How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?












24












$begingroup$


I’ve heard this phrase being thrown around sometimes on other game tables. Apparently, it describes a straight line of melee combatants on a grid, alternating between members of two opposing groups. This only occurs if the Flanking Variant Rule are used. Under these circumstances, the Conga Line of Death makes sense from a mechanical standpoint, as every melee combatant wants to get advantage on their attack rolls. If this rule were in place, player characters as well as NPCs would understand the in-universe ramifications and probably try to get into a superior position every time, leading to the aforementioned Conga Line of Death.



Now my question is: How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?



The obvious answer would be: “Don’t use the Flanking Variant Rule”. Well, I for one like to grant some form of advantage, when two combatants gang up on their opponent. And it kind of makes sense, that it is easier to hit somebody who has to avoid the attacks of two enemies. So I want to keep Flanking in my game, but like to prevent the Conga Line of Death.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 17




    $begingroup$
    For those answering, please remember that this is not for idea generation. Answers should be supported by actual table experience on what things worked/didn't work/etc. Idea generation answers should be down voted.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To clarify the last paragraph, are you looking for something that makes the Flanking rules, specifically, not result in the CLoD? Or is an alternative, which avoids the CLodD yet achieves the same effects you cite as reasons to keep Flanking, acceptable?
    $endgroup$
    – sevenbrokenbricks
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @sevenbrokenbricks The concept of Flanking makes sense to me and I would like to keep some form of beenfit resulting from it. But I am not married to the official Variant Flanking Rules. Feel free to suggest a better way if you have one.
    $endgroup$
    – hohenheim
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When asking for other flanking rules (per your comment above), are you looking for homebrew (TESTED!) variants or things to do instead of flanking? Whichever it is, please add it to your question.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @asgallant Please see this meta for why your comment was removed. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – doppelgreener
    5 hours ago
















24












$begingroup$


I’ve heard this phrase being thrown around sometimes on other game tables. Apparently, it describes a straight line of melee combatants on a grid, alternating between members of two opposing groups. This only occurs if the Flanking Variant Rule are used. Under these circumstances, the Conga Line of Death makes sense from a mechanical standpoint, as every melee combatant wants to get advantage on their attack rolls. If this rule were in place, player characters as well as NPCs would understand the in-universe ramifications and probably try to get into a superior position every time, leading to the aforementioned Conga Line of Death.



Now my question is: How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?



The obvious answer would be: “Don’t use the Flanking Variant Rule”. Well, I for one like to grant some form of advantage, when two combatants gang up on their opponent. And it kind of makes sense, that it is easier to hit somebody who has to avoid the attacks of two enemies. So I want to keep Flanking in my game, but like to prevent the Conga Line of Death.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 17




    $begingroup$
    For those answering, please remember that this is not for idea generation. Answers should be supported by actual table experience on what things worked/didn't work/etc. Idea generation answers should be down voted.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To clarify the last paragraph, are you looking for something that makes the Flanking rules, specifically, not result in the CLoD? Or is an alternative, which avoids the CLodD yet achieves the same effects you cite as reasons to keep Flanking, acceptable?
    $endgroup$
    – sevenbrokenbricks
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @sevenbrokenbricks The concept of Flanking makes sense to me and I would like to keep some form of beenfit resulting from it. But I am not married to the official Variant Flanking Rules. Feel free to suggest a better way if you have one.
    $endgroup$
    – hohenheim
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When asking for other flanking rules (per your comment above), are you looking for homebrew (TESTED!) variants or things to do instead of flanking? Whichever it is, please add it to your question.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @asgallant Please see this meta for why your comment was removed. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – doppelgreener
    5 hours ago














24












24








24


2



$begingroup$


I’ve heard this phrase being thrown around sometimes on other game tables. Apparently, it describes a straight line of melee combatants on a grid, alternating between members of two opposing groups. This only occurs if the Flanking Variant Rule are used. Under these circumstances, the Conga Line of Death makes sense from a mechanical standpoint, as every melee combatant wants to get advantage on their attack rolls. If this rule were in place, player characters as well as NPCs would understand the in-universe ramifications and probably try to get into a superior position every time, leading to the aforementioned Conga Line of Death.



Now my question is: How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?



The obvious answer would be: “Don’t use the Flanking Variant Rule”. Well, I for one like to grant some form of advantage, when two combatants gang up on their opponent. And it kind of makes sense, that it is easier to hit somebody who has to avoid the attacks of two enemies. So I want to keep Flanking in my game, but like to prevent the Conga Line of Death.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I’ve heard this phrase being thrown around sometimes on other game tables. Apparently, it describes a straight line of melee combatants on a grid, alternating between members of two opposing groups. This only occurs if the Flanking Variant Rule are used. Under these circumstances, the Conga Line of Death makes sense from a mechanical standpoint, as every melee combatant wants to get advantage on their attack rolls. If this rule were in place, player characters as well as NPCs would understand the in-universe ramifications and probably try to get into a superior position every time, leading to the aforementioned Conga Line of Death.



Now my question is: How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?



The obvious answer would be: “Don’t use the Flanking Variant Rule”. Well, I for one like to grant some form of advantage, when two combatants gang up on their opponent. And it kind of makes sense, that it is easier to hit somebody who has to avoid the attacks of two enemies. So I want to keep Flanking in my game, but like to prevent the Conga Line of Death.







dnd-5e house-rules flanking






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









V2Blast

25k383155




25k383155










asked 15 hours ago









hohenheimhohenheim

2,6141260




2,6141260








  • 17




    $begingroup$
    For those answering, please remember that this is not for idea generation. Answers should be supported by actual table experience on what things worked/didn't work/etc. Idea generation answers should be down voted.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To clarify the last paragraph, are you looking for something that makes the Flanking rules, specifically, not result in the CLoD? Or is an alternative, which avoids the CLodD yet achieves the same effects you cite as reasons to keep Flanking, acceptable?
    $endgroup$
    – sevenbrokenbricks
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @sevenbrokenbricks The concept of Flanking makes sense to me and I would like to keep some form of beenfit resulting from it. But I am not married to the official Variant Flanking Rules. Feel free to suggest a better way if you have one.
    $endgroup$
    – hohenheim
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When asking for other flanking rules (per your comment above), are you looking for homebrew (TESTED!) variants or things to do instead of flanking? Whichever it is, please add it to your question.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @asgallant Please see this meta for why your comment was removed. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – doppelgreener
    5 hours ago














