Flanking is an optional rule in Dungeons and Dragons 5e that allows players to gain a strategic advantage in combat scenarios. It is a tactical maneuver that allows players to position two or more allies within 5 feet of an enemy on opposite sides. When an enemy is flanked, players have an advantage on melee attack rolls. This is because flanking grants advantage on Melee Attacks, and a Melee Spell Attack is a Melee Attack.
In D and D 5e, spells that provide advantages like Faerie Fire become unnecessary, as do class features like the Barbarian’s Reckless Attack. Certain character options, like the Samurai 5e, can benefit from the Optional Flanking Rules. The idea is that the other creature is threatening, so anyone without a melee weapon that isn’t planning on attacking with it won’t count. The flanking rule is meant to reflect the increased difficulty of defending actively against attacks coming from two opposing directions.
The rules for flanking specify that players get advantage on their attacks, while spiritual specifies that they make the attack. Flanking doesn’t specify the attack has to be performed. Spellcasters can get advantage when flanking with melee-based spells. However, there are a few spells that can grant advantage on targets by the spells effect.
Flanking is a simple but optional rule from the Dungeon Master’s Guide that allows players to position allies within 5 feet of an enemy to get advantage on attack. Some spells can grant advantage on targets by the spells effect, and some spells can use its spellcasting to get even more skeletons. Flanking is a broken rules option under 5e, with how weak opportunity attacks are and how strong advantage is. It’s trivial to get into flanking.
📹 Dungeons and Dragons: Basics of Flanking & Opportunity Attacks
The basics of Flanking & Opportunity Attacks in the Dungeons and Dragons RPG from Wizards! How the mechanics work, when …
Does flanking give you an advantage?
The 5e rulebook explains that flanking is a tactical move where two allies are placed within 5 feet of an enemy on opposite sides. This allows them to gain an advantage on all melee attack rolls against the enemy. However, ranged PCs cannot flank as they are not within 5 feet of enemies. While flanking is an optional rule, it can be excluded from home games of D and D. DMs decide whether to enforce flanking, based on its perceived complexity or its potential to add strategy and intrigue.
Can spiritual weapons benefit from flanking?
It is not possible for a Spiritual Weapon to grant other creatures a flanking bonus. This is a tactical maneuver whereby two allies are positioned within five feet of an enemy on opposite sides. However, allies are able to provide a flanking bonus to the caster and their Spiritual Weapon. This may occur, for example, if an ally moves within five feet of an enemy and a Spiritual Weapon is on the enemy’s other side.
Why is flanking so effective?
Flanking is a strategic tactic in military strategy, where the enemy’s strength is concentrated at the front. By attacking the side, the attacker is more likely to hit a weaker spot, giving an advantage. In sales, flanking shifts the focus of the prospect’s decision criteria to requirements that favor the solution. Today, buyers have a bias for safety, and to limit perceived risk, established vendors, past relationships, and lower pricing are strong. If you fall short on these criteria, you must do something different.
Does flanking work with spells?
Flanking is a powerful and simple combo that gives both flanking creatures an advantage on their attacks. It works with engaged combatants using melee weapons or spell attacks, and even ranged weapons. However, pairing flanking with features that already give advantage is not recommended. For example, two monks flanking one creature could be a powerful combo, but pairing flanking with features that already give advantage is not smart. Recklessly attacking with flanking with a barbarian would not provide any added benefit.
Can spells be melee attacks?
A melee spell attack represents a mechanical method that enables the casting of a melee attack through the use of one’s spell casting modifier in lieu of the Strength or Dexterity modifier for To-Hit calculations. It should be noted that this is not a ranged attack; therefore, casting in melee range does not disadvantage the caster. This may be attributed to the fact that JavaScript is either disabled or blocked by an extension, or that the browser in question does not support cookies.
What is the advantage rule in D&D?
In Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition, advantage and disadvantage rules were introduced to represent the benefits or disadvantages of a single attack, saving throw, or check. Advantages are given when a player rolls twice, taking the highest result, while disadvantages result in the lowest result. Multiple instances of advantage or disadvantage do not stack, and if a player has both on the same roll, they cancel out. Prior to this, players would apply a numeric bonus or penalty to the roll to represent circumstances that would favor or hinder them.
However, large numbers of small bonuses became difficult to track, especially in D and D 4th edition, where many powers applied small bonuses or penalties. This created a situation where someone with multiple small bonuses could achieve a higher result than normal.
What gives advantage in 5e?
The Dodge action during combat disadvantages the opponent until the start of the next turn, while Dexterity saving throws are made with advantage. The Help action can give an ally an advantage in their ability checks or on the first of an ally’s attack rolls against a monster. Attacking an enemy while hidden or unseen grants an advantage on attack rolls, while attacking an enemy you can’t see has you making them with disadvantage.
Ranged attacks within a weapon’s long range have a disadvantage on the attack roll. Ranged attacks in close combat have a disadvantage on the attack roll. Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight are made at a disadvantage in lightly obscured areas.
Beacon of Hope causes targets to have advantage on Wisdom and death saving throws. Blur causes creatures to have disadvantage on attack rolls against the opponent if they rely on sight. Charm Person, Dominate Person, and Dominate Monster do their Wisdom saving throws with advantage if you and/or someone friendly to you are fighting them. Wisdom saving throws against ill effects of Dream are made at a disadvantage if the caster has a portion of the target’s body.
Foresight has advantage on attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws. The next attack roll against a target hit by Guiding Bolt has advantage. Consuming food and drinks generated by Heroes’ Feast makes all Wisdom saving throws with advantage for the next 24 hours. Creatures within the radius of a Holy Aura have advantage on all saving throws, while Casting Resurrection on a dead creature causes the caster to have disadvantage on all attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws until they finish a long rest.
Do spells get disadvantage in melee?
The book posits that positioning oneself within five feet of an active foe represents a disadvantage with respect to ranged attacks, whether missile or spell-based.
How does flanking work in magic?
Flanking is a triggered ability that occurs during the declare blockers step. In the event that a blocking creature encounters a creature without flanking, the blocking creature will lose -1/-1 until the end of the turn.
Can spells deal non lethal damage?
In the context of 5e, spells have the potential to inflict nonlethal damage if they inflict melee damage. A spellcaster may utilize alternative damage-inflicting spells to weaken an adversary before employing one of the listed spells to strike the target with the final blow, thereby rendering them unconscious.
What is the rule of flanking in Magic The Gathering?
Flanking is a triggered ability that occurs during the declare blockers step. In the event that a blocking creature encounters a creature without flanking, the blocking creature will lose -1/-1 until the end of the turn.
📹 Flanking NERFS melee martials in D&D 5e!
Please check them out and if you like what they do and want more stuff from them, use the coupon code PACKTACTICS (not case …
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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 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?
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.
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 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 perusal each other’s backs and fighting together. It’s simple, effective, i like it
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.
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.
I totally disagree with you on this. I run flanking in my games, and the melee martials love it. Yes, they sometimes get flanked, but they are situationally aware enough that they will either move out of the flanking position or focus fire on the flanking enemy to remove the danger. There are plenty of situations when flanking an enemy is impractical, so the other ways to get advantage are still relevant. I also play in a game which uses the flat adjustment instead of advantage. The unintended consequence here is that now somebody can get both benefits, for example by combining Reckless Attack with flanking. The players don’t mind, but it does break bounded accuracy, making the Great Weapon Master penalty a joke.
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.
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 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
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 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 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.
Flanking makes certain subclasses way less good. In my first game of dnd i played a samurai fighter, but because of flanking like half of my kit was completely redundant. My current character is a paladin and flanking is the sole reason that I picked oathbof conquest over oath of vengeance. (That and the fact that im a githyanki so i don’t care about the misty step from oath of vengeance since i already get it)
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.
