Revisiting flanking discussion

Folks, We've had some comments in-game that we should improve upon or drop the optional flanking rule from the DMG, p.251, that we've used thus far. This thread is for discussion as a group on the topic. For background, here are some links to articles and discussions on the optional flanking rule in 5E:&nbsp; <a href="https://www.themonstersknow.com/965-2/" rel="nofollow">https://www.themonstersknow.com/965-2/</a> <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/357-flanking-and-combat" rel="nofollow">https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/357-flanking-and-combat</a> <a href="https://www.nerdsandscoundrels.com/flanking-5e/#The_Conga_Line" rel="nofollow">https://www.nerdsandscoundrels.com/flanking-5e/#The_Conga_Line</a> The comments in our game about flanking have centered around the tendency for combatants to align themselves into a "Conga Line of Death" to flank each other, which is unrealistic and forced.&nbsp; As reflected in the links above, several commenters--particularly Keith Amman, author of "The Monsters Know What They're Doing" and several other deep tactical dives on D&amp;D, and whose views I respect--defend the use of flanking despite the "conga line" complaint. But I'm not as detailed a tactician as Amman, and I don't see a viable way that I'd feel comfortable using to discourage the conga line effect. One suggestion has been to allow combatants to access some form of the "Pack Tactics" ability that some creatures gain in 5E. "Pack Tactics" permits certain creatures--wolves, kobolds, and other creatures that tend to hunt in packs--to gain advantage against an opponent if one of the creature's able allies is within 5 ft. of the opponent, regardless of position. I'm not sure I would want to give everyone on the battlefield access to Pack Tactics, either, because that would significantly cheapen both that ability and advantage generally. (And note that the Aid action in combat already provides this ability, but at the cost of a combat action.) I'm open to other ideas on improving flanking. Another and potentially easier option is to stop using the optional flanking rule altogether. It means that hits in combat will be less frequent, and as a result, combat will last longer--but eliminating flanking could reduce the PC's foes' opportunity to score hits overall, which, in general, makes combat less dangerous for PCs. Thoughts?

Personally, I think granting advantage for flanking is too much, and certainly granting pack tactics is WAY too much. I saw this video which I thought was a reasonable justification for a +1/+2. This means that flanking alone doesn't become the all consuming strategy to gain advantage, but there is at least a small benefit to doing so. This allows players to consider other tactics as anything other than getting advantage is likely less effective. Check this out:&nbsp; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAO1aYhWZl0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAO1aYhWZl0</a> . This covers a variety of house rules, but they discuss flanking. I think it helps support a +1 or +2 bonus. As an aside, much of the combat in Koop's game have been large numbers of 'weaker' enemies, which gives them plenty of opportunity to utilize advantage, as well as us. Whereas, if there were fewer, more powerful enemies, advantage would be more difficult for an enemy to acquire, making advantage for flanking more beneficial for the PCs. Ultimately, I believe advantage for flanking is too much, and overtakes any other strategic decision in combat as it is simply too good. I recommend we go with a +2 flanking, and end it there. No additional bonus for multiple people flanking. That's my thought anyway.

Interesting video, Steve. Thanks! For those not inclined to watch the video, the commenters there recommend implementing flanking, but recommend making it +2 instead of granting advantage. That house rule effectively makes flanking a melee bonus analogous to the bonus for partial cover that affects ranged attacks. They also suggest granting flanking to every enemy combatant attacking a target once flanking is achieved (one commenter suggested making the flanking bonus +5 with more than one flanking combatant, which I would not be inclined to use). They do not &nbsp;address the "conga line" effect. Making flanking +2 might bring it more into line with its intended tactical effect. Conventional wisdom says that 5E "advantage" effectively conveys the equivalent of +4 to the affected roll. That's a hefty bonus, and maybe too much for flanking. Looking back at the chat log from this past session, many of the Orog attacks that hit were with advantage. As someone pointed out, monsters often benefit more from flanking than this group of PCs because the monsters tend more to be melee combatants (or do more damage as melee combatants), whereas this group includes a "rear flank" of lower AC ranged combatants (the "crazy 8s"). If flanking attacks only got a +2 instead of effectively +4 ... fewer hits, and accordingly less deadly encounters. So: changing flanking from granting advantage to granting +2 to all melee combatants to a target once flanking is achieved might address its powerful effect. Granting that bonus to all combatants could encourage swarming rather than a conga line. We could try that. Other thoughts?

