How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?How do you improve Death Saves for the character?Mini Six: How can I avoid the “dodge” skill tax?What are the positives and negatives of this house rule for flanking?How to effectively use summons when the house rule is that they remember?Can I Sneak Attack if I'm flanking and the opponent knows I'm there?What would change if opportunity attacks had more triggers?How can I modify attacks on creatures making Death Saves to have less Coup de Grace?Does the Instant Death rule apply to zombies too?Is it impossible to flank a large creature on a hex grid?Using the optional flanking rule, would a Spiritual Weapon on the other side of an enemy allow a character to benefit from flanking?
Why did the HMS Bounty go back to a time when whales are already rare?
Freedom of speech and where it applies
Could Intel SGX be dangerous under Linux?
Why is so much work done on numerical verification of the Riemann Hypothesis?
How do I nest cases?
The screen of my macbook suddenly broken down how can I do to recover
When were female captains banned from Starfleet?
Lowest total scrabble score
Open a doc from terminal, but not by its name
Do Legal Documents Require Signing In Standard Pen Colors?
Should I stop contributing to retirement accounts?
Why are synthetic pH indicators used over natural indicators?
What is this called? Old film camera viewer?
How should I respond when I lied about my education and the company finds out through background check?
Is there a name for this algorithm to calculate the concentration of a mixture of two solutions containing the same solute?
Yosemite Fire Rings - What to Expect?
Could the E-bike drivetrain wear down till needing replacement after 400 km?
The IT department bottlenecks progress. How should I handle this?
Can I use my Chinese passport to enter China after I acquired another citizenship?
Longest common substring in linear time
Did arcade monitors have same pixel aspect ratio as TV sets?
A book (mid 2000s) about a kid getting an old laptop that connects him to aliens, the alien government (I think) coming after him?
Reply 'no position' while the job posting is still there
Is there a single word describing earning money through any means?
How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?
How do you improve Death Saves for the character?Mini Six: How can I avoid the “dodge” skill tax?What are the positives and negatives of this house rule for flanking?How to effectively use summons when the house rule is that they remember?Can I Sneak Attack if I'm flanking and the opponent knows I'm there?What would change if opportunity attacks had more triggers?How can I modify attacks on creatures making Death Saves to have less Coup de Grace?Does the Instant Death rule apply to zombies too?Is it impossible to flank a large creature on a hex grid?Using the optional flanking rule, would a Spiritual Weapon on the other side of an enemy allow a character to benefit from flanking?
$begingroup$
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
edited Mar 19 at 20:21
V2Blast
25.5k486156
asked Mar 19 at 11:51
hohenheimhohenheim
2,74611360
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
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
edited Mar 19 at 20:21
V2Blast
25.5k486156
asked Mar 19 at 11:51
hohenheimhohenheim
2,74611360
$endgroup$
25
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 12:17
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
Mar 19 at 15:18
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
Mar 19 at 16:35
1
$begingroup$
Do you have an actual concrete incident where this occurred, and can you describe it? Or is this just theoretical?
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 20 at 13:22
1
$begingroup$
Is this an actual problem? Wouldn't combat be improved by people trying to maintain advantageous positions beyond just standing in the same spot all day?
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
Mar 20 at 13:57
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
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
edited Mar 19 at 20:21
V2Blast
25.5k486156
asked Mar 19 at 11:51
hohenheimhohenheim
2,74611360
$endgroup$
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 Mar 19 at 20:21
V2Blast
25.5k486156
asked Mar 19 at 11:51
hohenheimhohenheim
2,74611360
edited Mar 19 at 20:21
V2Blast
25.5k486156
asked Mar 19 at 11:51
hohenheimhohenheim
2,74611360
edited Mar 19 at 20:21
V2Blast
25.5k486156
edited Mar 19 at 20:21
V2Blast
25.5k486156
edited Mar 19 at 20:21
V2Blast
25.5k486156
25.5k486156
asked Mar 19 at 11:51
hohenheimhohenheim
2,74611360
asked Mar 19 at 11:51
hohenheimhohenheim
2,74611360
asked Mar 19 at 11:51
hohenheimhohenheim
2,74611360
2,74611360
25
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 12:17
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
Mar 19 at 15:18
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
Mar 19 at 16:35
1
$begingroup$
Do you have an actual concrete incident where this occurred, and can you describe it? Or is this just theoretical?
