDM minions) to benefit or create flanking situations. Its healther game design and allows some weaker monsters to punch above their weight when they gang up on players or for players to surround a critical enemy to take it down quickly. My players are level 12 and have a lot of Armor or ways to dodge attacks via feats. That extra +2 is super helpful when using lower power level creatures that I want my players to hack through but still feel risk.
I look at Flanking like I would the other mentioned options, but without saving throws or barbarian needed. I would struggle with Great Weapon Master fighter without flanking, but I could see it slightly adjusted. As another comment here said, avoiding flanking by being 5ft from an ally could help a bit.
I use the +2 attack flanking in my game. Rarely do we get conga lines. I think that has to do a lot with the map and the enemies in play. Pack Tactics still allows advantage from any angle, same with Sneak Attack proccing on amy angle. My players are about even in terms of range and melee (including a crossbow expert), and we've had some solid talks about positioning during combat. I might use the PF opportunity attacks rule more for the monsters than anything. The melee players still rush into combat and the +2 allows them to hit more often than the ranged characters (which most casters are ranged focused by necessity from hit points and armor)
I added a slight change to the rule when I use it. A flanked creature can not flank. Maybe there might be situations that it would break but it's done well for me so far.
My table uses a reaction to give another player flanking the target advantage on an attack. Theres more cost because the target doesnt have to worry about oppurtunity attacks. It also only works on 1 attack per reaction.
In my games the one player who is on the back of the target gets advantage. And I decide that by putting myself in the creature's place, thinking who would I focus on. But even if I let the optional rule play without any additions, I don't see your point. You see the "everybody is on a line" thing happens in cramped up spaces, indoor fights. On outdoors or even big dungeons, the players can risk an opportunity attack to take a few steps back to not to get flanked on the next turn. Or a barbarian would be reluctant to jump in a horde of enemies even if it's a totem warrior. Above that, you said that monsters usually get to use it more. Maybe that is true but statistically a player character can deal much more damage with their attacks. A paladin would save a 3rd level divine smite for example and when it's dire for them to hit it, they could consider flanking and take position accordingly. Maybe risk some other monsters coming from his back but he'd have a much higher chance to hit. This might be a little controversial but I like the fact that Conjure Animals and Animate Objects gets buffed. I don't like those spells because you can do WAY MORE with 3rd or 5th level spells. Yes the additional miniatures tank some damage maybe help with flanking but they die way too quickly and they are mostly a disappointment for the caster (or at least that's what I saw as a player and from players around me). Overall I think this lets the players *think* where they would put their characters. Instead they don't just go "uhh I guess I'll move there it doesn't matter". P.S: I am not trying to come off aggressive and I'm sorry if it came out that way. It's just my opinion and I wanted to share it.
I have never seen the "conga line" before; probably because I always advocate for a kind of "facing" ruling. You can't flank someone you're not actively threatening. I also agree with the +2 over advantage.
The problem with flanking is that when monsters come with minions, they can swarm the players and gain advantage more readily. Simple fix: only give +2 to hit & damage instead of advantage, and allow opportunity attacks for trying to strafe threatened squares.
One theoretical way to modify the flanking rules is to require a minimum Intelligence score in order to gain the benefits, since effective flanking does require some level of coordination that is not going to be possessed by a bunch of frogs or magically animated candelabras. You'd probably still get hit a bunch by them if they all attack you at the same time, but realistically that's more due to them overwhelming your defenses with sheer numbers as opposed to bypassing them through tactical thinking. Creatures with low Intelligence scores that possess that level of coordination (like wolves) are why Pack Tactics exists as a mechanic. That's still a band-aid, though, since while it would remove the potential of abusing flanking with Conjure Animals or Animate Objects, the fey spirits summoned by Conjure Woodland Beings tend to have decent Intelligence scores, as would swarms of Imps and other Outsiders. In order to address those, flanking would need to be modified again to provide diminishing returns, which would make at least some sense since at some point you'd have so many enemies flanking you that they'd start getting in each others' ways.
Another good way to handle flanking is to base it on the size of the creature. For instance a tiny creature cant be flanked, a small creature can be flanked by 2 characters, a medium creature requires 3 characters with at least 2 being directly across from each other, large needs at least 4 creatures across from each other, and gargantuan needs 6. Creatures with more than one head or extra eyes might not be able to be flanked at all. For instance a hydra can't be flanked as long as it has two or more heads and a gibbering mouther can't be flanked at all.
A good way to work around spellcasters getting the advantage would be for the flanking to not be applicable with summons/animated items but still enabling other creatures. EX. a summoned celestial and barbarian flank an enemy. The summoned celestial does not gain advantage, however it does provide advantage for the barbarian
I had an extensive argument with my father who had the same experience, whiteboard and everything. As soon as we shifted DMs for a new campaign he and I end up conga lining every second fight.
I see it every three or four fights with my group that uses flanking (the group that doesn't use flanking obviously doesn't get into conga lines) And I heavily agree that it benefits the monsters more than the players (bosses had minions pretty much every time)
For me it's a question of verisimilitude. If you're in a fight and there's an opponent in front of you AND behind you your chances of getting your ass kicked go up exponentially. That being said, changing it to a numerical bonus or implementing a no conga line rule would make sense as well.
So while I decided to ditch flanking in my games, I do recommend using a rule that allows you to get a +2 bonus rather than advantage. My players found that the (dis)advantage rules, while realistic, feel bad when used RAW. Instead we decided to add everything that gives advantage and subtract the amount of things that give disadvantage, Then if the result is positive they can roll with advantage and add +2 for every "wasted" advantage, The drawback being that if it is negative they also get a -2 penalty for ever source of disadvantage that would've been otherwise ignored. Note that any advantage that gets stacked with a disadvantage cancels each other and removes both from the equation, Thus having 5 sources of disadvantage and 1 source of advantage results in disadvantage with a -6 penalty. As 1-5=-4 = 1*disavantage + 3*(-2)
I set up a house-rule system once to deal with these issues and make tactical positioning interesting. In short, even just ganging up on one character gives a bonus to attack, being on the back even dealing extra backstabbing bonus. To deal with the run-around issue, I introduced the "intercept"-reaction which lets you move 5 ft into an enemies path and end their movement. Martial characters above level 3 get an additional reaction per round. I have to admit though that my players are more into narrative play and thus did not engage with these rules enough to make them relevant/worth the hassle of remembering them. In the end, DnD as a system is just not the best to depict tactical weapons combat. Fireball + misty step > group formation :-P
We used to run flanking and rarely ran into any of the negative situations you described; probably because our GM didn’t design encounters that way, and because we as players avoided those situations once we understood the rule…
I run 3.5, which supposedly has similar problems with the congaline of death, yet I have never actually seen it. It would nit be that big a stretch in either system to just say an individual can only participate in one flank at a time.
On the topic of flanking only being available to players, I think making it a free class feature to rogues, rangers and fighters makes sense, specifically making it so they both get advantage, and give their allies advantage for flanking with them. It also means barbarians can benefit from flanking without it overshadowing their other options to get advantage when solo.
Our DM used the idea that only the player, behind the enemy, has an advantage on their attack. The idea is that the enemy is more focused on what's in front of them instead of behind.
@MageLeaderInc never came across that situation tbh. We only had two melee characters. Usually, the enemies were scattered around the map. Didn't have many tight corner situations.
I had a game where my Ranger was built to help give my allies Advantage on enemies throughout the fight, but then realized that there was no point because all an ally had to do was just walk on the opposite side of whatever enemy I was close to.
I've played with flanking as +2 and it's better than constant advantage for the reasons you state. My preferred flanking rule I've run is that it gives the first attack against a target you flank advantage, much like a free Help effect.