  • 17




    $begingroup$
    For those answering, please remember that this is not for idea generation. Answers should be supported by actual table experience on what things worked/didn't work/etc. Idea generation answers should be down voted.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    15 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To clarify the last paragraph, are you looking for something that makes the Flanking rules, specifically, not result in the CLoD? Or is an alternative, which avoids the CLodD yet achieves the same effects you cite as reasons to keep Flanking, acceptable?
    $endgroup$
    – sevenbrokenbricks
    12 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @sevenbrokenbricks The concept of Flanking makes sense to me and I would like to keep some form of beenfit resulting from it. But I am not married to the official Variant Flanking Rules. Feel free to suggest a better way if you have one.
    $endgroup$
    – hohenheim
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    When asking for other flanking rules (per your comment above), are you looking for homebrew (TESTED!) variants or things to do instead of flanking? Whichever it is, please add it to your question.
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @asgallant Please see this meta for why your comment was removed. Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – doppelgreener
    5 hours ago








17




17




$begingroup$
For those answering, please remember that this is not for idea generation. Answers should be supported by actual table experience on what things worked/didn't work/etc. Idea generation answers should be down voted.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
15 hours ago




$begingroup$
For those answering, please remember that this is not for idea generation. Answers should be supported by actual table experience on what things worked/didn't work/etc. Idea generation answers should be down voted.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
15 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
To clarify the last paragraph, are you looking for something that makes the Flanking rules, specifically, not result in the CLoD? Or is an alternative, which avoids the CLodD yet achieves the same effects you cite as reasons to keep Flanking, acceptable?
$endgroup$
– sevenbrokenbricks
12 hours ago




$begingroup$
To clarify the last paragraph, are you looking for something that makes the Flanking rules, specifically, not result in the CLoD? Or is an alternative, which avoids the CLodD yet achieves the same effects you cite as reasons to keep Flanking, acceptable?
$endgroup$
– sevenbrokenbricks
12 hours ago












$begingroup$
@sevenbrokenbricks The concept of Flanking makes sense to me and I would like to keep some form of beenfit resulting from it. But I am not married to the official Variant Flanking Rules. Feel free to suggest a better way if you have one.
$endgroup$
– hohenheim
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
@sevenbrokenbricks The concept of Flanking makes sense to me and I would like to keep some form of beenfit resulting from it. But I am not married to the official Variant Flanking Rules. Feel free to suggest a better way if you have one.
$endgroup$
– hohenheim
11 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
When asking for other flanking rules (per your comment above), are you looking for homebrew (TESTED!) variants or things to do instead of flanking? Whichever it is, please add it to your question.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
When asking for other flanking rules (per your comment above), are you looking for homebrew (TESTED!) variants or things to do instead of flanking? Whichever it is, please add it to your question.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
10 hours ago












$begingroup$
@asgallant Please see this meta for why your comment was removed. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– doppelgreener
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
@asgallant Please see this meta for why your comment was removed. Thanks!
$endgroup$
– doppelgreener
5 hours ago










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















50












$begingroup$

Negation of Advantage



At our table we use the Variant Flanking rules, however we noticed the same problem as yourself, and added the corollary that you cannot gain Advantage from a Flank if you yourself are being Flanked. The thematic justification was that you are busy trying to cover your own back and can't put all of your attention onto exploiting the enemy's defensive gaps.



This is justified mechanically under the rules for gaining advantage and disadvantage:




The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant Advantage or impose Disadvantage as a result.




It led to players holding formations, covering each others back and using the terrain more to their advantage, using low walls and pillars to block enemy movement into the now more limited flanking positions.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This seems like a good solution, can you describe the effects it had on the table? Did players stop using this strategy?
    $endgroup$
    – Rubiksmoose
    14 hours ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Rubiksmoose, Done so, the general effect was basically using terrain and relying on one another for protection, not just to kill the enemy ASAP. I also really need to memorise the format for title lines...
    $endgroup$
    – Fifth_H0r5eman
    14 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @IlmariKaronen, A and Y would have advantage, yet X and B would effectively have been granted disadvantage by being flanked, so would not have advantage. This means only the ends of the chain get advantage, so X and B would only benefit by breaking the chain. It seems to have worked as incentive enough to have a prevented no more than two players and two enemies ending up in this scenario, and there are generally more advantageous positions to be in for both parties
    $endgroup$
    – Fifth_H0r5eman
    12 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @CaptainMan, Exactly, they're focusing more on defending themselves from two opponents than capitalising on the openings in defenses
    $endgroup$
    – Fifth_H0r5eman
    12 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Noted. I just didn't want you to have to explain that stuff again after the comments get cleaned up if the same curiosities/ambiguities arise again.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    10 hours ago



















11












$begingroup$

We have not experienced the conga line, it may not be as a big of a concern as you think



My tables have used the flanking rules on a grid for about 5 years and we're a heavily combat focused group - and I don't think we've ever gotten in a congo line. This may be a mix of our own playstyle just not wanting to conga line, but I think it's also in how we approach combat.



But why? That's one is a better harder to parse, but I think it's for a few reasons:




  1. Grouping together leads to possible Fireball Formations (everyone being caught in an Area Effect if cast)

  2. Enemies are a mix of melee and ranged attacks that forces the group to work together across the map

  3. Enemies have often come in waves which also forces us to be prepared. Keeping everyone centralized or in a line does not put us in a defensible position to cover each other.


The above are possible reasons why we haven't experienced it which makes me think maybe this isn't as much of a problem as you think it may be.



As a DM, you should be considering tactics. As players, we are aware of and concerned about Area Effect spells (including things that travel along a straight line) and if this tactic starts to become overused, you can counter with those types of spells and using creatures with resistance/immunity to the associated damage types to let your players know that this choice may not be the safest.



Given the above, I wouldn't make any changes/do anything different until you actually see a problem occurring at your table.