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.
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 hear you. And I’m giving the article a thumbs up. But I disagree with your point and I think flanking is helpful. I see the problems you laid out, and I think the issues that you have with flanking can be solved by making melee martials only. There isn’t enough pushing players into thinking strategically on the battlefield.
Nice article, but this is kind of the first time I understand why people would have issue with you (you once mentioned it). You sound like a MMO player. I do not know if you also play like one, but I can imagine how this would make people extremely worried, agitated or defensive xD, value system sounds broken, it is a value system of a MMO player. Anyway, have fun 🙂
I’ve actually never ran this rule because I knew it’d be too good against players and I argued with my own DM some of the same points here. but recently I’ve had another reason NOT to allow it – a class you missed was necromancer wizard. I’ve got one in my Princes of the Apocalypse campaign. They currently have twelve zoms – which ordinarily would have ALL the proficiencies they had in life I nerfed it to two, and it’s still absurd to think of the level of bs twelve zombies can do for the action economy. The good thing is, zombies have low stats and prof modifiers, which means they’ll struggle to hit things. Flanking would IMMEDIATELY make that necromancer so much more broken than they already are. Especially if they were to go to the upper limit of their level and grab something like 24-30 zombies.
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.
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.
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)
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.
I never liked the advantage disadvantage system. They should just give you a set bonus if you’re an advantageous position. Like a +1 or +2 to attack. In real-life advantages stack. They’re too paranoid about players overpowering the game. Just make the monsters harder. Players will figure out how to beat them. Mechanics like this just aggravate me during the game. It discourages you from being intelligent in game play.
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”.
Flanking does strike me as very flat because you can just buy a dog and have permanent Flanking from a Mastiff for 25g or until it dies and you need to buy a new dog. Or literally any kind of summon. You could argue that a Cleric’s Spirit Weapon should grant you Flanking. If it were a Fighting Style or a class feature available to specific classes/subclasses that focus on a persistent minion (Beastmaster & Battlesmith come to mind) that would be sensible. I’ve just found myself finding very silly things like trying to get a ranged class to get into melee just to flank for the benefit of the Fighter.
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.
Agreed. Flanking is a terrible mechanic in 5e. 3rd edition (for all it’s faults) did it better, since moving through threatened squares was actually dangerous. I would also want to see something like “facing” rules for extra verisimilitude before I’d consider using it (and frankly, I don’t want that much work to do.. so it’s much easier to just jettison the whole thing).
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 never really enjoyed the advantage flanking 5e presented and ageee the 3.5e and pf1e versions worked better. One of my DM’s changed it to a to hit bonus equql to half your proficiency bonus rounded down, and I’ve never looked back. While it still favors monsters in the nunbet of combatant side of things, it now stacks with all existing forms of advantage which makes it now very good with the barbarian reckless attack and similar features. Having it acale with half prof also gives w nice sense of power progression I’ve also combined this with a hoembrew power atack tuke, that allows those making melee wrapon attacks/attacks with melee weapons the ability to trade in half prof to hit for double that penalty in bonus damage. Which pairs well together. Finally, ive been looking into changing opportunity attacks to trigger more like 3.5e and pf1e. When leaving a threatened space, even if wnrerinf anogher ine, provokes an opportunity attack. To avoid this you can spend an action to disengage, half your movement to attempt to tumble, or all of your movement and a free action to 5ft step. This part is still being worked out some, bur the rest has been proven quite beneficial to the game.
I like flanking. I think the argument about mobs being “too strong” with the flanking bonus is not solid. imo, when mobs surround a character, it’s supposed to feel extremely overwhelming. it’s not like it’s a movie where only one enemy swings and waits for the next to die before they engage the hero. they should all stab at the same time, like it would be IRL. if you allow yourself to be surrounded, you should pay the consequences. it makes positioning more important, and makes ranged and spell casters have to help MM more, instead of just hanging back.