I've been running Flanking for years, and using the +2 variant due to the issues you noted, it's been OK. Not super tactical with the lax Opportunity Attack rules and lack of the 5-foot step etc., but a net plus IMO. What this really made me think, apart from missing Pathfinder-style area control and movement, was that maybe Flanking (with some retooling) should have been baked into a martial feature. It feels like a thing martials should be able to exploit, and since most NPCs wouldn't get it, it doesn't overpower them / nullify Pack-Tactics-Like features. I'm not sure you'd want to give it out at 1 because Fighter dip is already so powerful, but maybe around 3 or something when kits start to come online. And then some kits could interact with flanking in different ways.
Advantage seems a HUGE power increase over 3e's attack bonus. Back when combat boosts could actually stack. The always giving sneak attacks to rogues is dangerous either way, especially since that means they should be able to do full rounds of sneak attacks...
I like flanking in Pathfinder 2e. You don't get advantage when a target is flat-footed(off-guard). You get a +2 to hit. Of course if you hit 10 over their AC it is a crit. Also only some characters and monsters have Attacks of Opportunity. Barbarians and Paladins can choose to pick up Attack of Opportunity as class feat at level 6. Our GM will use one action to move a monster in position then use 2 actions for that monster to set a reaction to attack when another monster in flanking. Then the second monster moves into position and you get attacked by two monster who are flanking you at once. It's mean. Of course we can do that too. Or when a character or monster with high acrobatics skill tumbles through an enemy space to get into flanking.
I too give the old +2 to attack when flanking, BUT flnking is not about position but rather melee attacks preceding. example - Fighter hits orc with longsword Rogue hits the same orc (in the same round) with rapier, the rapier attack gets +2 due to the Fighters attack on this same orc. Cleric hits the same orc (in the same round) with mace, the mace attack gets +2 due to the Fighters attack and +2 due to the Rogues attack both on the same Orc. I also have it that Advantage and disadvantage stacks - as a +2 for each stack beyond the first. end result - don't get outnumbered in my games unless you have good AC, good hitpoints, and a way to disengage and escape.
I just wanted to add, excuse me if someone already did, I believe Cavalier Fighter is the only 5e iteration of that Pathfinder 1e Attack of Opportunity rule.
Yeah, I basically just switched from using Advantage for everything and instead give +1 bonus for flanking, high ground, etc. up to a +3(to be in line with bounded accuracy limits). If you somehow have more bonuses beyond +3, I just increase damage by +1 or increase DC you inflict by +1, both up to +3 again. Basically, numerical bonuses are good, but unlike Pathfinder, we are dealing with a smaller range band of numbers, so +2 is probably too much in my opinion. The other reason is to just keep the math quick and easy to add up even if you have a bunch of people. I do like the not benefiting from flank if flanked thing. I'll probably adopt that rule next time. Advantage is an incredibly useful bonus, so handing it out should be done only when the cause isn't so common or when the source is supposed to be powerful. So class features and spells, basically.
I use DMG flanking with one new rule. You can't flank someone if you are flanked. That does not create weird situations when there is clump of people and all are flanking everyone and no conga lines. Also I am ok with flanking giving edge to horde of small enemies. Or giving edge to players vs one enemy. (I also ban conjure animals and similar spells in combat)
Hey Pack Tactics, I see that you're covering house rule options. I recently ran a campaign with the "cleaving" attack/spillover damage house rule (if something dies and there is excess damage, the excess damage carries over to a hostile within 5 ft. of both the target and the attacker) for melee martials and it seemed like a fun buff for them (especially Nova characters like paladins and rogues). Would love your take on it.
While I do agree with all your points, i will say having enemies being able to flank has encouraged my players to use the disengage action more. I find other then rouges who can do it as a BA its not used very often but being flanked by enemies gives you a good incentive to use it
I think pact tactics is beneficial for monsters and flanking for martial melee PCs. (bladesingers and hexblade should t have access to this, buff pure martials!) By using pact tactics it emphasizes certain types of monsters. Monsters also usually dont utilize 10 different things to obtain advantage like players do.
this confuses me, why would they disengage? the enemies mostly have 30ft if not more of movement, the same as pcs, what is keeping them from following the pc and keep hitting them? the pc just wasted an action to remove advantage from 1 attacker!
I have a dm where I am playing as a kobald Hexblade. The problem is that my dm thinks I'm too strong. For being a kobald just because of pack tactics even though I have a 6 in strength. What's worse is that my dm refuses to give me a rapier as I am "too weak" dnd already has a feature for this called heavy. Instead I get a 1d6 shortsword. My dm also uses flaking making me weaker than the rest of the party. Our ranger has a dual wielding 1d6 that they can use twice. And they have a 1d8+4 damage bow. I just don't think I should be so weak any tips?
See this is another reason why Pathfinder 2e rules are superior. 1. Flanking only inflicts the flatfooted condition (- penalty to ac) on the flanked creature against the flankers. 2. While attack of opportunity is much more rare to come by, it works the way Kobold said, where it can be triggered just by someone moving within reach, and if you critically hit with aoo as a fighter, it stops their movement, so setting up flanking is much harder for the enemy. 3. Certain classes are even immune to being flanked by lower level enemies with deny advantage. But that's only a fraction of the things Pf2e does better than 5e, as someone who was mainly 5e focused before deciding to jump ship to Pf2e, I'd highly recommend you all check it out or at least give it a second chance if you already did.
I use +2, but it can't be gained on top of advantage. Also, a creature that is adjacent to one of its allies cannot be flanked. This gives you a tactical boost, but doesn't make other features irrelevant. It also encourages realistic tactical play - allies watching each other's backs and fighting together. It's simple, effective, i like it
on the note of prone stuff, a thought came to mind, I'm surprised I have yet to see a feat for firing crossbows, guns or spells while prone (couldn't use a bow cause you need both hands) to not have disadvantage... would be terrifying for the game to go into trench warfare though lol
I play advantage if a character attacks an enemy that is in combat with another character. Animals (such as from conjour animals) can't do this unless they have pack tactics (like wolves). Humanoid enemy npcs do get the same advantage, allowing the pcs to be potentially overrun by weaker enemies (like the fellowship in Moria, or Gandalf in the goblin town). Just makes sense.
I just stack advantages. If you have a Barbarian who is flanking and using Reckless Attack against an opponent that was just hit by a Guiding Bolt, that player gets to roll 4d20s and picking the highest
This highlights why I say the oversimplification of 5th edition was a willful mistake of laziness. In 3rd edition different factors of a given situation, both in and out of combat, would adjust your roll (or rarely the AC/DC instead) differently and they could stack! For example flaking gave both melee allies a +2 to all their attack rolls, attacking a prone target granted a +10 to all attacks done in arms reach, but half cover would incite a -4 to all rolls not originating from behind the cover, and so on with spells applying their own adjustments. It was more mathy to be sure, but it wasn't nearly so boringly bipolar as the (dis)advantage system of 5th edition. I homebrew my campaigns to use both, so my players have the opportunity cost of how much resources and strategy they want to invest for how much benefit they get out of their rolls.
On my table I allow flanking but with the Blood Bowl rules of giving support on a block: You can only give flanking if you are not threatened by another enemy yourself.
I've always played with flanking rules the same across many games that I forget that our rules aren't the normal. Our differences is it's a +2 instead of adv and a creature can not provide or receive flanking if they would be considered flanked themselves..... Oh you did go through them
a game im playing in has 2 frontliners, im a paladin and the other character is a rune knight fighter(so lots of grapple prone) and the dm uses flanking. prone is still useful since it imposes disadvantage on attack rolls, and allows me to gain advantage while keeping the other fronliner in my aura of protection if the enemy is large. we do get outnumbered often but typically we can avoid getting outflanked by using the terrain and positioning to create choke points, overall it feels like a buff when it comes up
Home brew mechanics, First I hit an enemy with ferry fire, Seconds 2 martial classes run up on that enemy and surround it on either side, The 2 martial classes not only have advantage but they get a plus 4 To their attack bonus And the enemy has Disadvantage On blocking Attacks. This is both fun and letha, but At the tables I play at the ruling is tactics that are use agents the DM can be used agents the players. My DM that runs mostly HB campaigns Explains to everyone at the table I will give you ultimate God like powers, But you have to remember this, These powers you've obtained Come from a living breathing world that I have created, The enemies that you face will be able to match you in the mastery of combat If not more God like .