But utilizing some of the things I've noticed about our encounter designs may help reduce the odds if you do start to see your players lining up for you :)



Flanking does present another issue: More advantage triggered mechanics



The most 'problematic' thing I've seen with flanking is that minimizes the difficulty of getting advantage for many abilities that trigger off of that mechanic. It's much easier to get, which means those abilities trigger much more often (and other abilities become unnecessary because it's relatively easy to flank compared to the other advantage giving mechanics.)






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    #1 doesn't seem like as much of a countermeasure given that the "conga line of death" is a line alternating between the enemies and you/your allies, all in a line for the purposes of flanking. Thus, fireball would affect the other enemies as much as it does you/your allies, so enemies are unlikely to fireball the whole group (unless they're a third party opposed to both groups).
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @V2Blast Unless the enemies have resistance/immunity to whatever the AoE is. But again, I'm listing things that we consider when engaging in combat and what might affect our decisions. We've been...burned...by grouping together in the past (enemies nearby or not.)
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    6 hours ago



















0












$begingroup$

Noah Antwiler has a video about the Conga Line of Death. At ~29:52 into the video, he suggests using group initiative to prevent the Conga Line of Death forming in a combat encounter.



Although I haven't tried this rule, the Side Initiative option (page 270 in the 5e DMG) allows players to use group initiative. Since players & monsters are moving as a group rather than one by one, combatants would be encouraged to maintain a solid rank (shoulder to shoulder) to avoid being flanked.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    -2












    $begingroup$

    The monsters aren't stupid. A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight. So (if you're the DM) have the monsters pick a target and try to knock them unconscious before moving on to the next. This doesn't mean drawing attacks of opportunity - don't take more damage than you should.



    And now that I've mentioned attacks of opportunity: 5e is really bad for flanking. Why? It's because you can freely move around opponents without provoking attacks of opportunity, so flanking is essentially free. If you use the 3.5 rules attacks of opportunity, it works out better. To make it work, you also need the 5-foot step. The relevant changes:




    • Moving out of a threatened square provokes an AOO, even if you remain within the creature's reach.


    • Once a turn, if you make no other movement during the turn, you may move 5 feet without provoking an attack of opportunity for free.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Have you tried flanking with these rules and experienced these 'really bad' issues? 5e and 3.5e are different rulesets, saying variant rules are bad compared to another system isn't necessarily a fair comparison - especially if you haven't actually used these rules at your table. If you have, please add that.
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      13 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @NautArch Yes, I have. The problem isn't a playability thing. It's really bad from a game design perspective; having flanking with 5e's AoO rules leads to a degenerate combat system, where the answer to "How to fight in melee" is always "flank", which doesn't occur in 3.5. It's bad because the design goals of the system are different - 5e is less a miniatures combat game than 3.5 is. That's not to say you can't play it that way (and enjoy it!), but it's two parts of a system working against each other. I'm happy to wax eloquent on my game design theory thoughts, but instead I summarized.
      $endgroup$
      – Spitemaster
      12 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      "A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight" - I don't think anyone (monster or players) takes a Conga line formation on purpose. It happens unintentionally, because both players and enemies are trying to do what you're suggesting - focus on one opponent at a time.
      $endgroup$
      – dwizum
      6 hours ago



















    -3












    $begingroup$

    If the benefit from flanking is significant enough that you'd be foolish to turn it down (and we can argue about that another time), then equally, being flanked imposes a penalty that you'd be foolish to accept. Given the premise, people should be stepping out of the conga line to avoid being flanked as often as they step into it to flank others. Which means that the conga line will never have an opportunity to form.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Ross Thompson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
      $endgroup$
      – V2Blast
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
      $endgroup$
      – Sdjz
      6 hours ago











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "122"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143441%2fhow-can-i-as-dm-avoid-the-conga-line-of-death-occurring-when-implementing-some%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    50












    $begingroup$

    Negation of Advantage



    At our table we use the Variant Flanking rules, however we noticed the same problem as yourself, and added the corollary that you cannot gain Advantage from a Flank if you yourself are being Flanked. The thematic justification was that you are busy trying to cover your own back and can't put all of your attention onto exploiting the enemy's defensive gaps.



    This is justified mechanically under the rules for gaining advantage and disadvantage:




    The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant Advantage or impose Disadvantage as a result.




    It led to players holding formations, covering each others back and using the terrain more to their advantage, using low walls and pillars to block enemy movement into the now more limited flanking positions.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This seems like a good solution, can you describe the effects it had on the table? Did players stop using this strategy?
      $endgroup$
      – Rubiksmoose
      14 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Rubiksmoose, Done so, the general effect was basically using terrain and relying on one another for protection, not just to kill the enemy ASAP. I also really need to memorise the format for title lines...
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      14 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @IlmariKaronen, A and Y would have advantage, yet X and B would effectively have been granted disadvantage by being flanked, so would not have advantage. This means only the ends of the chain get advantage, so X and B would only benefit by breaking the chain. It seems to have worked as incentive enough to have a prevented no more than two players and two enemies ending up in this scenario, and there are generally more advantageous positions to be in for both parties
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      12 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @CaptainMan, Exactly, they're focusing more on defending themselves from two opponents than capitalising on the openings in defenses
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      12 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Noted. I just didn't want you to have to explain that stuff again after the comments get cleaned up if the same curiosities/ambiguities arise again.
      $endgroup$
      – Bloodcinder
      10 hours ago
















    50












    $begingroup$

    Negation of Advantage



    At our table we use the Variant Flanking rules, however we noticed the same problem as yourself, and added the corollary that you cannot gain Advantage from a Flank if you yourself are being Flanked. The thematic justification was that you are busy trying to cover your own back and can't put all of your attention onto exploiting the enemy's defensive gaps.



    This is justified mechanically under the rules for gaining advantage and disadvantage:




    The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant Advantage or impose Disadvantage as a result.