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 20 at 13:22
1
$begingroup$
Is this an actual problem? Wouldn't combat be improved by people trying to maintain advantageous positions beyond just standing in the same spot all day?
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
Mar 20 at 13:57
|
show 2 more comments
25
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 12:17
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
Mar 19 at 15:18
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
Mar 19 at 16:35
1
$begingroup$
Do you have an actual concrete incident where this occurred, and can you describe it? Or is this just theoretical?
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 20 at 13:22
1
$begingroup$
Is this an actual problem? Wouldn't combat be improved by people trying to maintain advantageous positions beyond just standing in the same spot all day?
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
Mar 20 at 13:57
25
25
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 12:17
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 12:17
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
Mar 19 at 15:18
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 15:18
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
Mar 19 at 16:35
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 16:35
1
1
$begingroup$
Do you have an actual concrete incident where this occurred, and can you describe it? Or is this just theoretical?
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 20 at 13:22
$begingroup$
Do you have an actual concrete incident where this occurred, and can you describe it? Or is this just theoretical?
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 20 at 13:22
1
1
$begingroup$
Is this an actual problem? Wouldn't combat be improved by people trying to maintain advantageous positions beyond just standing in the same spot all day?
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
Mar 20 at 13:57
$begingroup$
Is this an actual problem? Wouldn't combat be improved by people trying to maintain advantageous positions beyond just standing in the same spot all day?
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
Mar 20 at 13:57
|
show 2 more comments
9 Answers
9
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.
It may be worth noting that at our table, while we do not grant Advantage to a Flanked Flanker, we don't actually class them as having received disadvantage for purposes of "multiple cases of advantage and disadvantage do not stack". Effectively meaning that any other source of gaining Advantage would still be enough to give the player an edge. This was done as else spells such as Darkness and Guiding Bolt lost a fair amount of utility. YMMV on this however.
answered Mar 19 at 12:49
Fifth_H0r5emanFifth_H0r5eman
9341614
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– mxyzplk♦
Mar 20 at 12:12
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.)
answered Mar 19 at 13:23
NautArchNautArch
60.7k8217402
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
#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
Mar 19 at 20:24
1
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 21:00
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.
edited Mar 19 at 20:30
V2Blast
25.5k486156
answered Mar 19 at 16:17
RobertFRobertF
3,31912041
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have your monsters take defensive positions
If your monsters position themselves based on each other and terrain so that to get to flanking positions the PCs have to take opportunity attacks, you'll see a lot less flanking occur, and consequently much more infrequent conga lines. Plus after the PCs see it a few times, they'll (hopefully) start trying to use the same tactics to prevent the monsters from gaining flanking.
answered Mar 20 at 13:16
aslumaslum
2,5041525
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Loosen the requirements for flanking.
Make it easier to flank, such as being able to flank from any of the three opposite squares. At worst you'll have a squiggly conga line for a few moments until someone dies, but then things will get messy again.
For reference I was a player in a campaign run like this. Most folks seemed to not particularly care, I thought it detracted a little from the tactics (since flanking is so much easier positioning actually matters a lot less, there's little you can do to avoid being flanked). I probably wouldn't choose to run this rule as DM, but I also wouldn't skip a campaign because the DM was using it
Pros:
- Easier to flank
- To some minds it makes more sense to be able to flank "at an angle"
- No Conga lines (tbh I don't think it's that big of a problem)
Cons:
- Easier to flank
- More likely to run into situations requiring DM adjudication (flanking around corners for example)
- Positioning becomes tactically less important
answered Mar 20 at 13:13
aslumaslum
2,5041525
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Use terrain and enemy battlefield control
I find that considerations like this one are made under a few assumptions:
- There is a vast stretch of featureless terrain on a combat grid that is virtually infinite.