My only thought is that it seems unrealistic for flanking to only be achieved when the creature is sandwiched between two attackers. In real life, (as much as we use real logic in D&amp;D) any situation where you are being attacked by multiple opponents would create a similar effect. If you are distracted by one person it becomes harder to block the other, which is more or less what the "flank attack" is representing. In an example from last game Sedriss was being attack on 3 fronts where two of them had advantage. Realistically the 3rd person should also get a bonus. My thought is that if we made it so the bonus is applied regardless of position it would prevent the "conga line of death" from happening.&nbsp;

I like the idea of a bonus instead of advantage.&nbsp; I also agree with Ben that the bonus should not only apply to sandwiched opponents.&nbsp; Flanking by definition is a side attack and not a rear attack.&nbsp; I suggest either giving the bonus to all opponents when the enemy is actively being attacked from at least two opponents who are at least 90 degrees apart to account for the potential distraction (two opponents attacking from the front would not trigger the bonus).&nbsp; Alternatively you could give the bonus to any attacker not faced by the enemy&nbsp; The target should then have to choose (maybe using a reaction) which opponent to face&nbsp;&nbsp;

Would this negate my advantage if an ally is in combat and I attack with my longbow? That is a big part of what I can contribute overall. Outside of that I like the bonus idea. I guess I could try to steal everything in sight too. I have just been trying to play to my "ethics" about not going after people in the trade and consider if Vellios is working for a house then "they" are in the same trade. Vellios needs therapy, honestly, lol.&nbsp;

Folks, This has all been useful feedback. Here's my thought: For now, let's try&nbsp; flanking grants +2, which applies to all &nbsp;allied melee combatants targeting the flanked creature once the initial flanking rules are satisfied . (Mike: D&amp;D doesn't have facing, and so the flanking positioning on opposite sides of a token isn't strictly back-and-front.) I can appreciate that opponents on the same side of a token could have a distracting effect, but I can also appreciate that the game designers didn't choose to allow that positioning to qualify as flanking in 3E, 4E, or 5E. My guess is because it's too easy to achieve and is of particular disadvantage to creatures that are larger than Medium sized. With this house rule, we're attempting to strike a middle ground by reducing the bonus, but applying it to all melee combatants once the initial flanking requirement is satisfied so that a "swarm" effect is possible. After we give this a try for a bit, we could try increasing the bonus by, say, +1 for each melee combatant after the initial flanking is achieved (thoughts on that?).&nbsp; While this rule modification might not entirely eliminate the Conga Line effect, as the articles I linked above point out, it's a tactical matter by the players and DM to discourage conga lines happening to their disadvantage by closing ranks or exploiting openings to target more vulnerable opponents. Those tactical considerations appear regardless of flanking. With flanking granting less of a bonus, two things likely occur: (1) flanking, and by extension the conga line, occurs less frequently; and (2) enemy combatants achieving advantage less often mean fewer hits on the PCs, making combat less deadly. (KC: this change in the flanking rules shouldn't affect Vellios's combat bonuses one way or another. The existing flanking rule did not grant advantage to ranged combatants; and a rogue gains Sneak Attack on any enemy that has even one able ally of the rogue within 5 feet, and so flanking wasn't and isn't necessary to gain Sneak Attack. I can't say that changing flanking will affect Vellios's moral compass, either, but ... that's rogues for ya.)

Haha, I thought it wouldn't but wanted to make sure. Once we get through these jokers Vellios will need to step up his pick pocket game ;)

I am fine with the proposed changes, though I am happy with keeping the rules as written as well.&nbsp; I think the main reason we are seeing flanking situations occur so often is simply the large size of our party and the number of pets/familiars, etc. that are being employed.