I homebrewed flanking to use cover rules. Hard flank gives a plus two to hit, and if four allies are within melee range it's plus four. I want advantage to be more expensive, but think there should be advantages for creatures to mob up. I like your idea of flanked creatures not being able to benefit from flank though
I know there's an optional rule somewhere that says +2 bonus to flanking and then a +5 to surrounded enemies who are in melee range and this way everything stacks with Advantage. At least that's how we run things in my table. Learned it from my first DM. But I recognize that this isn't RAW whatsoever, which really sucks.
As you correctly pointed out, flanking doesn't really work unless you also have attacks of opportunity in play, no matter what kind of benefit it bestows. It's not just being adjacent and opposite to an ally, but mostly being able to threaten the flanked foe. The other problem is that it doesn't really affect ranged martials or casters at all, since it doesn't hamper the flanked character's offensive capabilities. Someone who is outnumbered and surrounded in combat should have a hard time landing effective attacks or casting spells. Attacks of opportunity, again, solved this issue well enough in the past, but maybe also adding some penalties to the offensive capabilities of the flanked creature would help. Add to it that 5e doesn't really give bonuses and penalties, but instead uses advantage/disadvantage for everything, and that's how many special abilities become useless when introducing flanking as it is. Giving a generic way to gain advantage that everyone can easily achieve is a really dumb idea. So, my suggestion is simple: if you add flanking, then also add attacks of opportunity and give disadvantage to all the flanked creature's attack rolls, from any source. When a spellcaster is flanked, all saves against his spells are rolled with advantage. To balance melee special abilities that make use of advantage as a benefit, make so that if they already get advantage from some other circumstance, they add their proficiency bonus to damage instead (or double it if they already do). By the way, this would make so that going against large groups of enemies without some clear defensive measures would be a really bad idea, as it is in real life, since being outnumbered and surrounded would be rather deadly. Which is not bad at all, in my opinion.
Here is how I rule flanking: Flanking Bond: Only players can flank. To flank an enemy, two or more players must both hit the same isolated enemy with melee attacks and declare they are forming a flanking bond. Each player can have only one flanking bond at a time. Keeping flanking bond: If a flanking player takes damage, they must pass a Constitution saving throw to keep the bond. The enemy must stay within your reach. Flanking Benefits: Once flanked, the enemy gets -2 AC, which benefits the entire party without overlapping advantage rules. This system emphasizes teamwork, encourages ranged characters to support melee fighters, and makes controlling enemy movement more valuable.
In my last 5e game I made a mastermind rogue because I thought being able to use a 30 foot range, bonus action help was really cool. Our first combat rolled around and I found out the table used flanking so the ability I was excited for was completely useless because everyone always had advantage. Then to make me even more useless one of the players took magic initiate to get a familiar when he leveled up. I switched out my character after a few session and I will probably never make a rogue again.
I’m playing a barb 2 rogue 8 right now in a campaign with flanking. I think flanking favors a melee character like mine: one already getting disadvantage from reckless attack but with high ac.
the nice thing about this rule is that barbarians don't really have to worry about the choice to use reckless or not - they've already got advantage, use it!
I juat made flanking a fighting style in my campaigns. Its then useful to that owrson who wants it but also prevents congo lines as not everyone has taken it.
The Video is Sponsored by dScryb: dscryb.com/packtactics
Please check them out and if you like what they do and want more stuff from them, use the coupon code PACKTACTICS (not case sensitive) for 10% off your first subscription!
Thank you very much dScryb for sponsoring this video!
Kind of funny, I was trying to remember what the name of "dScryb" was? I found them earlier on...think it with Mr. Rhexx(?), but got distracted and didn't order it! Forgot about it and then had trouble finding it when I tried to go back! Until today! I just ordered it right away (no more dilly dallying and forgetting lol)! Thanks to you and them! Looking forward to it as a great campaign tool!
Another optional alteration to the optional rule: Only Rogues gain Flanking.
That way, only Roguish enemies gain advantage against the party, Conjure Animals would only give advantage to the Rogue, etc.
This becomes less of a lateral downgrade to melee martials, and just a minor direct buff to Rogues, who could honestly use the help in 5e.
Sure, Rogues can gain advantage through other means, but... well... why not give them a bit of a freebie, on occasion?
@@LucanVaris I basically do the same at tables for rogues but rogues advantage from flanking can't work on player character to stop them annoyingly team sniping, how you been since last?
if they bring back the 3.5 AoO rules they'd need to replace the Hold the Line feature for cavalier, since it would just be a shittier sentinel at 10th level. perhaps they could move the current subclass capstone to 10th level and place a significant boost to mounted combat at 18th, also flanking is a better alternative to Reckless Attack in melee, since RA gives all attacks against you advantage until your next turn. you can still reckless attack with thrown weapons for ranged advantage
@@arnijulian6241 Mostly just chilling around. Kinda surprised that you have team-sniping in your game, considering how most parties should be willing to work together.
I’ve never run the DMG flanking. We still have flanking, but it’s a +2 for the players engaged in the tactic and then we do “surrounded” for advantage.
We do something similar but whoever is being flanked suffers a -2 to AC.
My is to simply stack advantages, you are flanking using a reckless attack against a monster in Faerie Fire, roll 3 extra dices take the best one (lots of crits), It also fix some weird cases with disadvantages, likes, for stealth where plate user have no penalty running. or blinded archer not needing to disengage for shooting in melee.
@@general_shear I used to do it as a -2 to ac, but in larger battles sometimes I’d forget about it. My players never forget a bonus though and, even though it works out the same, I enjoy letting my players feel like they do more instead of the enemies doing less.
@@philippebelisle8292I use a modified version of this and add +2 for each additional instance of advantage. So in your example, the player would roll with advantage +4.
We do +2 for corner, +5 for knight move or better.
This is why I run "Back to back" flanking in my games, it functions mostly the same but if you are adjacent to an ally, you are safe from being flanked. It makes combat more dynamic while also not making it centralized around flanking, combined with cleaving and Melee starts to look pretty fun.
I do exactly this, but give flanking a +2 that you can only get if you don't have advantage from other means. So advantage-granting spells and conditions aren't made obsolete either
Ooh. Mind if I snag this for my games?
@@sodasaintcommentaries4054 go right ahead.
@@deanofett Thank you!
This doesn't really solve the problem that enemies usually outnumber the party and therefor benefit even more from flanking with how they have more allies to enable their own flanking and disable your flanking. In fact, it worsens that problem.
Use my rule - flanking works inverse to cover. If two allies are on opposite sides, you give -2 to ac on the enemy. If 3 allies make a triangle around the enemy, you give -5.
Flanking can be fun if 1. Your party has multiple melee martials and 2. It is something that can be denied. Setting up something where two or three MM's deny a horde of enemies flanking is incredibly fun for the players (particularly if they are something the players can then rip through- minions or low level monsters for example)
Flanking works a lot better if you use the AoO rules from 3.5, because then the movement required becomes potentially dangerous.