    It led to players holding formations, covering each others back and using the terrain more to their advantage, using low walls and pillars to block enemy movement into the now more limited flanking positions.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This seems like a good solution, can you describe the effects it had on the table? Did players stop using this strategy?
      $endgroup$
      – Rubiksmoose
      14 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Rubiksmoose, Done so, the general effect was basically using terrain and relying on one another for protection, not just to kill the enemy ASAP. I also really need to memorise the format for title lines...
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      14 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @IlmariKaronen, A and Y would have advantage, yet X and B would effectively have been granted disadvantage by being flanked, so would not have advantage. This means only the ends of the chain get advantage, so X and B would only benefit by breaking the chain. It seems to have worked as incentive enough to have a prevented no more than two players and two enemies ending up in this scenario, and there are generally more advantageous positions to be in for both parties
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      12 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @CaptainMan, Exactly, they're focusing more on defending themselves from two opponents than capitalising on the openings in defenses
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      12 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Noted. I just didn't want you to have to explain that stuff again after the comments get cleaned up if the same curiosities/ambiguities arise again.
      $endgroup$
      – Bloodcinder
      10 hours ago














    50












    50








    50





    $begingroup$

    Negation of Advantage



    At our table we use the Variant Flanking rules, however we noticed the same problem as yourself, and added the corollary that you cannot gain Advantage from a Flank if you yourself are being Flanked. The thematic justification was that you are busy trying to cover your own back and can't put all of your attention onto exploiting the enemy's defensive gaps.



    This is justified mechanically under the rules for gaining advantage and disadvantage:




    The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant Advantage or impose Disadvantage as a result.




    It led to players holding formations, covering each others back and using the terrain more to their advantage, using low walls and pillars to block enemy movement into the now more limited flanking positions.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Negation of Advantage



    At our table we use the Variant Flanking rules, however we noticed the same problem as yourself, and added the corollary that you cannot gain Advantage from a Flank if you yourself are being Flanked. The thematic justification was that you are busy trying to cover your own back and can't put all of your attention onto exploiting the enemy's defensive gaps.



    This is justified mechanically under the rules for gaining advantage and disadvantage:




    The GM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant Advantage or impose Disadvantage as a result.




    It led to players holding formations, covering each others back and using the terrain more to their advantage, using low walls and pillars to block enemy movement into the now more limited flanking positions.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 10 hours ago

























    answered 14 hours ago









    Fifth_H0r5emanFifth_H0r5eman

    6091414




    6091414












    • $begingroup$
      This seems like a good solution, can you describe the effects it had on the table? Did players stop using this strategy?
      $endgroup$
      – Rubiksmoose
      14 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Rubiksmoose, Done so, the general effect was basically using terrain and relying on one another for protection, not just to kill the enemy ASAP. I also really need to memorise the format for title lines...
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      14 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @IlmariKaronen, A and Y would have advantage, yet X and B would effectively have been granted disadvantage by being flanked, so would not have advantage. This means only the ends of the chain get advantage, so X and B would only benefit by breaking the chain. It seems to have worked as incentive enough to have a prevented no more than two players and two enemies ending up in this scenario, and there are generally more advantageous positions to be in for both parties
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      12 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @CaptainMan, Exactly, they're focusing more on defending themselves from two opponents than capitalising on the openings in defenses
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      12 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Noted. I just didn't want you to have to explain that stuff again after the comments get cleaned up if the same curiosities/ambiguities arise again.
      $endgroup$
      – Bloodcinder
      10 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      This seems like a good solution, can you describe the effects it had on the table? Did players stop using this strategy?
      $endgroup$
      – Rubiksmoose
      14 hours ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Rubiksmoose, Done so, the general effect was basically using terrain and relying on one another for protection, not just to kill the enemy ASAP. I also really need to memorise the format for title lines...
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      14 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @IlmariKaronen, A and Y would have advantage, yet X and B would effectively have been granted disadvantage by being flanked, so would not have advantage. This means only the ends of the chain get advantage, so X and B would only benefit by breaking the chain. It seems to have worked as incentive enough to have a prevented no more than two players and two enemies ending up in this scenario, and there are generally more advantageous positions to be in for both parties
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      12 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @CaptainMan, Exactly, they're focusing more on defending themselves from two opponents than capitalising on the openings in defenses
      $endgroup$
      – Fifth_H0r5eman
      12 hours ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Noted. I just didn't want you to have to explain that stuff again after the comments get cleaned up if the same curiosities/ambiguities arise again.
      $endgroup$
      – Bloodcinder
      10 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    This seems like a good solution, can you describe the effects it had on the table? Did players stop using this strategy?
    $endgroup$
    – Rubiksmoose
    14 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    This seems like a good solution, can you describe the effects it had on the table? Did players stop using this strategy?
    $endgroup$
    – Rubiksmoose
    14 hours ago




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    @Rubiksmoose, Done so, the general effect was basically using terrain and relying on one another for protection, not just to kill the enemy ASAP. I also really need to memorise the format for title lines...
    $endgroup$
    – Fifth_H0r5eman
    14 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @Rubiksmoose, Done so, the general effect was basically using terrain and relying on one another for protection, not just to kill the enemy ASAP. I also really need to memorise the format for title lines...
    $endgroup$
    – Fifth_H0r5eman
    14 hours ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @IlmariKaronen, A and Y would have advantage, yet X and B would effectively have been granted disadvantage by being flanked, so would not have advantage. This means only the ends of the chain get advantage, so X and B would only benefit by breaking the chain. It seems to have worked as incentive enough to have a prevented no more than two players and two enemies ending up in this scenario, and there are generally more advantageous positions to be in for both parties
    $endgroup$
    – Fifth_H0r5eman
    12 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @IlmariKaronen, A and Y would have advantage, yet X and B would effectively have been granted disadvantage by being flanked, so would not have advantage. This means only the ends of the chain get advantage, so X and B would only benefit by breaking the chain. It seems to have worked as incentive enough to have a prevented no more than two players and two enemies ending up in this scenario, and there are generally more advantageous positions to be in for both parties
    $endgroup$
    – Fifth_H0r5eman
    12 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @CaptainMan, Exactly, they're focusing more on defending themselves from two opponents than capitalising on the openings in defenses
    $endgroup$
    – Fifth_H0r5eman
    12 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @CaptainMan, Exactly, they're focusing more on defending themselves from two opponents than capitalising on the openings in defenses
    $endgroup$
    – Fifth_H0r5eman
    12 hours ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Noted. I just didn't want you to have to explain that stuff again after the comments get cleaned up if the same curiosities/ambiguities arise again.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    10 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Noted. I just didn't want you to have to explain that stuff again after the comments get cleaned up if the same curiosities/ambiguities arise again.
    $endgroup$
    – Bloodcinder
    10 hours ago













    11












    $begingroup$

    We have not experienced the conga line, it may not be as a big of a concern as you think



    My tables have used the flanking rules on a grid for about 5 years and we're a heavily combat focused group - and I don't think we've ever gotten in a congo line. This may be a mix of our own playstyle just not wanting to conga line, but I think it's also in how we approach combat.