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.
One time a player asked why I didn’t use the “optional advantage while flanking rule” in my games bc he thought that most DMs used it. I explained how it nerfs Pack Tactics out of existence and could get really nasty for the PCs if they got surrounded. He said that “most DMs just use it for the players not monsters and npcs” 😒😂
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 😛
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.
By RAW Square and Hex flanking rules are different tho. Maybe not intended… But on squares only melee attacks (no Crossbow Expert close ranged attack), on Hexes all attacks (Happy Crossbow Expert). 😂 Flanking on Squares. 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. Flanking on Hexes. When a creature and at least one of its allies are adjacent to an enemy and on opposite sides of the enemy’s space, they flank that enemy, and each of them has advantage on attack rolls against that enemy.
While I see the problem with everyone having advantage now I disagree with the point of flanking devalueing other features. If my party gets surrounded by Goblins I would rather get advantage through the Paladin on the opposite site of Goblin 1 than using Reckless Attack and then get hit by 5+ goblins both from melee and ranged attacks. Also knocking the target prone is stupid depending on the party as only you and the other martial gets advantage while the Rogue, Ranger and Warlock now have disadvantage, so knocking the enemy prone so that you have advantage is really selfish and hurts the group. Fearie Fire still works wonders considering you still get advantage when opportunity attacks are triggered, if you move up to the enemy for the first time and the enemy cant turn invisible.
Usually agree with you Kobold, but you’re following the consensus on this one and the consensus is wrong. Flanking is a way for martials to gain advantage to hit while preserving action economy, either their own or someone else’s, but especially their own. Almost every instance of a martial being able to set it up themselves has horrific downsides (shove inflicting prone to the detriment of ranged party members, steady aim disallowing movement, reckless giving opponents advantage against you in exchange for advantage on a single attack, etc.), and casters generally have better things to use their concentration on than setting up advantage for martials (no one cast faerie fire past level 2, let’s be real) Meanwhile, flanking gives martials extra hit chance and an extra shot to crit=more DPR, which is literally their job. You even admit in this article that casters can only primarily benefit from it by using high level spells. It’s really just much more of a benefit to melees than anyone else, and not using it strictly really only hurts them.
Ngl I feel like this article super over-emphasized the negatives of flanking and barely even touched the positives. Characters like barbarians are often the ones setting up the first side of the flank to begin with, so their reckless attack can still be very useful. A lot of these tactics mentioned are also ones that you wouldn’t generally be using as effectively if you were flanking to begin with. A team that makes use of the prone condition for example absolutely wants to take advantage of the halved speed getting up. Plenty of these things grant advantage, but that doesn’t mean they’re granting advantage in the exact same context. The caster thing seems especially silly since conjure animals and animate objects are already controversial spells that frequently get banned from games. It’d be like taking some niche mechanic that somehow makes simulacrum better and then blaming the mechanic on the martial caster divide. And then ofc the big winner of dnd 5e flanking that really could use any help it can get: Rogues. Yes Rogues can get sneak attack 5 feet from an ally, but they don’t get the advantage. You’re essentially halving the amount of attack rolls for your rogue in nearly every context you don’t have an ally with an ability to make a target stunned or prone. And that’s a really harsh penalty on a class that naturally gets 2 attacks at best (one of them being a bonus action attack). Not gonna say I can’t think of a good number of contexts where I wouldn’t want flanking in my game, but that’s also probably why it’s optional in the first place
Flanking means a barb doesnt need to reckless, sure, but it also means they didnt reckless… So attacks against them wont have advantage. – thats good imo. IDC if something “devalues” a spell. Spells are so much stronger than martial that if something i add to make martials stronger somehow weakens some spell then oh well, that caster can literally find another completely different option. My change to flanking used to be that flanking lets you help as a bonus action, and that creature cannot flank or benefit from pack tactics during the time theyre being flanked. Ive since gone with a flanked creature cannot benefit from flanking, and flanking adds your allies prof bonus to your attacks. Another change i considered was that if an ally hits an enemy with a melee attack on their turn, the next attack made against that enemy within melee range has advantage provided the enemy hasn’t taken their turn in that round. But ever since i started using overrun and tumble through, i found that players started positioning themselves in a much more interesting way than flank or simple door blocking. Where they double up on doors since that requires a creature make 2 checks to tumble/overrun and flanking can be defeated by a tumble/overrun.