- The enemy only does melee attacks.
This can change if you have to fight in close quarters. Small dungeon rooms are not the only options, you can use thick underbrush, hazards (traps, cliffs, etc.), tree trunks, cover, uneven rooftops and the like. They either make flanking harder by limiting the available squares to or give a different incentive to be somewhere else.
The enemies can use varied tactics: ranged attacks (maybe from above, requiring climb checks to reach them) and also affecting the battlefield with means of their own (spells, maybe caltrops?). These actions can be effective in limiting the space available.
As the DM, both terrain and enemy types and strategy are under your control. Use them :)
answered Mar 20 at 14:49
Rad80Rad80
1675
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
2
$begingroup$
How have you used terrain and battlefield control successfully as a DM to combat the congo line? These are all good theoretical ideas, but answers here need to be supported by gameplay.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@NautArch I never had this problem to begin with, so no: this answer is not "supported by gameplay". However your comment made me reread the tour and I found no mention of this requirement for answers. (Personally, I would agree with it for house rules suggestions but this is not the case). I guess you're referring to a discussion that took place on meta? If this is such an important requirement to warrant downvoting by itself I'd suggest to specify it explicitly at least in the tour.
$endgroup$
– Rad80
Mar 21 at 8:53
1
$begingroup$
The good subjective/bad subjective guidance is here; we had a Q&A on meta a while back on what is or isn't permitted tour material There is also the help center which provides more detailed guidance for using this SE site.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:16
1
$begingroup$
Just as a point of clarity, the desire is for supported answers. Sometimes, there isn't documentation, or the documentation is muddy. At table experience for "how this worked for our group" is a form of a supported answer.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:20
$begingroup$
@Rad80 You brought up a great point about the tour missing that, so i raised that on meta - but it looks like it can't be added :(. Korvin has provided you with the requirements we have here with regard to citation needs to support answers.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Associate a cost with flanking
Flanking is undoubtedly a cool mechanic: It makes positioning relevant, and models a thoroughly popularised tactic used in actual combat. There's plenty of reasons to want flanking in your games, the only question if how much you are willing to sacrifice to have it.
As other answers have pointed out, one of the inherent costs of flanking someone is risking to be flanked yourself, and that in and of itself is a cost . You can add multiple costs by making movement more expensive, implementing a facing mechanic, or other similar factors.
Alternatively, you can embrace the conga line of death as I will describe below
Embrace it
You won't have a conga line of death in your games if one side or the other is fighting with proper formation in regards to flanking. Breaking a formation then becomes a challenge worth overcoming to get the sweet flanking bonuses, and this encourages cooperation between players. That is always a good thing in my opinion.
You can go deeper down this route and implement counter-line AoE mechanics to punish conga liners.
Build around it
Being the GM you have agency over how your fighting spaces look like. You can force rooms to not allow for conga lines to form by their very layout. If you add a new tool to your story-telling kit, it's not just the players who get to have fun with it.
In the end, it all comes down to you and your troupe (as most things in role playing ) but I hope that these simple ideas, or maybe a mix of them, will help you add the right flavour of excitement to your games.
Happy role playing!
edited Mar 20 at 15:34
KorvinStarmast
82.3k19257444
answered Mar 20 at 11:37
Mister AmenMister Amen
774
New contributor
Mister Amen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
4
$begingroup$
Have you used these techniques yourself at your table, or did a DM do so when you were a player? If so, how did it work out? When one is answering in this manner, the Good Subjective/Bad Subjective guidelines need to be adhered to.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@Korivin, yes i have. I am a new contributor to this site, and as such am still fumbling a bit through the guidelines. I will edit my answer with back ups and references by the end of the day ( where suitable ) and refrain myself from posted undocumented answers in the future. Thank you for the guideline!
$endgroup$
– Mister Amen
Mar 21 at 8:34
$begingroup$
Great, thanks for joining in and we look forward to "seeing" you more in the future. The format can take a little getting used to; it did for me.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:11
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.
answered Mar 19 at 13:40
SpitemasterSpitemaster
2593
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 13:52
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 14:44
2
$begingroup$
"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
Mar 19 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Actually, some monsters technically are stupid. (Check the int and or wis in a given monsters stat block)
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:35
$begingroup$
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, but those monsters won't be trying to flank, so it's a moot point.