    But why? That's one is a better harder to parse, but I think it's for a few reasons:




    1. Grouping together leads to possible Fireball Formations (everyone being caught in an Area Effect if cast)

    2. Enemies are a mix of melee and ranged attacks that forces the group to work together across the map

    3. Enemies have often come in waves which also forces us to be prepared. Keeping everyone centralized or in a line does not put us in a defensible position to cover each other.


    The above are possible reasons why we haven't experienced it which makes me think maybe this isn't as much of a problem as you think it may be.



    As a DM, you should be considering tactics. As players, we are aware of and concerned about Area Effect spells (including things that travel along a straight line) and if this tactic starts to become overused, you can counter with those types of spells and using creatures with resistance/immunity to the associated damage types to let your players know that this choice may not be the safest.



    Given the above, I wouldn't make any changes/do anything different until you actually see a problem occurring at your table.



    But utilizing some of the things I've noticed about our encounter designs may help reduce the odds if you do start to see your players lining up for you :)



    Flanking does present another issue: More advantage triggered mechanics



    The most 'problematic' thing I've seen with flanking is that minimizes the difficulty of getting advantage for many abilities that trigger off of that mechanic. It's much easier to get, which means those abilities trigger much more often (and other abilities become unnecessary because it's relatively easy to flank compared to the other advantage giving mechanics.)






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      #1 doesn't seem like as much of a countermeasure given that the "conga line of death" is a line alternating between the enemies and you/your allies, all in a line for the purposes of flanking. Thus, fireball would affect the other enemies as much as it does you/your allies, so enemies are unlikely to fireball the whole group (unless they're a third party opposed to both groups).
      $endgroup$
      – V2Blast
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @V2Blast Unless the enemies have resistance/immunity to whatever the AoE is. But again, I'm listing things that we consider when engaging in combat and what might affect our decisions. We've been...burned...by grouping together in the past (enemies nearby or not.)
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      6 hours ago
















    11












    $begingroup$

    We have not experienced the conga line, it may not be as a big of a concern as you think



    My tables have used the flanking rules on a grid for about 5 years and we're a heavily combat focused group - and I don't think we've ever gotten in a congo line. This may be a mix of our own playstyle just not wanting to conga line, but I think it's also in how we approach combat.



    But why? That's one is a better harder to parse, but I think it's for a few reasons:




    1. Grouping together leads to possible Fireball Formations (everyone being caught in an Area Effect if cast)

    2. Enemies are a mix of melee and ranged attacks that forces the group to work together across the map

    3. Enemies have often come in waves which also forces us to be prepared. Keeping everyone centralized or in a line does not put us in a defensible position to cover each other.


    The above are possible reasons why we haven't experienced it which makes me think maybe this isn't as much of a problem as you think it may be.



    As a DM, you should be considering tactics. As players, we are aware of and concerned about Area Effect spells (including things that travel along a straight line) and if this tactic starts to become overused, you can counter with those types of spells and using creatures with resistance/immunity to the associated damage types to let your players know that this choice may not be the safest.



    Given the above, I wouldn't make any changes/do anything different until you actually see a problem occurring at your table.



    But utilizing some of the things I've noticed about our encounter designs may help reduce the odds if you do start to see your players lining up for you :)



    Flanking does present another issue: More advantage triggered mechanics



    The most 'problematic' thing I've seen with flanking is that minimizes the difficulty of getting advantage for many abilities that trigger off of that mechanic. It's much easier to get, which means those abilities trigger much more often (and other abilities become unnecessary because it's relatively easy to flank compared to the other advantage giving mechanics.)






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      #1 doesn't seem like as much of a countermeasure given that the "conga line of death" is a line alternating between the enemies and you/your allies, all in a line for the purposes of flanking. Thus, fireball would affect the other enemies as much as it does you/your allies, so enemies are unlikely to fireball the whole group (unless they're a third party opposed to both groups).
      $endgroup$
      – V2Blast
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @V2Blast Unless the enemies have resistance/immunity to whatever the AoE is. But again, I'm listing things that we consider when engaging in combat and what might affect our decisions. We've been...burned...by grouping together in the past (enemies nearby or not.)
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      6 hours ago














    11












    11








    11





    $begingroup$

    We have not experienced the conga line, it may not be as a big of a concern as you think



    My tables have used the flanking rules on a grid for about 5 years and we're a heavily combat focused group - and I don't think we've ever gotten in a congo line. This may be a mix of our own playstyle just not wanting to conga line, but I think it's also in how we approach combat.



    But why? That's one is a better harder to parse, but I think it's for a few reasons:




    1. Grouping together leads to possible Fireball Formations (everyone being caught in an Area Effect if cast)

    2. Enemies are a mix of melee and ranged attacks that forces the group to work together across the map

    3. Enemies have often come in waves which also forces us to be prepared. Keeping everyone centralized or in a line does not put us in a defensible position to cover each other.


    The above are possible reasons why we haven't experienced it which makes me think maybe this isn't as much of a problem as you think it may be.



    As a DM, you should be considering tactics. As players, we are aware of and concerned about Area Effect spells (including things that travel along a straight line) and if this tactic starts to become overused, you can counter with those types of spells and using creatures with resistance/immunity to the associated damage types to let your players know that this choice may not be the safest.



    Given the above, I wouldn't make any changes/do anything different until you actually see a problem occurring at your table.



    But utilizing some of the things I've noticed about our encounter designs may help reduce the odds if you do start to see your players lining up for you :)



    Flanking does present another issue: More advantage triggered mechanics



    The most 'problematic' thing I've seen with flanking is that minimizes the difficulty of getting advantage for many abilities that trigger off of that mechanic. It's much easier to get, which means those abilities trigger much more often (and other abilities become unnecessary because it's relatively easy to flank compared to the other advantage giving mechanics.)






