How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?
$begingroup$
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.
dnd-5e house-rules flanking
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
dnd-5e house-rules flanking
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
dnd-5e house-rules flanking
$endgroup$
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
dnd-5e house-rules flanking
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
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:
- Grouping together leads to possible Fireball Formations (everyone being caught in an Area Effect if cast)
- Enemies are a mix of melee and ranged attacks that forces the group to work together across the map
- 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.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
#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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
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
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
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:
- Grouping together leads to possible Fireball Formations (everyone being caught in an Area Effect if cast)
- Enemies are a mix of melee and ranged attacks that forces the group to work together across the map
- 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.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
#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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
- Grouping together leads to possible Fireball Formations (everyone being caught in an Area Effect if cast)
- Enemies are a mix of melee and ranged attacks that forces the group to work together across the map
- 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.)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
#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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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:
- Grouping together leads to possible Fireball Formations (everyone being caught in an Area Effect if cast)
- Enemies are a mix of melee and ranged attacks that forces the group to work together across the map
- 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.)
$endgroup$
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:
- Grouping together leads to possible Fireball Formations (everyone being caught in an Area Effect if cast)
- Enemies are a mix of melee and ranged attacks that forces the group to work together across the map
- 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.)
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
#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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
edited 6 hours ago
V2Blast
25k383155
25k383155
answered 11 hours ago
RobertFRobertF
3,27912041
3,27912041
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
New contributor
$endgroup$
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.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
Ross ThompsonRoss Thompson
95
95
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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