True, mostly. I think a problem with that is that other 5e rules will probably need to be modified as well, because technically anyone could simply use 5e's "disengage" action to avoid any AAO's to set themselves up in a flank position. If we decide to nerf or get rid of disengage, we might as well also bring back the 5-foot step rules to replace it. At this point there's likely a ripple effect of other rules or abilities conflicting or making less sense anymore, and... maybe we should just be playing 3.5 lol
@@Brandenfascher the cavalier fighter's Hold the Line feature would need to be replaced since then it would just be sentinel but worse at 10th level, I left a reply on Pact Tactics' pinned comment with my idea of what to do about it.
@@Brandenfascher then go back to it and shut up already
That would only make combat more boring, as it encourages you to just stand still and not even move. At that point, just don't have a battlemap or movement speed or grappling or shoving at all.
@@5AMACE ignoring the 5e disengage action, I'd agree.
I have to say though, when using the 3.5/pathfinder1e rules as a whole, rarely have I seen anyone standing still engaged in melee combat with the 5 foot step rule.
In those systems it also made any group of basic melee characters far more menacing and dangerous to escape from (which I consider a great benefit for martials as an inherent control feature). In 5e, the disengage action makes escaping a basic group of melee combatants easy and worry free no matter their positioning, making the sentinel feat or specialization in grappling a requirement for melee combatants to reliably threaten and control within their reach
I rule flanking as that all allies get a +bonus equal to the amount of allies attacking the enemy. Same counts for the enemies. It makes a lot more abilities good combined with flanking
If you are really that concerned about this one tactic, maybe change up the boss battles? Instead of 1 big enemy, have the enemy also have a few other people for the party to fight in the room. Boom, flanking "problem" solved. Now martial fighter 1 is dealing with threat 1, martial fighter 2 is dealing with threat 2, and the other players are trying to deal with threat 3, or threat 3 and 4.
I understand some enemies, like a dragon, are probably by themselves. But if before and after that fight the players are confronted with more than one enemy, it won't feel the same way.
My concern with this is that it can super swing in favor of monsters. One character gets surrounded by 9 wolves is dealing with way harder odds than one wolf surrounded by a party of 5 players.
We extensively used flanking with: advantage, +2 bonus, and +1 bonus . After years, the three groups I play (or used to play) adopted the +1 rule. It gives enough incentive to flank without being a mandatory position, which would become another minigame.
Flanking giving advantage instead of a numerical bonus in 5E always baffled me.
Legit go have a mock battle with a few friends. Have one stand on your side and one stand in front of you. You will quickly learn why it gives advantage lol
@@zwidowca1 the issue is advantage doesn't stack so a lot of martial abilities (like reckless attack) or strategies (shoving enemies prone) are basically redundant.
@@zwidowca1 I've got a crazy prospect for you. DnD, and real life, are different. *dun dun dunnnnnnnn*
@team_orchid Mostly, it's because everything that doesn't just give a +1 or something, gives advantage and disadvantage.
@@vlscgcoih963 I've got another prospect for you. I've made a point and you did not. Your comment added nothing. It stated a fact, which had 0 bearing on the conversation.
The point is if you have any factual experience in melee your POV on tabletop combat is different. Especially if you get to fighting in formations.
Your opinion does not impact what reality is. And FYI real life experience can be applied almost directly to tabletop if the context/situation is right. Being an ignorant does not do you any credit...
@@GamerKiwi I'm not saying it is flawless but it just kinda makes sense. And the redundancy can be blamed on the fact that... well if you already massively ountnumber and outflank and outdo your enemy is various ways, you just cannot gain any more benefits in a fighting scenario. It is logical. Sooner or later you'll have such a crowd around the enemy that you won't be able to swing your weapon. It just is what it is. It is shit design but it does mimic reality to an extent. And i am not defending it btw.
I use a slightly homebrewed marking rule.
A when a character makes their last melee attack on their turn, for their bonus action they can mark that target. On the target's turn, to break the mark they must first either attack the character marking them or disengage. If they try anything before attacking or disengaging, including bonus actions, the marker makes an AoO with advantage.
The the action economy are the same as the optional marking rule in the DMG.
Think of it like the character pressing their attack, the target can fight or flee, or be stuck.
So, once more, hacking the actual good ideas that filled 4e into 5th in a frantic attempt to give it some depth. Why is it like this! Why is it continually this way! Congrats btw, sincerely, for putting in a good houserule that the game really benefits from, but why the heck aren't more people playing 4e when such a huge amount of the 'houserules' and alternate rule stuff people are doing in 5th literally just putting back in stuff that was thrown out in the transition from 4-5 for no good reason. The last nine years has basically seemed to consist of people frantically trying to reinvent the wheel!
@@josephpotter5766 never played 4e only started playing D&D this year and have only DMed once but used this rule and it worked.
Flanking boosting casters is something I learned early as a GM. I was/am a total noob and my two player party was murdering everything. Well the monk was because I had no idea how to prevent him from short resting between fights.
Enter the lizard shaman that cast circle of jaws around him (conjure animals, 4 crocs, all advantage, grapple on hit.)
luckily the ranger broke the caster's concentration or it would have been a tpk
We gained a lot of story fun out of it though. Monk has a fear/hate for scaled things now and very gnawed legs.
The demonstration at 2:30 makes me think the solution might be to grant opportunity attacks whenever a creature leaves a threatened square, like they did in 3.5e... that would make it more difficult and/or have a cost for characters to move into the flanking position
That will just reinforce the idea of boring combat with them just standing around
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 it would also make the cavalier fighter feature Hold the Line redundant, which Pact Tactics complained flanking did for Reckless Attack
@@Captaincory1 advantage being the ONE thing to be given out for boosting rolls really does limit design space
No, he does not do it. Quite the opposite. That rule makes correct positioning important, picking the right square to attack the enemy without cornering yourself.
And the current AoO rules of 5 don't incentivize movement either, it doesn't matter that you can move around the enemy without provoking opportunity attacks if you have no reason to. And no, the flanking rule isn't a reason for it, because you only have to move once.@@tomraineofmagigor3499
Yes. My bladesinger wizard only gets hit through my cloak of displacement because sometimes I get flanked.
Blur.
Git gud
Who was dumb enough to give a bladesinger a cloak of displacement lol
I run with the less popular Facing rules, typically tweaked a bit for each game depending on player feedback, which introduces some interesting opportunity cost to setting up the equivalent of a flank (which is technically just attacking while unseen, but without having to Hide first).
1. Circling an enemy at melee range absolutely _does_ provoke opportunity attacks as you move out of their field of view.
2. You can use a reaction to change your facing outside of your turn, so it takes a bit more work to actually get behind a target who's playing defensively.
3. Putting your back to a wall or an ally keeps you mostly protected.
Flanking removes more tactical strategies than it adds. So many abilities and options down the drain for such an easy criteria!
the "so many" is like 5 actually and 3 are barely used anyway and the other 2 either only last for 1 attack or puts your character in quite the pickle if you use it regularly
Does it though? This is my problem with this video. I don't have a lot a of DnD experience, and definitely don't have statistics about what is in this video, but nor does the creator when it comes to statistics. So he relies on his own experience which can be biased. So a lot of what he says can be countered the same way, and the rest seems flat out wrong.
For example your point and his first point regarding tactical advantages: He only considers it as a tactical advantage when moving a little bit to the side and that is your only choice.
But it is not, he just doesn't consider all the other, the real tactical benefits. He just didn't think it throught, nor do you what benefits this can give, and how it works.
And the part about devalueing certain spells and abilities, what is not considered, that it improves many others. Every situation devalues some spells and abilities and improves others. And if some spells and abilities become more worthless because of this it doesn't necessarily means that flanking is bad, but maybe those spells and abilities are bad, and need to be buffed.
Secondly he says that this is negative addition for melee martials, but the reasons that he brings up doesn't support this, instead it reveals the real tactical benefit behind this, and what flanking really nerfs and buffs:
He says that it benefits those that are more numerous than their enemies! This is what it really does!!! It doesn't nerf melee at all! You could have all ranged heroes, and the enemy could get close and flank you. What it buffs is number advantage for melee martials.