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    We have not experienced the conga line, it may not be as a big of a concern as you think



    My tables have used the flanking rules on a grid for about 5 years and we're a heavily combat focused group - and I don't think we've ever gotten in a congo line. This may be a mix of our own playstyle just not wanting to conga line, but I think it's also in how we approach combat.



    But why? That's one is a better harder to parse, but I think it's for a few reasons:




    1. Grouping together leads to possible Fireball Formations (everyone being caught in an Area Effect if cast)

    2. Enemies are a mix of melee and ranged attacks that forces the group to work together across the map

    3. Enemies have often come in waves which also forces us to be prepared. Keeping everyone centralized or in a line does not put us in a defensible position to cover each other.


    The above are possible reasons why we haven't experienced it which makes me think maybe this isn't as much of a problem as you think it may be.



    As a DM, you should be considering tactics. As players, we are aware of and concerned about Area Effect spells (including things that travel along a straight line) and if this tactic starts to become overused, you can counter with those types of spells and using creatures with resistance/immunity to the associated damage types to let your players know that this choice may not be the safest.



    Given the above, I wouldn't make any changes/do anything different until you actually see a problem occurring at your table.



    But utilizing some of the things I've noticed about our encounter designs may help reduce the odds if you do start to see your players lining up for you :)



    Flanking does present another issue: More advantage triggered mechanics



    The most 'problematic' thing I've seen with flanking is that minimizes the difficulty of getting advantage for many abilities that trigger off of that mechanic. It's much easier to get, which means those abilities trigger much more often (and other abilities become unnecessary because it's relatively easy to flank compared to the other advantage giving mechanics.)







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 13 hours ago

























    answered 13 hours ago









    NautArchNautArch

    60.3k8217401




    60.3k8217401












    • $begingroup$
      #1 doesn't seem like as much of a countermeasure given that the "conga line of death" is a line alternating between the enemies and you/your allies, all in a line for the purposes of flanking. Thus, fireball would affect the other enemies as much as it does you/your allies, so enemies are unlikely to fireball the whole group (unless they're a third party opposed to both groups).
      $endgroup$
      – V2Blast
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @V2Blast Unless the enemies have resistance/immunity to whatever the AoE is. But again, I'm listing things that we consider when engaging in combat and what might affect our decisions. We've been...burned...by grouping together in the past (enemies nearby or not.)
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      6 hours ago


















    • $begingroup$
      #1 doesn't seem like as much of a countermeasure given that the "conga line of death" is a line alternating between the enemies and you/your allies, all in a line for the purposes of flanking. Thus, fireball would affect the other enemies as much as it does you/your allies, so enemies are unlikely to fireball the whole group (unless they're a third party opposed to both groups).
      $endgroup$
      – V2Blast
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @V2Blast Unless the enemies have resistance/immunity to whatever the AoE is. But again, I'm listing things that we consider when engaging in combat and what might affect our decisions. We've been...burned...by grouping together in the past (enemies nearby or not.)
      $endgroup$
      – NautArch
      6 hours ago
















    $begingroup$
    #1 doesn't seem like as much of a countermeasure given that the "conga line of death" is a line alternating between the enemies and you/your allies, all in a line for the purposes of flanking. Thus, fireball would affect the other enemies as much as it does you/your allies, so enemies are unlikely to fireball the whole group (unless they're a third party opposed to both groups).
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    #1 doesn't seem like as much of a countermeasure given that the "conga line of death" is a line alternating between the enemies and you/your allies, all in a line for the purposes of flanking. Thus, fireball would affect the other enemies as much as it does you/your allies, so enemies are unlikely to fireball the whole group (unless they're a third party opposed to both groups).
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    6 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @V2Blast Unless the enemies have resistance/immunity to whatever the AoE is. But again, I'm listing things that we consider when engaging in combat and what might affect our decisions. We've been...burned...by grouping together in the past (enemies nearby or not.)
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @V2Blast Unless the enemies have resistance/immunity to whatever the AoE is. But again, I'm listing things that we consider when engaging in combat and what might affect our decisions. We've been...burned...by grouping together in the past (enemies nearby or not.)
    $endgroup$
    – NautArch
    6 hours ago











    0












    $begingroup$

    Noah Antwiler has a video about the Conga Line of Death. At ~29:52 into the video, he suggests using group initiative to prevent the Conga Line of Death forming in a combat encounter.



    Although I haven't tried this rule, the Side Initiative option (page 270 in the 5e DMG) allows players to use group initiative. Since players & monsters are moving as a group rather than one by one, combatants would be encouraged to maintain a solid rank (shoulder to shoulder) to avoid being flanked.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      Noah Antwiler has a video about the Conga Line of Death. At ~29:52 into the video, he suggests using group initiative to prevent the Conga Line of Death forming in a combat encounter.



      Although I haven't tried this rule, the Side Initiative option (page 270 in the 5e DMG) allows players to use group initiative. Since players & monsters are moving as a group rather than one by one, combatants would be encouraged to maintain a solid rank (shoulder to shoulder) to avoid being flanked.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        Noah Antwiler has a video about the Conga Line of Death. At ~29:52 into the video, he suggests using group initiative to prevent the Conga Line of Death forming in a combat encounter.



        Although I haven't tried this rule, the Side Initiative option (page 270 in the 5e DMG) allows players to use group initiative. Since players & monsters are moving as a group rather than one by one, combatants would be encouraged to maintain a solid rank (shoulder to shoulder) to avoid being flanked.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Noah Antwiler has a video about the Conga Line of Death. At ~29:52 into the video, he suggests using group initiative to prevent the Conga Line of Death forming in a combat encounter.



        Although I haven't tried this rule, the Side Initiative option (page 270 in the 5e DMG) allows players to use group initiative. Since players & monsters are moving as a group rather than one by one, combatants would be encouraged to maintain a solid rank (shoulder to shoulder) to avoid being flanked.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 6 hours ago









        V2Blast

        25k383155




        25k383155










        answered 11 hours ago









        RobertFRobertF

        3,27912041




        3,27912041























            -2












            $begingroup$

            The monsters aren't stupid. A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight. So (if you're the DM) have the monsters pick a target and try to knock them unconscious before moving on to the next. This doesn't mean drawing attacks of opportunity - don't take more damage than you should.



