Hey Y'all. So I wanted to ask about flanking. In 5e it's actually an optional rule in the DMG (p 251): "If you regularly use miniatures, flanking gives combatants a simple way to gain advantage on attack rolls against a common enemy.... When a creature and at least one of its allies are adjacent to an enemy and on opposite sides or corners of the enemy's space, they flank that enemy, and each of them has advantage on melee attack rolls against that enemy." So we're using it properly, and honestly I'm fine with using it as is. But I'll ultimately leave the decision up to you guys. I decided to look around just because I wasn't totally clear on its use in 5e, and I've read some pros and cons of its use. I'll list some of the arguments either way just to get the conversation going, but let me know what you think. It seems the 'official' word on why they removed it (ala Mike Mearls) is that they wanted to enable/encourage mapless encounters and to avoid confusion about what is considered "flanking" on larger enemies. I think we're smart enough - and using a map/"minis" often enough that that's not a problem, and like I said, I'm ok with going either way. The one caveat I do have for you, though, is that you should keep in mind that while this makes monsters squishier - if/when you can gain positional advantage - you're also squishy. And it won't _always_ be you that gets the right footing. One of the big design differences in 5e versus previous editions is the idea of bounded accuracy. In previous editions you'd battle, say, a bunch of goblins, and then when you reached higher levels you pretty much wouldn't see goblins any more - or they'd just be so much fodder that you'd ignore them on the way to larger baddies. But with 5e, those 'little' baddies still mean something at higher levels - you'll probably just be battling more of them at once. Last session you had 4 of them attack you from the woods. At 12th level you might take on a small army of them. They'll still be squishy - even more squishy - but they'll have numerical advantage and with actual advantage from flanking will, on average, make many more strike against you. I promise, not trying to sway you either way with this argument! Decide as you may. Just want to make sure you understand the consequences of your decision as _I'll_ be using flanking as well... the monsters will, I mean. ;) Pros : - It makes sense from a combat/realism perspective. It's harder for an enemy to defend against two attackers, on opposite sides, at once. - Adv/Dis were added to prevent all the fiddly modifiers in the game, so it's the simplest way to give a bonus to attack. - There are a host of ways to get advantage on attacks (rogues get it for being _near_ an ally) so it's not completely game breaking to add it here. Cons : - It's a pretty big attack bonus, essentially a +5. It can quickly change the tide of an encounter in either direction. (OP) - Makes advantage from race/class special abilities worth less - not so special to get advantage on attack if all I have to do is move around the opponent... - Attack of Opportunity isn't provoked for moving around - only away, so flanking is fairly easy to do once you're in range. Alternatives : - Nothing... ignore flanking altogether and just do combat without it. You can use the "Help" action to forego your attack and give advantage to an ally. - AC and/or attack bonus (+2 to attack, +1d4 to attack, etc - not too complicated, but not as simple as advantage either). - Facing - another optional rule. Those _behind_ the opponent have advantage, and Shield AC only covers facing. (Has its own pros/cons, not least of which is actually tracking where everyone is facing. I really like this for realism's sake, but that just makes combat potentially slower/more confusing). - Advantage for numerical advantage - gain advantage only when surrounding an enemy (ie, 3-4 vs 1 medium creature). - Something else I'm not thinking of...