Will this buff monsters more often than the players? Yes, as there are usually very few players. But really, it depends on what campain the DM runs.
But as i've mentioned, it buffs a lot of abilites that can slow, displace, restrain, or in other ways can shift the numbers advantage in your favor.
This is the true tactical benefit!
Now if you separate one or two enemies of a larger group, you can get rid of them faster, which means a bigger benefit for such tactics.
Also makes tanks more valuable, which is more likely to benefit players than monsters. (And also this is why it is problematic, when people instead want to give ATK bonus, because for high AC characters that is worse to fight against)
Really this feature is there to make fights more realistic, as all rules in D&D is really there to create a simplified framework for reality, instead of using calculus gradients and vectors.
It won't be perfect, but it will be more realistic, and that will feel better, because it feels more genuine, and more familiar, that you can understand on an instictual level.
If you get surrounded in real life by multiple enemies, you are F-d! But this is why i also like one of Pack Tactics homebrew advice in the end, that if you are flanking someone, and you are flanked, then they cancel each other out. This would make it even more realistic, and could maybe get rid of the "conga lines" apparently plagueing D&D battlefields all over the world! :)
@@tamasdukan1495I was simply destroyed by a crowd of enemies in a campaign that I'm playing. I am the tank of the party and I don't feel like a tank, and the reason is a rule that banalize the advantage.
@@manofrutifero4129 Have you tried running away?
@@tamasdukan1495 Well, if I run away my friends dead (I have a movement block ability to stop my enemies) and the creatures could surround me again. It was in an open battle field and I don't jump in them attacking, I tried to mantain distance to use my PAM and even in this case it's useless, I'm reduced to a pile of nothing.
I was scared BG3 would include flanking but luckily it's only a feature of specific subclasses not a general rule
Which subclasses?
Omg thanks. I've been flanking and felt i was just unlucky missing still.
@@eatingtheleaf4659trickster cleric and wolf heart Barb
In our games, we simply allow advantage to stack. If you have two ways to get advantage (such as flanking + pack tactics) then you have double advantage, and roll 3d20 on your attack roll instead of 2. There haven't been any major issues with this, as flanking no longer removes other options. The general consensus of the group is that if the players get to do something, the enemies can do it as well.
I've been thinking of trying flanking as giving a +1 bonus for each ally adjacent to the target, to a max of +3. I've also considered limiting opportunity attacks to only characters that specifically have something that gives it (either a feat like sentinel or war caster, or a class ability, and perhaps some martial classes like fighter and Monk) still requires some testing though.
I have adopted a "reverse cover" system for flanking. +2 for being at a 90 degree angle. +5 for complete flank. Yes this is a more significant change than the common +2 homebrew that people use but I think it makes sense and if cover doesn't break banded accuracy than this should be fine too. I also add the conditional of you can only get the bonus to flanking if you are within 2 sizes of the creature you are attacking (both up and down). IE a gnome can't get flanked by or flank a size huge creature.
Haven't had the opportunity to try it, but I would like to try giving flanking an additional proficiency bonus to attack rolls instead of advantage. That way it scales with level and allows advantage to stack.
I tried to do this, called it striker expertise. Kinda broke the value of ac on monsters and had to resort to hp bloat, not my brightest move
Just give a +1/+2 to flanking. Alot of tables do it. I do it.also add if the monster/player has high enough pass perc /the monster doesnt have really sides(like beholder whit his 20 million eyes or jellys) you /him are immunin to it
@@yuvalgabay1023 that’s where I got the idea for +proficiency because at lower levels they’re both +2.
@@Wick7502 good to keep in mind, thanks!
@@victorholmes7075 But at later levels it scales to +4, even +6 if you go really far, considering they are already adding their proficiency to their attack rolls, it becomes +8 - +12 to hit before adding their modifier, enemy AC usually goes as high as 19 - 20.
So +12 (from 2*prof) + 5 (from main atribute) + any magic item ( probably +2) = 19 meaning they auto hit anything from any roll of 2-20 on the d20, so 95% chance to hit, which stacks with advantage.
"A flanked creature not being able to flank prevents the conga line." Not really, people will still conga to protect themselves from flanking enemies.
You essentially quoted what I said to my players about flanking a few years back. That makes you %200 right and the most correct TH-camr.
The way I run it, is that every creature has an “occupancy score”. For wizards it’s 1, for rangers and such it’s 2, for fighter and monks it’s 3, and having a shield can up that number by 1. Most monsters have a 2 unless they are well trained battlers.
Whenever a creature is surrounded by more creatures than its occupancy score, all of those creatures get a +2 to hit for every creature above that score.
This is fun because it means the casters can get overwhelmed by 2-3 goblins, but the martials (who have limited AOE options) can deal with crowds easily.
Also, if they ever successfully trap and surround a monster or boss, they get a good round of hits in before it tries to leave. Also, more than once, they have baited enemy casters and demolished them easily.
Overall, it allows for traps and strategy for my players, and makes the martials feel like cool tanks.
Note: We use alternate martial rules (Check out Laserllama’s stuff on GM Binder, so our martials are already more capable than base 5e martials.)
My friends and I have tried using modified versions of Flanking. Instead of receiving Advantage with 2 allies flanking an enemy, they receive +2 to hit instead. Once a third ally is added, Advantage kicks in. Also, you can only have one flanker per side so you can't have one ally on one side and two on the other for the added bonus. The third ally has to be behind the enemy (which should be advantageous) or directly in front (risking attack). So the side-flankers would get +2 to hit and the rearward attacker gets Advantage.
I give +2 to hit for flanking and +1 for half-flanking. If you're looking at your keyboard's numpad, flanking would be if you and a friend were on 4 and 6, while your enemy is on 5, and half-flanking would be if you were on 4, your enemy on 5, and your friend on 9 or 3. Basically, if the line that you draw from one ally to the other touches only squares occupied by the enemy, you get full benefit, and if it touches squares that have the enemy in them and squares that don't, half benefit.
I made a filthy homebrew rule to deal with getting multiple forms of advantage. You add extra dice to the higher roll based on the amount of sources of advantage. (1d4 for 2 sources, 1d6 for 3, 1d8 for 4 etc.) If it's an attack roll, treat the result of all the dice rolled as a single roll when considering critical hits. They have to be different sources, so you can't just stack pack tactics a bunch of times. That way players are encouraged to synergise advantage sources, which is great for barbarians and battlemasters and benefits AOE-focused characters like wizards less. Enemies are less likely to have a diverse pool of features like the party.
And things like bless and bane count as an advantage/disadvantage?
@@Funkin_Disher Not quite. It functions more like a secondary function of advantage rather than a direct increase.
I've been playing Pathfinder/DnD 5e for about 11 years now. We did allow the enemy to flank and for that reason I generally didn't like the optional rule. However, we made flanking only effect Melee Weapon Attacks, unarmed attacks, and natural attacks only. No ranged. No spells.
in my games, instead of flanking, i use a +2 if you have an ally also in melee with you (2 people), and a +5 if theres 2 or more allies with you (3+ people)
My biggest issue with flanking is that it is ALREADY a superior strategy that doesn’t need to be further rewarded. It is always better to focus down one enemy rather than spread the pain because it means one less attack and thus less damage for the party in the next round. It would be like granting an attack roll bonus when using a damage type that an enemy is Vulnerable to.
My DM runs flanking and Ive always liked it. Here are some caveats
1. He rules case by case whether creatures are clever enough with combat theory to actually flank. This rules out a lot of enemies and conjured animals.