$endgroup$
– Spitemaster
Mar 20 at 15:45
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.
answered Mar 19 at 20:46
Ross ThompsonRoss Thompson
99
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.
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Mar 19 at 20:55
1
$begingroup$
This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Mar 19 at 20:55
$begingroup$
I've never seen a conga line of death in practice; as a player (or when controlling NPCS), I find myself moving out of being flanked about as often as moving in to flank. Except when playing a rogue, where the benefits are worth the risks.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:26
1
$begingroup$
Of course, as the question is being asked by a GM, the obvious answer is "just don't have the NPCs move into the conga line." If you feel like you need some justification for that "They don't want to be flanked" should suffice.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:28
$begingroup$
But all of that is context that you need to include in the answer, including citing your own play experience.
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
Mar 20 at 16:30
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
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
9 Answers
9
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.
It may be worth noting that at our table, while we do not grant Advantage to a Flanked Flanker, we don't actually class them as having received disadvantage for purposes of "multiple cases of advantage and disadvantage do not stack". Effectively meaning that any other source of gaining Advantage would still be enough to give the player an edge. This was done as else spells such as Darkness and Guiding Bolt lost a fair amount of utility. YMMV on this however.
answered Mar 19 at 12:49
Fifth_H0r5emanFifth_H0r5eman
9341614
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– mxyzplk♦
Mar 20 at 12:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
It may be worth noting that at our table, while we do not grant Advantage to a Flanked Flanker, we don't actually class them as having received disadvantage for purposes of "multiple cases of advantage and disadvantage do not stack". Effectively meaning that any other source of gaining Advantage would still be enough to give the player an edge. This was done as else spells such as Darkness and Guiding Bolt lost a fair amount of utility. YMMV on this however.
answered Mar 19 at 12:49
Fifth_H0r5emanFifth_H0r5eman
9341614
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– mxyzplk♦
Mar 20 at 12:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
It may be worth noting that at our table, while we do not grant Advantage to a Flanked Flanker, we don't actually class them as having received disadvantage for purposes of "multiple cases of advantage and disadvantage do not stack". Effectively meaning that any other source of gaining Advantage would still be enough to give the player an edge. This was done as else spells such as Darkness and Guiding Bolt lost a fair amount of utility. YMMV on this however.
answered Mar 19 at 12:49
Fifth_H0r5emanFifth_H0r5eman
9341614
$endgroup$
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.
It may be worth noting that at our table, while we do not grant Advantage to a Flanked Flanker, we don't actually class them as having received disadvantage for purposes of "multiple cases of advantage and disadvantage do not stack". Effectively meaning that any other source of gaining Advantage would still be enough to give the player an edge. This was done as else spells such as Darkness and Guiding Bolt lost a fair amount of utility. YMMV on this however.
answered Mar 19 at 12:49
Fifth_H0r5emanFifth_H0r5eman
9341614
edited Mar 21 at 0:16
answered Mar 19 at 12:49
Fifth_H0r5emanFifth_H0r5eman
9341614
answered Mar 19 at 12:49
Fifth_H0r5emanFifth_H0r5eman
9341614
answered Mar 19 at 12:49
Fifth_H0r5emanFifth_H0r5eman
9341614
9341614
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– mxyzplk♦
Mar 20 at 12:12
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– mxyzplk♦
Mar 20 at 12:12
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– mxyzplk♦
Mar 20 at 12:12
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– mxyzplk♦
Mar 20 at 12:12
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.)
answered Mar 19 at 13:23
NautArchNautArch
60.7k8217402
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
#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
Mar 19 at 20:24
1
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 21:00
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.)
answered Mar 19 at 13:23
NautArchNautArch
60.7k8217402
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
#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
Mar 19 at 20:24
1
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 21:00
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.)
