Originally Posted by DragonSnooz
Originally Posted by Mecrutio
why do you think rangers and fighters shouldn't have been getting a flanking benefit?
I have mixed feeling with flanking:
5e's flanking turns into everyone has advantage, and that's boring. The risk of combat goes away, and initiative order settles combat outcomes.
Flanking providing +2 to hit is alright, but can still have a domino effect.
Also with how many encounters the party is outnumbered in BG3, flanking would work against the player more often than for the player.

Cover or a homebrewed "flanked" would be more appropriate for BG3. Flanked being something like... if the character has an enemies on two or more sides -1 AC and 1/2 movement.

Flanking requires two people on both sides of a enemy, this is pretty average (optional) mechanic on multiple editions of d&d. For a rogue to get sneak attack requires advantage; push, disengage, and what not will get you out of it. Flanking also requires you to be near the target, archers and spellcasters are not going to be near a target, along with the party only being four total.

I'd take this any day over leap frog backstab.

example: when surrounded by a horde of goblins, you should be at a disadvantage or they should have a advantage.

Last edited by fallenj; 15/07/21 05:14 PM.