2. I personally agree that if you already have advantage it should be +2 to hit or another benefit. Perhaps even a fun boost like an extra damage or flat damage buff
I adjust flank rules to allow for a bonus/adv when you are actually flanking (attacking from a different angle to a fellow attacker). Not from the front, but from the side.
We use flanking this way. There has to be at least 2 creatures next to the target. 1 has to be infront and 1 directly behind the target. Only the one that's behind gets advantage, but it's the DM's decision. For instance, if I've moved from infront of the target to behind it, the target would know that I was there, so flanking would not apply. If I came from behind, flanking would apply.
i have a personal homebrew
Flanking, instead of adding advantage, adds +1 to the attack roll for each additional creature capable of attacking the enemy creature in melee range. with a top of +5
I often consider different rules for different classes of creatures. Well, not that kind of class. But classify enemies into boss level, named lieutenant type, mostly unnamed typical types, and a return of one-hit minions. I classify PCs on the same level of lieutenants being exceptional heroes, and most town NPCs as typical unnamed. (And yes, I still carry minions forward from 4e, I liked that they were just bodies on a field and only dangerous in numbers, and really useful as a speed bump to gum up tactical situations or as a clump to make sure the wizard who prepared fireball one massively satisfying turn.)
If I were to do flanking, I think I'd give the ability to PCs, enemy lieutenants and above, and possibly the occasional unnamed enemies if they have lore that they're particularly militaristic or tactical. Though those tend to already have an ability that works better like Pack Tactics.
My table's rule for Flanking is close to your #2 suggestion, but with a bit of nuance to discourage conga lines. If there are two players flanking, they gain a +2 bonus to attack (or negate half-cover). If there are 3 or more players surrounding a single target, they gain a +5 bonus to attack (or negate three-quarters cover). So if there are flankers involved, it's far more valuable for EVERYONE for that third player to be adjacent to the flanked target rather than whatever flanks one of the flankers.
The way I deal with flanking is to just make it a +2 bonus and I dont allow minions (as in MCDM minions) to benefit or create flanking situations.
Its healther game design and allows some weaker monsters to punch above their weight when they gang up on players or for players to surround a critical enemy to take it down quickly.
My players are level 12 and have a lot of Armor or ways to dodge attacks via feats.
That extra +2 is super helpful when using lower power level creatures that I want my players to hack through but still feel risk.
I look at Flanking like I would the other mentioned options, but without saving throws or barbarian needed. I would struggle with Great Weapon Master fighter without flanking, but I could see it slightly adjusted.
As another comment here said, avoiding flanking by being 5ft from an ally could help a bit.
I use the +2 attack flanking in my game.
Rarely do we get conga lines. I think that has to do a lot with the map and the enemies in play. Pack Tactics still allows advantage from any angle, same with Sneak Attack proccing on amy angle.
My players are about even in terms of range and melee (including a crossbow expert), and we've had some solid talks about positioning during combat. I might use the PF opportunity attacks rule more for the monsters than anything. The melee players still rush into combat and the +2 allows them to hit more often than the ranged characters (which most casters are ranged focused by necessity from hit points and armor)
I added a slight change to the rule when I use it. A flanked creature can not flank. Maybe there might be situations that it would break but it's done well for me so far.
My table uses a reaction to give another player flanking the target advantage on an attack. Theres more cost because the target doesnt have to worry about oppurtunity attacks. It also only works on 1 attack per reaction.
In my games the one player who is on the back of the target gets advantage. And I decide that by putting myself in the creature's place, thinking who would I focus on.
But even if I let the optional rule play without any additions, I don't see your point. You see the "everybody is on a line" thing happens in cramped up spaces, indoor fights. On outdoors or even big dungeons, the players can risk an opportunity attack to take a few steps back to not to get flanked on the next turn. Or a barbarian would be reluctant to jump in a horde of enemies even if it's a totem warrior.
Above that, you said that monsters usually get to use it more. Maybe that is true but statistically a player character can deal much more damage with their attacks. A paladin would save a 3rd level divine smite for example and when it's dire for them to hit it, they could consider flanking and take position accordingly. Maybe risk some other monsters coming from his back but he'd have a much higher chance to hit.
This might be a little controversial but I like the fact that Conjure Animals and Animate Objects gets buffed. I don't like those spells because you can do WAY MORE with 3rd or 5th level spells. Yes the additional miniatures tank some damage maybe help with flanking but they die way too quickly and they are mostly a disappointment for the caster (or at least that's what I saw as a player and from players around me). Overall I think this lets the players *think* where they would put their characters. Instead they don't just go "uhh I guess I'll move there it doesn't matter".
P.S: I am not trying to come off aggressive and I'm sorry if it came out that way. It's just my opinion and I wanted to share it.
I have never seen the "conga line" before; probably because I always advocate for a kind of "facing" ruling. You can't flank someone you're not actively threatening.
I also agree with the +2 over advantage.
Yeah, PF2e gives flanking a good risk/cost-reward ratio because of action costs and OA risk
5e doesn't have enough depth to properly allow flank
The problem with flanking is that when monsters come with minions, they can swarm the players and gain advantage more readily.
Simple fix: only give +2 to hit & damage instead of advantage, and allow opportunity attacks for trying to strafe threatened squares.
A problem, yes agreed. Throwaway extras can provide a disproportionate boost to the real threats, regardless of how threatening they are to you
One theoretical way to modify the flanking rules is to require a minimum Intelligence score in order to gain the benefits, since effective flanking does require some level of coordination that is not going to be possessed by a bunch of frogs or magically animated candelabras. You'd probably still get hit a bunch by them if they all attack you at the same time, but realistically that's more due to them overwhelming your defenses with sheer numbers as opposed to bypassing them through tactical thinking. Creatures with low Intelligence scores that possess that level of coordination (like wolves) are why Pack Tactics exists as a mechanic.
That's still a band-aid, though, since while it would remove the potential of abusing flanking with Conjure Animals or Animate Objects, the fey spirits summoned by Conjure Woodland Beings tend to have decent Intelligence scores, as would swarms of Imps and other Outsiders. In order to address those, flanking would need to be modified again to provide diminishing returns, which would make at least some sense since at some point you'd have so many enemies flanking you that they'd start getting in each others' ways.
Another good way to handle flanking is to base it on the size of the creature. For instance a tiny creature cant be flanked, a small creature can be flanked by 2 characters, a medium creature requires 3 characters with at least 2 being directly across from each other, large needs at least 4 creatures across from each other, and gargantuan needs 6. Creatures with more than one head or extra eyes might not be able to be flanked at all. For instance a hydra can't be flanked as long as it has two or more heads and a gibbering mouther can't be flanked at all.
A good way to work around spellcasters getting the advantage would be for the flanking to not be applicable with summons/animated items but still enabling other creatures.
EX. a summoned celestial and barbarian flank an enemy. The summoned celestial does not gain advantage, however it does provide advantage for the barbarian
3:14 in all my years of DMing I’ve never once seems the conga line thing.
3:33 I just let advantage and disadvantage stack
I had an extensive argument with my father who had the same experience, whiteboard and everything. As soon as we shifted DMs for a new campaign he and I end up conga lining every second fight.
I see it every three or four fights with my group that uses flanking (the group that doesn't use flanking obviously doesn't get into conga lines)
And I heavily agree that it benefits the monsters more than the players (bosses had minions pretty much every time)
@@Autonym fair I’m surprised how common it is I’ve never seen that happen before also why don’t the monsters just move away from the conga line?
For me it's a question of verisimilitude. If you're in a fight and there's an opponent in front of you AND behind you your chances of getting your ass kicked go up exponentially.
That being said, changing it to a numerical bonus or implementing a no conga line rule would make sense as well.
So while I decided to ditch flanking in my games,
I do recommend using a rule that allows you to get a +2 bonus rather than advantage.