            And now that I've mentioned attacks of opportunity: 5e is really bad for flanking. Why? It's because you can freely move around opponents without provoking attacks of opportunity, so flanking is essentially free. If you use the 3.5 rules attacks of opportunity, it works out better. To make it work, you also need the 5-foot step. The relevant changes:




            • Moving out of a threatened square provokes an AOO, even if you remain within the creature's reach.


            • Once a turn, if you make no other movement during the turn, you may move 5 feet without provoking an attack of opportunity for free.







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Have you tried flanking with these rules and experienced these 'really bad' issues? 5e and 3.5e are different rulesets, saying variant rules are bad compared to another system isn't necessarily a fair comparison - especially if you haven't actually used these rules at your table. If you have, please add that.
              $endgroup$
              – NautArch
              13 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @NautArch Yes, I have. The problem isn't a playability thing. It's really bad from a game design perspective; having flanking with 5e's AoO rules leads to a degenerate combat system, where the answer to "How to fight in melee" is always "flank", which doesn't occur in 3.5. It's bad because the design goals of the system are different - 5e is less a miniatures combat game than 3.5 is. That's not to say you can't play it that way (and enjoy it!), but it's two parts of a system working against each other. I'm happy to wax eloquent on my game design theory thoughts, but instead I summarized.
              $endgroup$
              – Spitemaster
              12 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              "A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight" - I don't think anyone (monster or players) takes a Conga line formation on purpose. It happens unintentionally, because both players and enemies are trying to do what you're suggesting - focus on one opponent at a time.
              $endgroup$
              – dwizum
              6 hours ago
















            -2












            $begingroup$

            The monsters aren't stupid. A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight. So (if you're the DM) have the monsters pick a target and try to knock them unconscious before moving on to the next. This doesn't mean drawing attacks of opportunity - don't take more damage than you should.



            And now that I've mentioned attacks of opportunity: 5e is really bad for flanking. Why? It's because you can freely move around opponents without provoking attacks of opportunity, so flanking is essentially free. If you use the 3.5 rules attacks of opportunity, it works out better. To make it work, you also need the 5-foot step. The relevant changes:




            • Moving out of a threatened square provokes an AOO, even if you remain within the creature's reach.


            • Once a turn, if you make no other movement during the turn, you may move 5 feet without provoking an attack of opportunity for free.







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Have you tried flanking with these rules and experienced these 'really bad' issues? 5e and 3.5e are different rulesets, saying variant rules are bad compared to another system isn't necessarily a fair comparison - especially if you haven't actually used these rules at your table. If you have, please add that.
              $endgroup$
              – NautArch
              13 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @NautArch Yes, I have. The problem isn't a playability thing. It's really bad from a game design perspective; having flanking with 5e's AoO rules leads to a degenerate combat system, where the answer to "How to fight in melee" is always "flank", which doesn't occur in 3.5. It's bad because the design goals of the system are different - 5e is less a miniatures combat game than 3.5 is. That's not to say you can't play it that way (and enjoy it!), but it's two parts of a system working against each other. I'm happy to wax eloquent on my game design theory thoughts, but instead I summarized.
              $endgroup$
              – Spitemaster
              12 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              "A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight" - I don't think anyone (monster or players) takes a Conga line formation on purpose. It happens unintentionally, because both players and enemies are trying to do what you're suggesting - focus on one opponent at a time.
              $endgroup$
              – dwizum
              6 hours ago














            -2












            -2








            -2





            $begingroup$

            The monsters aren't stupid. A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight. So (if you're the DM) have the monsters pick a target and try to knock them unconscious before moving on to the next. This doesn't mean drawing attacks of opportunity - don't take more damage than you should.



            And now that I've mentioned attacks of opportunity: 5e is really bad for flanking. Why? It's because you can freely move around opponents without provoking attacks of opportunity, so flanking is essentially free. If you use the 3.5 rules attacks of opportunity, it works out better. To make it work, you also need the 5-foot step. The relevant changes:




            • Moving out of a threatened square provokes an AOO, even if you remain within the creature's reach.


            • Once a turn, if you make no other movement during the turn, you may move 5 feet without provoking an attack of opportunity for free.







            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The monsters aren't stupid. A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight. So (if you're the DM) have the monsters pick a target and try to knock them unconscious before moving on to the next. This doesn't mean drawing attacks of opportunity - don't take more damage than you should.



            And now that I've mentioned attacks of opportunity: 5e is really bad for flanking. Why? It's because you can freely move around opponents without provoking attacks of opportunity, so flanking is essentially free. If you use the 3.5 rules attacks of opportunity, it works out better. To make it work, you also need the 5-foot step. The relevant changes:




            • Moving out of a threatened square provokes an AOO, even if you remain within the creature's reach.


            • Once a turn, if you make no other movement during the turn, you may move 5 feet without provoking an attack of opportunity for free.








            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 13 hours ago









            SpitemasterSpitemaster

            2533




            2533












            • $begingroup$
              Have you tried flanking with these rules and experienced these 'really bad' issues? 5e and 3.5e are different rulesets, saying variant rules are bad compared to another system isn't necessarily a fair comparison - especially if you haven't actually used these rules at your table. If you have, please add that.
              $endgroup$
              – NautArch
              13 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @NautArch Yes, I have. The problem isn't a playability thing. It's really bad from a game design perspective; having flanking with 5e's AoO rules leads to a degenerate combat system, where the answer to "How to fight in melee" is always "flank", which doesn't occur in 3.5. It's bad because the design goals of the system are different - 5e is less a miniatures combat game than 3.5 is. That's not to say you can't play it that way (and enjoy it!), but it's two parts of a system working against each other. I'm happy to wax eloquent on my game design theory thoughts, but instead I summarized.
              $endgroup$
              – Spitemaster
              12 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              "A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight" - I don't think anyone (monster or players) takes a Conga line formation on purpose. It happens unintentionally, because both players and enemies are trying to do what you're suggesting - focus on one opponent at a time.
              $endgroup$
              – dwizum
              6 hours ago


