answered Mar 19 at 13:23
NautArchNautArch
60.7k8217402
$endgroup$
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.)
answered Mar 19 at 13:23
NautArchNautArch
60.7k8217402
edited Mar 19 at 13:40
answered Mar 19 at 13:23
NautArchNautArch
60.7k8217402
answered Mar 19 at 13:23
NautArchNautArch
60.7k8217402
answered Mar 19 at 13:23
NautArchNautArch
60.7k8217402
60.7k8217402
2
$begingroup$
#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
Mar 19 at 20:24
1
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 21:00
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
#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
Mar 19 at 20:24
1
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 21:00
2
2
$begingroup$
#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
Mar 19 at 20:24
$begingroup$
#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
Mar 19 at 20:24
1
1
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 21:00
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 21:00
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.
edited Mar 19 at 20:30
V2Blast
25.5k486156
answered Mar 19 at 16:17
RobertFRobertF
3,31912041
$endgroup$
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.
edited Mar 19 at 20:30
V2Blast
25.5k486156
answered Mar 19 at 16:17
RobertFRobertF
3,31912041
$endgroup$
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.
edited Mar 19 at 20:30
V2Blast
25.5k486156
answered Mar 19 at 16:17
RobertFRobertF
3,31912041
$endgroup$
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 Mar 19 at 20:30
V2Blast
25.5k486156
answered Mar 19 at 16:17
RobertFRobertF
3,31912041
edited Mar 19 at 20:30
V2Blast
25.5k486156
edited Mar 19 at 20:30
V2Blast
25.5k486156
edited Mar 19 at 20:30
V2Blast
25.5k486156
25.5k486156
answered Mar 19 at 16:17
RobertFRobertF
3,31912041
answered Mar 19 at 16:17
RobertFRobertF
3,31912041
answered Mar 19 at 16:17
RobertFRobertF
3,31912041
3,31912041
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have your monsters take defensive positions
If your monsters position themselves based on each other and terrain so that to get to flanking positions the PCs have to take opportunity attacks, you'll see a lot less flanking occur, and consequently much more infrequent conga lines. Plus after the PCs see it a few times, they'll (hopefully) start trying to use the same tactics to prevent the monsters from gaining flanking.
answered Mar 20 at 13:16
aslumaslum
2,5041525
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have your monsters take defensive positions
If your monsters position themselves based on each other and terrain so that to get to flanking positions the PCs have to take opportunity attacks, you'll see a lot less flanking occur, and consequently much more infrequent conga lines. Plus after the PCs see it a few times, they'll (hopefully) start trying to use the same tactics to prevent the monsters from gaining flanking.
answered Mar 20 at 13:16
aslumaslum
2,5041525
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have your monsters take defensive positions
If your monsters position themselves based on each other and terrain so that to get to flanking positions the PCs have to take opportunity attacks, you'll see a lot less flanking occur, and consequently much more infrequent conga lines. Plus after the PCs see it a few times, they'll (hopefully) start trying to use the same tactics to prevent the monsters from gaining flanking.
answered Mar 20 at 13:16
aslumaslum
2,5041525
$endgroup$
Have your monsters take defensive positions
If your monsters position themselves based on each other and terrain so that to get to flanking positions the PCs have to take opportunity attacks, you'll see a lot less flanking occur, and consequently much more infrequent conga lines. Plus after the PCs see it a few times, they'll (hopefully) start trying to use the same tactics to prevent the monsters from gaining flanking.
answered Mar 20 at 13:16
aslumaslum
2,5041525
answered Mar 20 at 13:16
aslumaslum
2,5041525
answered Mar 20 at 13:16
aslumaslum
2,5041525
answered Mar 20 at 13:16
aslumaslum
2,5041525
2,5041525
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Loosen the requirements for flanking.
Make it easier to flank, such as being able to flank from any of the three opposite squares. At worst you'll have a squiggly conga line for a few moments until someone dies, but then things will get messy again.