My players found that the (dis)advantage rules, while realistic, feel bad when used RAW.
Instead we decided to add everything that gives advantage and subtract the amount of things that give disadvantage,
Then if the result is positive they can roll with advantage and add +2 for every "wasted" advantage,
The drawback being that if it is negative they also get a -2 penalty for ever source of disadvantage that would've been otherwise ignored.
Note that any advantage that gets stacked with a disadvantage cancels each other and removes both from the equation,
Thus having 5 sources of disadvantage and 1 source of advantage results in disadvantage with a -6 penalty.
As 1-5=-4 = 1*disavantage + 3*(-2)
I set up a house-rule system once to deal with these issues and make tactical positioning interesting.
In short, even just ganging up on one character gives a bonus to attack, being on the back even dealing extra backstabbing bonus. To deal with the run-around issue, I introduced the "intercept"-reaction which lets you move 5 ft into an enemies path and end their movement. Martial characters above level 3 get an additional reaction per round.
I have to admit though that my players are more into narrative play and thus did not engage with these rules enough to make them relevant/worth the hassle of remembering them.
In the end, DnD as a system is just not the best to depict tactical weapons combat.
Fireball + misty step > group formation :-P
We used to run flanking and rarely ran into any of the negative situations you described; probably because our GM didn’t design encounters that way, and because we as players avoided those situations once we understood the rule…
I run 3.5, which supposedly has similar problems with the congaline of death, yet I have never actually seen it.
It would nit be that big a stretch in either system to just say an individual can only participate in one flank at a time.
On the topic of flanking only being available to players, I think making it a free class feature to rogues, rangers and fighters makes sense, specifically making it so they both get advantage, and give their allies advantage for flanking with them. It also means barbarians can benefit from flanking without it overshadowing their other options to get advantage when solo.
Our DM used the idea that only the player, behind the enemy, has an advantage on their attack. The idea is that the enemy is more focused on what's in front of them instead of behind.
And if they flank from the sides?
@MageLeaderInc never came across that situation tbh. We only had two melee characters. Usually, the enemies were scattered around the map. Didn't have many tight corner situations.
I had a game where my Ranger was built to help give my allies Advantage on enemies throughout the fight, but then realized that there was no point because all an ally had to do was just walk on the opposite side of whatever enemy I was close to.
I've played with flanking as +2 and it's better than constant advantage for the reasons you state. My preferred flanking rule I've run is that it gives the first attack against a target you flank advantage, much like a free Help effect.
I've been running Flanking for years, and using the +2 variant due to the issues you noted, it's been OK. Not super tactical with the lax Opportunity Attack rules and lack of the 5-foot step etc., but a net plus IMO.
What this really made me think, apart from missing Pathfinder-style area control and movement, was that maybe Flanking (with some retooling) should have been baked into a martial feature. It feels like a thing martials should be able to exploit, and since most NPCs wouldn't get it, it doesn't overpower them / nullify Pack-Tactics-Like features. I'm not sure you'd want to give it out at 1 because Fighter dip is already so powerful, but maybe around 3 or something when kits start to come online. And then some kits could interact with flanking in different ways.
Advantage seems a HUGE power increase over 3e's attack bonus. Back when combat boosts could actually stack. The always giving sneak attacks to rogues is dangerous either way, especially since that means they should be able to do full rounds of sneak attacks...
or even revers the rule and give disadvantage. (or just an ac boost to the flankers.) double pro bonus to hit for flanking.
I like flanking in Pathfinder 2e. You don't get advantage when a target is flat-footed(off-guard). You get a +2 to hit. Of course if you hit 10 over their AC it is a crit. Also only some characters and monsters have Attacks of Opportunity. Barbarians and Paladins can choose to pick up Attack of Opportunity as class feat at level 6. Our GM will use one action to move a monster in position then use 2 actions for that monster to set a reaction to attack when another monster in flanking. Then the second monster moves into position and you get attacked by two monster who are flanking you at once. It's mean. Of course we can do that too. Or when a character or monster with high acrobatics skill tumbles through an enemy space to get into flanking.
Flanking gives advantage, sneak attack requires advantage.
It’s interesting how easy “running behind someone” is in dnd compared to its difficulty irl
I too give the old +2 to attack when flanking, BUT flnking is not about position but rather melee attacks preceding.
example - Fighter hits orc with longsword
Rogue hits the same orc (in the same round) with rapier, the rapier attack gets +2 due to the Fighters attack on this same orc.
Cleric hits the same orc (in the same round) with mace, the mace attack gets +2 due to the Fighters attack and +2 due to the Rogues attack both on the same Orc.
I also have it that Advantage and disadvantage stacks - as a +2 for each stack beyond the first.
end result - don't get outnumbered in my games unless you have good AC, good hitpoints, and a way to disengage and escape.
I just wanted to add, excuse me if someone already did, I believe Cavalier Fighter is the only 5e iteration of that Pathfinder 1e Attack of Opportunity rule.
Yeah, I basically just switched from using Advantage for everything and instead give +1 bonus for flanking, high ground, etc. up to a +3(to be in line with bounded accuracy limits). If you somehow have more bonuses beyond +3, I just increase damage by +1 or increase DC you inflict by +1, both up to +3 again. Basically, numerical bonuses are good, but unlike Pathfinder, we are dealing with a smaller range band of numbers, so +2 is probably too much in my opinion. The other reason is to just keep the math quick and easy to add up even if you have a bunch of people. I do like the not benefiting from flank if flanked thing. I'll probably adopt that rule next time.
Advantage is an incredibly useful bonus, so handing it out should be done only when the cause isn't so common or when the source is supposed to be powerful. So class features and spells, basically.
I use DMG flanking with one new rule. You can't flank someone if you are flanked.
That does not create weird situations when there is clump of people and all are flanking everyone and no conga lines.
Also I am ok with flanking giving edge to horde of small enemies.
Or giving edge to players vs one enemy.
(I also ban conjure animals and similar spells in combat)
Hey Pack Tactics, I see that you're covering house rule options. I recently ran a campaign with the "cleaving" attack/spillover damage house rule (if something dies and there is excess damage, the excess damage carries over to a hostile within 5 ft. of both the target and the attacker) for melee martials and it seemed like a fun buff for them (especially Nova characters like paladins and rogues). Would love your take on it.
While I do agree with all your points, i will say having enemies being able to flank has encouraged my players to use the disengage action more. I find other then rouges who can do it as a BA its not used very often but being flanked by enemies gives you a good incentive to use it
I think pact tactics is beneficial for monsters and flanking for martial melee PCs. (bladesingers and hexblade should t have access to this, buff pure martials!)
By using pact tactics it emphasizes certain types of monsters. Monsters also usually dont utilize 10 different things to obtain advantage like players do.
this confuses me, why would they disengage? the enemies mostly have 30ft if not more of movement, the same as pcs, what is keeping them from following the pc and keep hitting them? the pc just wasted an action to remove advantage from 1 attacker!
I have a dm where I am playing as a kobald Hexblade. The problem is that my dm thinks I'm too strong. For being a kobald just because of pack tactics even though I have a 6 in strength. What's worse is that my dm refuses to give me a rapier as I am "too weak" dnd already has a feature for this called heavy. Instead I get a 1d6 shortsword. My dm also uses flaking making me weaker than the rest of the party. Our ranger has a dual wielding 1d6 that they can use twice. And they have a 1d8+4 damage bow. I just don't think I should be so weak any tips?
See this is another reason why Pathfinder 2e rules are superior.
1. Flanking only inflicts the flatfooted condition (- penalty to ac) on the flanked creature against the flankers.
2. While attack of opportunity is much more rare to come by, it works the way Kobold said, where it can be triggered just by someone moving within reach, and if you critically hit with aoo as a fighter, it stops their movement, so setting up flanking is much harder for the enemy.