In one of the games I was in the dm ran flanking, but instead of advantage it was +1d4 like bless, and I believe it’s only for players but I’m not one to peak around the screen. Honestly it wasn’t that impactful, nice when it saved a roll but but it didn’t make the game more tactical and half our builds don’t need it
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.
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.
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 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.
I don’t think flanking is simply a matter of occupying a space next to a hostile foe, but you have to intelligently keep threatening and taunting a foe to keep them from focusing their attention elsewhere. I already thought that a flanked creature can’t benefit from flanking because it’s not realistic otherwise. Most animals aren’t smart enough to benefit from flanking either and certainly not animated objects. The reason I don’t like it is purely because it makes some melee class features useless but overall, it does seem to work out as a buff to melee players in most campaigns most of the time unless they fight a lot of smart mobs instead of single monsters or not very clever ones.
I don’t enjoy flanking rules as written. Advantage is less powerful the more accessible it is in the game. +2 to hit stacks with everything, isn’t so ubiquitous that you’re Dumb for not flanking, and is valuable enough to actually pursue. The difference between 19 and 21 AC can be utterly prohibitive. Plus, the +2 to hit offsets the benefits of a shield, which is unidirectional so it makes sense.
I have a solution that technically works, but makes things a little weird: Have Flanking only work for PCs. Since Flanking is a melee buff only it would mean they get the benefits without the detriments; But if you think about the narrative flow it wouldn’t make sense for NPCs to not have the option.
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).
Flanking is a boost to martails, not needing to have a spell caster or having to use a class feature to generate advantage only ups their damage. Plus it gives people a reason to move in combat. If your surrounded by monsters it makes since to try to escape. And conjure animals and animate objects are broken without advantage. If they are cast the combat is a win anyway. I’d rather have consistent benifets as a martial the entire game then worry about the few situations where you have a druid or a 9th level wizard. The big thing to me is making positioning matter I try to encourage flanking and cover for such reasons. I do make it a +2 or +5 just because I like it.
How to fix flanking. “A creature cannot gain the benefit of flanking if they are themselves the potential target of a current flanking maneuver.” Now in your example of the conga line, only the outer characters have flanking advantage, which may mean players avoid the stupidity of a conga line in the first place.
I know I’m about to give a spicy take, but I think a lot of the problems with flanking have to do with battlefield design. It’s easy to flank in wide open areas, but much less often in tight enclosures, heavy forests or cluttered rooms. I’m not saying open spaces should be eliminated or even less common, but flanking if allowed, is a strong option for units that can’t otherwise gain advantage. Allowing enemy units to flank also makes combat scaling easier, since you won’t have to raise the stakes with higher powered enemies, just make them fight smarter. It’s ironic that the argument against the martial/caster divide is brought up here, as quite a few arguments against flanking are in defense of various spells that grant advantage. Flat, static map designs make combat stale, not optional mechanics that incentivize movement and battle positioning. If you’re worried about how your miniatures look while they’re flanking each other, it can’t really be helped if the battle map facilitates it. Just because flanking makes groups of enemies potentially more challenging, and particular spells or abilities slightly less optimal, doesn’t mean a nerf for martials. Melee combat shouldn’t be as easy as slinging a mind blasting spell, or sniping from a safe, hidden distance, but flanking makes it more fun if you’re always aware of yours and your opponent’s positioning. What makes combat more lame as a martial is having to rely on a caster to help me hit a target.