For reference I was a player in a campaign run like this. Most folks seemed to not particularly care, I thought it detracted a little from the tactics (since flanking is so much easier positioning actually matters a lot less, there's little you can do to avoid being flanked). I probably wouldn't choose to run this rule as DM, but I also wouldn't skip a campaign because the DM was using it
Pros:
- Easier to flank
- To some minds it makes more sense to be able to flank "at an angle"
- No Conga lines (tbh I don't think it's that big of a problem)
Cons:
- Easier to flank
- More likely to run into situations requiring DM adjudication (flanking around corners for example)
- Positioning becomes tactically less important
answered Mar 20 at 13:13
aslumaslum
2,5041525
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Loosen the requirements for flanking.
Make it easier to flank, such as being able to flank from any of the three opposite squares. At worst you'll have a squiggly conga line for a few moments until someone dies, but then things will get messy again.
For reference I was a player in a campaign run like this. Most folks seemed to not particularly care, I thought it detracted a little from the tactics (since flanking is so much easier positioning actually matters a lot less, there's little you can do to avoid being flanked). I probably wouldn't choose to run this rule as DM, but I also wouldn't skip a campaign because the DM was using it
Pros:
- Easier to flank
- To some minds it makes more sense to be able to flank "at an angle"
- No Conga lines (tbh I don't think it's that big of a problem)
Cons:
- Easier to flank
- More likely to run into situations requiring DM adjudication (flanking around corners for example)
- Positioning becomes tactically less important
answered Mar 20 at 13:13
aslumaslum
2,5041525
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Loosen the requirements for flanking.
Make it easier to flank, such as being able to flank from any of the three opposite squares. At worst you'll have a squiggly conga line for a few moments until someone dies, but then things will get messy again.
For reference I was a player in a campaign run like this. Most folks seemed to not particularly care, I thought it detracted a little from the tactics (since flanking is so much easier positioning actually matters a lot less, there's little you can do to avoid being flanked). I probably wouldn't choose to run this rule as DM, but I also wouldn't skip a campaign because the DM was using it
Pros:
- Easier to flank
- To some minds it makes more sense to be able to flank "at an angle"
- No Conga lines (tbh I don't think it's that big of a problem)
Cons:
- Easier to flank
- More likely to run into situations requiring DM adjudication (flanking around corners for example)
- Positioning becomes tactically less important
answered Mar 20 at 13:13
aslumaslum
2,5041525
$endgroup$
Loosen the requirements for flanking.
Make it easier to flank, such as being able to flank from any of the three opposite squares. At worst you'll have a squiggly conga line for a few moments until someone dies, but then things will get messy again.
For reference I was a player in a campaign run like this. Most folks seemed to not particularly care, I thought it detracted a little from the tactics (since flanking is so much easier positioning actually matters a lot less, there's little you can do to avoid being flanked). I probably wouldn't choose to run this rule as DM, but I also wouldn't skip a campaign because the DM was using it
Pros:
- Easier to flank
- To some minds it makes more sense to be able to flank "at an angle"
- No Conga lines (tbh I don't think it's that big of a problem)
Cons:
- Easier to flank
- More likely to run into situations requiring DM adjudication (flanking around corners for example)
- Positioning becomes tactically less important
answered Mar 20 at 13:13
aslumaslum
2,5041525
edited Mar 20 at 14:40
answered Mar 20 at 13:13
aslumaslum
2,5041525
answered Mar 20 at 13:13
aslumaslum
2,5041525
answered Mar 20 at 13:13
aslumaslum
2,5041525
2,5041525
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Use terrain and enemy battlefield control
I find that considerations like this one are made under a few assumptions:
- There is a vast stretch of featureless terrain on a combat grid that is virtually infinite.
- The enemy only does melee attacks.
This can change if you have to fight in close quarters. Small dungeon rooms are not the only options, you can use thick underbrush, hazards (traps, cliffs, etc.), tree trunks, cover, uneven rooftops and the like. They either make flanking harder by limiting the available squares to or give a different incentive to be somewhere else.
The enemies can use varied tactics: ranged attacks (maybe from above, requiring climb checks to reach them) and also affecting the battlefield with means of their own (spells, maybe caltrops?). These actions can be effective in limiting the space available.