3. Certain classes are even immune to being flanked by lower level enemies with deny advantage.
But that's only a fraction of the things Pf2e does better than 5e, as someone who was mainly 5e focused before deciding to jump ship to Pf2e, I'd highly recommend you all check it out or at least give it a second chance if you already did.
I use +2, but it can't be gained on top of advantage.
Also, a creature that is adjacent to one of its allies cannot be flanked.
This gives you a tactical boost, but doesn't make other features irrelevant. It also encourages realistic tactical play - allies watching each other's backs and fighting together.
It's simple, effective, i like it
on the note of prone stuff, a thought came to mind, I'm surprised I have yet to see a feat for firing crossbows, guns or spells while prone (couldn't use a bow cause you need both hands) to not have disadvantage... would be terrifying for the game to go into trench warfare though lol
I play advantage if a character attacks an enemy that is in combat with another character. Animals (such as from conjour animals) can't do this unless they have pack tactics (like wolves). Humanoid enemy npcs do get the same advantage, allowing the pcs to be potentially overrun by weaker enemies (like the fellowship in Moria, or Gandalf in the goblin town). Just makes sense.
I just stack advantages. If you have a Barbarian who is flanking and using Reckless Attack against an opponent that was just hit by a Guiding Bolt, that player gets to roll 4d20s and picking the highest
This highlights why I say the oversimplification of 5th edition was a willful mistake of laziness. In 3rd edition different factors of a given situation, both in and out of combat, would adjust your roll (or rarely the AC/DC instead) differently and they could stack! For example flaking gave both melee allies a +2 to all their attack rolls, attacking a prone target granted a +10 to all attacks done in arms reach, but half cover would incite a -4 to all rolls not originating from behind the cover, and so on with spells applying their own adjustments. It was more mathy to be sure, but it wasn't nearly so boringly bipolar as the (dis)advantage system of 5th edition. I homebrew my campaigns to use both, so my players have the opportunity cost of how much resources and strategy they want to invest for how much benefit they get out of their rolls.
On my table I allow flanking but with the Blood Bowl rules of giving support on a block: You can only give flanking if you are not threatened by another enemy yourself.
I've always played with flanking rules the same across many games that I forget that our rules aren't the normal. Our differences is it's a +2 instead of adv and a creature can not provide or receive flanking if they would be considered flanked themselves..... Oh you did go through them
a game im playing in has 2 frontliners, im a paladin and the other character is a rune knight fighter(so lots of grapple prone) and the dm uses flanking. prone is still useful since it imposes disadvantage on attack rolls, and allows me to gain advantage while keeping the other fronliner in my aura of protection if the enemy is large. we do get outnumbered often but typically we can avoid getting outflanked by using the terrain and positioning to create choke points, overall it feels like a buff when it comes up
Just discovered this channel and seen a few videos, wish I had discovered you sooner. Here's an amulet of subscriber count + 1
Home brew mechanics, First I hit an enemy with ferry fire, Seconds 2 martial classes run up on that enemy and surround it on either side, The 2 martial classes not only have advantage but they get a plus 4 To their attack bonus And the enemy has Disadvantage On blocking Attacks. This is both fun and letha, but At the tables I play at the ruling is tactics that are use agents the DM can be used agents the players. My DM that runs mostly HB campaigns Explains to everyone at the table I will give you ultimate God like powers, But you have to remember this, These powers you've obtained Come from a living breathing world that I have created, The enemies that you face will be able to match you in the mastery of combat If not more God like .
I was about to say our house rules but his are the same.
Flanking gives a +2, and if you would be flanked you cannot flank which stops the conga line.
So if you homebrew the flanking to just a +2 to hit, would the dodge action also need to be tweaked to accommodate the change?
I dunno how I never noticed how flanking can be such a detriment very insightful. Also excited for baldurs gate 3 content let’s goooooo
I've tried the optional flanking rule, and i will not be using it again in the future, I don't like it how it affects gameplay.
I use a house rule that doubles your proficiency bônus on flanked targets, so martials get better and better at that
That conga line looks like a prime opportunity for a Lightning Bolt
Oh! I didn't think about that. It boosts lightning bolt lol.
@@PackTactics Lightning Bolt is the anti-pack tactics.
I homebrewed flanking to use cover rules. Hard flank gives a plus two to hit, and if four allies are within melee range it's plus four. I want advantage to be more expensive, but think there should be advantages for creatures to mob up.
I like your idea of flanked creatures not being able to benefit from flank though
I know there's an optional rule somewhere that says +2 bonus to flanking and then a +5 to surrounded enemies who are in melee range and this way everything stacks with Advantage. At least that's how we run things in my table. Learned it from my first DM. But I recognize that this isn't RAW whatsoever, which really sucks.
As you correctly pointed out, flanking doesn't really work unless you also have attacks of opportunity in play, no matter what kind of benefit it bestows. It's not just being adjacent and opposite to an ally, but mostly being able to threaten the flanked foe.
The other problem is that it doesn't really affect ranged martials or casters at all, since it doesn't hamper the flanked character's offensive capabilities. Someone who is outnumbered and surrounded in combat should have a hard time landing effective attacks or casting spells. Attacks of opportunity, again, solved this issue well enough in the past, but maybe also adding some penalties to the offensive capabilities of the flanked creature would help.
Add to it that 5e doesn't really give bonuses and penalties, but instead uses advantage/disadvantage for everything, and that's how many special abilities become useless when introducing flanking as it is. Giving a generic way to gain advantage that everyone can easily achieve is a really dumb idea.
So, my suggestion is simple: if you add flanking, then also add attacks of opportunity and give disadvantage to all the flanked creature's attack rolls, from any source. When a spellcaster is flanked, all saves against his spells are rolled with advantage.
To balance melee special abilities that make use of advantage as a benefit, make so that if they already get advantage from some other circumstance, they add their proficiency bonus to damage instead (or double it if they already do).
By the way, this would make so that going against large groups of enemies without some clear defensive measures would be a really bad idea, as it is in real life, since being outnumbered and surrounded would be rather deadly. Which is not bad at all, in my opinion.
I do flanking with a +1 bonus. Feels like a nice little reward for positioning without being too OP
What do you think about Mr.Rhexx Armor Redesigned, is it a good homebrew?
Here is how I rule flanking:
Flanking Bond: Only players can flank. To flank an enemy, two or more players must both hit the same isolated enemy with melee attacks and declare they are forming a flanking bond. Each player can have only one flanking bond at a time.
Keeping flanking bond: If a flanking player takes damage, they must pass a Constitution saving throw to keep the bond. The enemy must stay within your reach.
Flanking Benefits: Once flanked, the enemy gets -2 AC, which benefits the entire party without overlapping advantage rules.
This system emphasizes teamwork, encourages ranged characters to support melee fighters, and makes controlling enemy movement more valuable.
I definitely favor the +2 rule instead of advantage
In my last 5e game I made a mastermind rogue because I thought being able to use a 30 foot range, bonus action help was really cool. Our first combat rolled around and I found out the table used flanking so the ability I was excited for was completely useless because everyone always had advantage. Then to make me even more useless one of the players took magic initiate to get a familiar when he leveled up. I switched out my character after a few session and I will probably never make a rogue again.
I’m playing a barb 2 rogue 8 right now in a campaign with flanking. I think flanking favors a melee character like mine: one already getting disadvantage from reckless attack but with high ac.
the nice thing about this rule is that barbarians don't really have to worry about the choice to use reckless or not - they've already got advantage, use it!
I feel conga lines would be less common if you give the enemy cover by way of your allies being in the way.
My flank rules is add your prof to attack and damage so advantage can still add up
I juat made flanking a fighting style in my campaigns. Its then useful to that owrson who wants it but also prevents congo lines as not everyone has taken it.