PF2 turning literally everything into Advantage was terrible (even if mechanically distinct from D&D). I think I counted 42 different ways to get advantage against an opponent in the core playtest rulebook. Some of them were super easy to have happen. Some of them were not. As flanking was one such way, and was relatively easy to achieve, it devalued all the others and resulted in boss fights basically being a “stack all the debuffs.” Flank, Prone, Sick, Frightened, Blinded Whereupon you’d kick the downed enemy until they expired, like some kind of school yard bully. And you needed all of those stacked debuffs otherwise you basically couldn’t hit and deal damage at all. The “exceed by 10 is an automatic crit” was another one that looked good on paper, but ended up being detrimental to players, as it either never came up, or it was against an enemy that having auto-crits against wasn’t necessary, or the boss would crit a player on nearly every attack.
Advantage can be cancelled out by Disadvantage, so if you’re in a game that’s using Flanking your best bet is to seek options that can give multiple enemies disadvantage. Unfortunately, every option I can think of involves some kind of spell. Or punching monsters sick as a Way of Mercy Monk. Polearm Master and Sentinel should help a bit with the running around. Unfortunately there are people who prefer to wield weapons besides Dave’s Perfect Weapon.
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.
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.
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)
That particular example from Descryb with the market is not a great one. Most of the Descryb paragraphs are decent, but having someone who is selling leather being described as ‘deeply tanned’ is exceptionally silly unless they’re going for the pun on purpose. I feel like a lot of people include flanking because it just sort of feels real and reasonable, but this article makes a lot of excellent points.
I don’t make Flanking give advantage. I make it reduce the target’s armor class by 2. This makes it stack with advantage. I also make it so that if you hit 10 above an enemies armor class, you crit. So this also increases crit chance. This is a buff to martials in my game, even if it’s easy to pull off.
While i do like pack tactics, he did not explain at all how this nerfs a melee class. the argument that if it is used then it simply buffs the enemies more than the players, but that argument can be added to just about any optional rule that an enemy can use. second it buffs spells that summon allies, once again not a nerf to melee users and instead a buff to magic users. All in all his arguments are terrible to explain why flanking is bad, with no real reason to not use the rules. Things he ignores is that using flanking is a safe way to get advantage for melee users to get around enemies that might have higher AC or something like blur active. Additionally it gives rogues a way of getting sneak attack more reliably if they want to play melee and not have to constantly pop in and out of hiding. Additionally it adds in a positioning incentive to melees rather than just all grouping up on one side as well as positioning incentives to move into places where you cant get flanked to protect yourself, which is far more interesting than not caring about where enemies are around you. Lastly he argues that it makes certain class features and spells redundant, but that is also incorrect. Barbarians can use their reckless when they take on an enemy by themselves or in areas where you cant flank, while not using it in areas where you don’t need to so you arent crippling yourself to maybe hit more. Flanking reduces the need to make yourself vulnerable just to be more likely to hit. As for faeri fire, you risk hitting allies if you’re in a group, and you would still use it when there are multiple enemies grouped up, not for one person unless they are invisible.
I’ll be the first to say that I think advantage flanking isn’t great and that I much prefer a flat +2. However, the argument that it invalidates features could just as easily be applied to both Pack Tactics (invalidates most sources of advantage) and Steady Aim (negates a Rogue’s need to Hide if they’re in at a safe distance or your DM allows the mount thing), yet I never hear anyone complain about either. I also think the MCDM Flee, Mortals! rules for minions where minions make one collective attack and the damage/to hit bonus scales with creatures contributing would mostly solve the issue of combats with many creatures. Creatures tougher than minion level probably shouldn’t have so many of them in a fight anyways (regardless of balance, just for the sake of time/enjoyability). Finally, just ban Conjure Animals and Animate Objects already, lol. Clearly problematic spells and there’s no need to hold other things back on their behalf
the young bloods trying to figure out shit that 3.5 had on lock, flanking made more sense when you have to use general tactics, like, the box formation to keep the casters safe, most of the front liners would have cleave and after dwindling the numbers of the enemy they would breaking the box to flank and cleave, no 5e conga line in sight just 5 foot step into full round attack.