            • $begingroup$
              Have you tried flanking with these rules and experienced these 'really bad' issues? 5e and 3.5e are different rulesets, saying variant rules are bad compared to another system isn't necessarily a fair comparison - especially if you haven't actually used these rules at your table. If you have, please add that.
              $endgroup$
              – NautArch
              13 hours ago






            • 2




              $begingroup$
              @NautArch Yes, I have. The problem isn't a playability thing. It's really bad from a game design perspective; having flanking with 5e's AoO rules leads to a degenerate combat system, where the answer to "How to fight in melee" is always "flank", which doesn't occur in 3.5. It's bad because the design goals of the system are different - 5e is less a miniatures combat game than 3.5 is. That's not to say you can't play it that way (and enjoy it!), but it's two parts of a system working against each other. I'm happy to wax eloquent on my game design theory thoughts, but instead I summarized.
              $endgroup$
              – Spitemaster
              12 hours ago






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              "A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight" - I don't think anyone (monster or players) takes a Conga line formation on purpose. It happens unintentionally, because both players and enemies are trying to do what you're suggesting - focus on one opponent at a time.
              $endgroup$
              – dwizum
              6 hours ago
















            $begingroup$
            Have you tried flanking with these rules and experienced these 'really bad' issues? 5e and 3.5e are different rulesets, saying variant rules are bad compared to another system isn't necessarily a fair comparison - especially if you haven't actually used these rules at your table. If you have, please add that.
            $endgroup$
            – NautArch
            13 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Have you tried flanking with these rules and experienced these 'really bad' issues? 5e and 3.5e are different rulesets, saying variant rules are bad compared to another system isn't necessarily a fair comparison - especially if you haven't actually used these rules at your table. If you have, please add that.
            $endgroup$
            – NautArch
            13 hours ago




            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            @NautArch Yes, I have. The problem isn't a playability thing. It's really bad from a game design perspective; having flanking with 5e's AoO rules leads to a degenerate combat system, where the answer to "How to fight in melee" is always "flank", which doesn't occur in 3.5. It's bad because the design goals of the system are different - 5e is less a miniatures combat game than 3.5 is. That's not to say you can't play it that way (and enjoy it!), but it's two parts of a system working against each other. I'm happy to wax eloquent on my game design theory thoughts, but instead I summarized.
            $endgroup$
            – Spitemaster
            12 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @NautArch Yes, I have. The problem isn't a playability thing. It's really bad from a game design perspective; having flanking with 5e's AoO rules leads to a degenerate combat system, where the answer to "How to fight in melee" is always "flank", which doesn't occur in 3.5. It's bad because the design goals of the system are different - 5e is less a miniatures combat game than 3.5 is. That's not to say you can't play it that way (and enjoy it!), but it's two parts of a system working against each other. I'm happy to wax eloquent on my game design theory thoughts, but instead I summarized.
            $endgroup$
            – Spitemaster
            12 hours ago




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            "A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight" - I don't think anyone (monster or players) takes a Conga line formation on purpose. It happens unintentionally, because both players and enemies are trying to do what you're suggesting - focus on one opponent at a time.
            $endgroup$
            – dwizum
            6 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            "A "Conga line" is actually a bad tactic - ideally, you'd take down one enemy at a time, preventing them from doing damage for the rest of the fight" - I don't think anyone (monster or players) takes a Conga line formation on purpose. It happens unintentionally, because both players and enemies are trying to do what you're suggesting - focus on one opponent at a time.
            $endgroup$
            – dwizum
            6 hours ago











            -3












            $begingroup$

            If the benefit from flanking is significant enough that you'd be foolish to turn it down (and we can argue about that another time), then equally, being flanked imposes a penalty that you'd be foolish to accept. Given the premise, people should be stepping out of the conga line to avoid being flanked as often as they step into it to flank others. Which means that the conga line will never have an opportunity to form.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Ross Thompson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
              $endgroup$
              – V2Blast
              6 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
              $endgroup$
              – Sdjz
              6 hours ago
















            -3












            $begingroup$

            If the benefit from flanking is significant enough that you'd be foolish to turn it down (and we can argue about that another time), then equally, being flanked imposes a penalty that you'd be foolish to accept. Given the premise, people should be stepping out of the conga line to avoid being flanked as often as they step into it to flank others. Which means that the conga line will never have an opportunity to form.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Ross Thompson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
              $endgroup$
              – V2Blast
              6 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
              $endgroup$
              – Sdjz
              6 hours ago














            -3












            -3








            -3





            $begingroup$

            If the benefit from flanking is significant enough that you'd be foolish to turn it down (and we can argue about that another time), then equally, being flanked imposes a penalty that you'd be foolish to accept. Given the premise, people should be stepping out of the conga line to avoid being flanked as often as they step into it to flank others. Which means that the conga line will never have an opportunity to form.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Ross Thompson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$



            If the benefit from flanking is significant enough that you'd be foolish to turn it down (and we can argue about that another time), then equally, being flanked imposes a penalty that you'd be foolish to accept. Given the premise, people should be stepping out of the conga line to avoid being flanked as often as they step into it to flank others. Which means that the conga line will never have an opportunity to form.







            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            Ross Thompson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer






            New contributor




            Ross Thompson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered 6 hours ago









            Ross ThompsonRoss Thompson

            95




            95




            New contributor




            Ross Thompson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            Ross Thompson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            Ross Thompson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.












            • $begingroup$
              Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
              $endgroup$
              – V2Blast
              6 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
              $endgroup$
              – Sdjz
              6 hours ago


















            • $begingroup$
              Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
              $endgroup$
              – V2Blast
              6 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
              $endgroup$
              – Sdjz
              6 hours ago
















            $begingroup$
            Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
            $endgroup$
            – V2Blast
            6 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
            $endgroup$
            – V2Blast
            6 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
            $endgroup$
            – Sdjz
            6 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
            $endgroup$
            – Sdjz
            6 hours ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143441%2fhow-can-i-as-dm-avoid-the-conga-line-of-death-occurring-when-implementing-some%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            How to reconfigure Docker Trusted Registry 2.x.x to use CEPH FS mount instead of NFS and other traditional...

            is 'sed' thread safe

            How to make a Squid Proxy server?