just 👏use 👏facing 👏 it’s like flanking (in that it provides conditional advantage based on positioning), but it has way more room for interaction (creatures can choose where they face as part of their movement) and scales linearly with size category (medium creatures can have no more than 1 creature in their blindspot, large creatures can have no more than 2, huge 3, etc.). creatures can also use their reaction to respond attempts to move into their blindspot by making opportunity attacks (if the creature hasn’t disengaged) or change their facing (if they have). the one “problem” is that it nerfs shields even further, but we made up for that by giving shield master away for free to anyone who choose shield as their weapon mastery.
I always respect the perspective of other. I have to hard disagree on here. Flanking adds another level of combat fluidity that allows to open up enemies (on both sides) to other abilities and spells. Example 1: Battle Master and Barbarian wombo combo. Flanking against an enemy allows both of these guys the bonus. This way Barbarian DOESNT have to take damage from higher chances of being hit. They’re MAKING attacks thus rage isn’t lost. Battle master has better chances of getting their features off. Movement order and issue? Ready action the attack action. Problem solved. Example 2: focus firing enemies in smaller areas. Flanking here makes attacks land more often thus removing threats faster. Yes the conga line is really silly but an organized party can easily prevent this. Plus enemies will huddle making this harder but recall, any orientation around the flanked creature works it doesn’t have to be up and down or left to right. Example 3: Double opportunity Should a flanked creature try to leave it will need to be hit by at least 1 of the flanking creatures. Thus flanking is a free of charge lockdown. Not for action economy but to prevent enemies from retreating and saving their health resource. Which is arguably the most important. Example 4: No real fourth just teamwork makes the dream work and marital having this level or co-op in battle builds them up. I agree martials need a buff but taking features that give them a clear advantage isn’t the way. Dnd should work with the “spell slot” system and make a resource that martials can pull from using these points.
I disagree since flanking means you want to prevent enemies from getting to your back line while supporting your front. Flanking also only works for melee PC. When you set up everyone to surround one target it’s just a bad idea. Without flanking a person can be surrounded on all sides without advantage. While I agree another rule could be in place I think it makes sense game wise.
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
TL;DR – For a more realistic game the DM shouldn’t be trying to copy the players and squeezing out optimization like that. The conga line only happens if everyone is trying to gain that advantage, which is unrealistic. Disclaimer – If your group likes flanking and the conga line stuff, there is nothing wrong with that This would only happen if the DM is playing its Monsters/NPCs like they would a player. Flanking shouldn’t be some thing the DM uses unless its trained soldiers or warriors ( hunter tribes ). You could probably throw rogues into the mix but they’d also maybe use traps and defiantly try to prevent people from getting behind them. Those who wouldn’t do that might be less intelligent/stupid or cautious/smart enemies that wouldn’t jump straight into the conga line, the latter would keep its distance ( like mages, archers etc ). That also doesn’t take into account enemies who may have honor and the DM has them actively attack from the front, even some lowly gangsters/ruffians might have this.
I would argue flanking makes sense as a feature some characters and monsters have. Give wolves the ability to flank, give it to fighters as a training thing, etc. If it’s not universal, then you get the ability to add more challenging encounters, with enemies the work together, and more flavorful or unique builds. Plus, like everyone else has already said, being back numerical bonuses, not advantage for everything
At our table we use a hex map and facing rules, at the end of your turn you declare your facing, and can lock onto a creature as a minor action. Flanking does not exist, instead a cone behind a creature we call the “backstab zone” which gives you advantage to hit. A creature about to be hit from behind can however use a reaction to alter their facing if they are aware that you are there, negating the advantage. Works nicely honestly, and means that my rogue is constantly looking too attack enemies who are being overwhelmed, instead of just enemies already fighting.
I like encouraging my players to attempt cinematic stunts for advantage, so I disallow flanking advantage. Also bc it encourages other things as you said. It’s a buff to actual tactical options like the help action and shoves. Something I wanna try out that I just thought of is allowing people with extra attack to replace one of their attacks with the help action. It seems like it should work as it’s less potentially beneficial than a shove but more reliable. Plus, it makes it so the help action may actually be worth it sometimes instead of forgoing your entire attack action
In general, yes, but it can be great, especially for high ac PCs and barbarians. They have enough survivability for the advantage to be worth it. That being said, starting in our next campaign we are going to be changing our flanking rules to adding positive modifiers instead of advantage, because it complete eliminates the need for any other tactics, and means if the spellcaster doesn’t roll high in initiative, welp, no aoe spells for you, your friends are in a conga
One house rule I’m contemplating is a buff for Monks. Because martial artists train in tactics to fight groups of enemies, I would add a feature for at least the Open Hand Monks, and perhaps others as well, where at 4th level it takes 3 enemies to get flanking advantage on you, at 8th level it takes 4 enemies to get flanking advantage on you, at 12th level it’s impossible to get flanking advantage on you. And if anyone wants to bring up the “experts” online who say this isn’t real and only in movies would 1 person successfully fight a group, I’ve done it. Not only have I trained in fighting against groups, but in real life I once fought off a gang of 8 average sized guys, and another time fought off 5 guys who were all bigger than me and who all thought they were better trained than me. If you haven’t trained specifically in how to fight against groups, then yes, any group that attacks you will definitely have all the advantages. But if you are well trained in tactics for fighting against groups, then you actually have some big advantages against them.
Pathfinder 2E kinda fixed this by using an enhanced version of D&D4E “combat advantage”, by making the target Off-Guard (takes -2 to AC), but it can greatly heighten crit chance and be stacked with a “Help” action this way. The “conga” problem is also diminished because you may perform a Reactive Strike when someone performs Movement (other than Step / Disengage), even if not necessarily outside of your melee range. Flanking does actually make mobility and positioning more advantageous and has some depth. If you want to add Flanking in D&D, I’ve had a lot of fun with doing it this way: • Flanking actually allows you to call on an ally to perform an AoO. • A Flanked character cannot make AoO. • Martial Player characters only (requires 3+ levels in that Class) Rogues, Fighters, and Monks were soooo much fun for us with this experiment.
I usually agree with your vids, but this one I’m not so sure. – You assume that there are more enemies than PCs, and justified it saying this was the most common scenario, but this is REALLY DM dependent. – Yes, advantage does negate some PC features, but like you said in your gun monk article, we can just look at the other features. Like, with flanking you get Reckless Attack but don’t have to worry about incoming attacks! – Conga lines are pretty easy to break up if you move sideways 5 ft, with allies alternating, forming a zigzag. – Yes it’s tactically easy to flank, which makes it strong for the people who would benefit most and imo is much more interesting than everyone fighting at range. – Flanking boosting stuff like Conjure Animals is less a problem with flanking than it is a problem that Conjure Animals is broken – Casters don’t get to use flanking much; they normally focus on ranged attacks and forcing saving throws – Yes it boosts monsters. But a good DM will take this into consideration and use less/weaker monsters – Overall flanking is just an extra option for martials, and extra options are never bad
I have always hated flanking due to its complete redundancy if there’s another Advantage option, but also because it’s just too easy to use. I’ve been trying to figure a way to make it work, but eventually I landed on requiring a Perk (or Feat, despite Perk being a far superior term to describe it) to make use of a Pack Tactics benefit, but it’s a flat bonus to Melee Attacks only, and the bonus scales depending on how far away you are from the ally with whom you are surrounding the Target.