As the DM, both terrain and enemy types and strategy are under your control. Use them :)
answered Mar 20 at 14:49
Rad80Rad80
1675
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
2
$begingroup$
How have you used terrain and battlefield control successfully as a DM to combat the congo line? These are all good theoretical ideas, but answers here need to be supported by gameplay.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@NautArch I never had this problem to begin with, so no: this answer is not "supported by gameplay". However your comment made me reread the tour and I found no mention of this requirement for answers. (Personally, I would agree with it for house rules suggestions but this is not the case). I guess you're referring to a discussion that took place on meta? If this is such an important requirement to warrant downvoting by itself I'd suggest to specify it explicitly at least in the tour.
$endgroup$
– Rad80
Mar 21 at 8:53
1
$begingroup$
The good subjective/bad subjective guidance is here; we had a Q&A on meta a while back on what is or isn't permitted tour material There is also the help center which provides more detailed guidance for using this SE site.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:16
1
$begingroup$
Just as a point of clarity, the desire is for supported answers. Sometimes, there isn't documentation, or the documentation is muddy. At table experience for "how this worked for our group" is a form of a supported answer.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:20
$begingroup$
@Rad80 You brought up a great point about the tour missing that, so i raised that on meta - but it looks like it can't be added :(. Korvin has provided you with the requirements we have here with regard to citation needs to support answers.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Use terrain and enemy battlefield control
I find that considerations like this one are made under a few assumptions:
- There is a vast stretch of featureless terrain on a combat grid that is virtually infinite.
- The enemy only does melee attacks.
This can change if you have to fight in close quarters. Small dungeon rooms are not the only options, you can use thick underbrush, hazards (traps, cliffs, etc.), tree trunks, cover, uneven rooftops and the like. They either make flanking harder by limiting the available squares to or give a different incentive to be somewhere else.
The enemies can use varied tactics: ranged attacks (maybe from above, requiring climb checks to reach them) and also affecting the battlefield with means of their own (spells, maybe caltrops?). These actions can be effective in limiting the space available.
As the DM, both terrain and enemy types and strategy are under your control. Use them :)
answered Mar 20 at 14:49
Rad80Rad80
1675
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
2
$begingroup$
How have you used terrain and battlefield control successfully as a DM to combat the congo line? These are all good theoretical ideas, but answers here need to be supported by gameplay.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@NautArch I never had this problem to begin with, so no: this answer is not "supported by gameplay". However your comment made me reread the tour and I found no mention of this requirement for answers. (Personally, I would agree with it for house rules suggestions but this is not the case). I guess you're referring to a discussion that took place on meta? If this is such an important requirement to warrant downvoting by itself I'd suggest to specify it explicitly at least in the tour.
$endgroup$
– Rad80
Mar 21 at 8:53
1
$begingroup$
The good subjective/bad subjective guidance is here; we had a Q&A on meta a while back on what is or isn't permitted tour material There is also the help center which provides more detailed guidance for using this SE site.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:16
1
$begingroup$
Just as a point of clarity, the desire is for supported answers. Sometimes, there isn't documentation, or the documentation is muddy. At table experience for "how this worked for our group" is a form of a supported answer.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:20
$begingroup$
@Rad80 You brought up a great point about the tour missing that, so i raised that on meta - but it looks like it can't be added :(. Korvin has provided you with the requirements we have here with regard to citation needs to support answers.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Use terrain and enemy battlefield control
I find that considerations like this one are made under a few assumptions:
- There is a vast stretch of featureless terrain on a combat grid that is virtually infinite.
- The enemy only does melee attacks.
This can change if you have to fight in close quarters. Small dungeon rooms are not the only options, you can use thick underbrush, hazards (traps, cliffs, etc.), tree trunks, cover, uneven rooftops and the like. They either make flanking harder by limiting the available squares to or give a different incentive to be somewhere else.
The enemies can use varied tactics: ranged attacks (maybe from above, requiring climb checks to reach them) and also affecting the battlefield with means of their own (spells, maybe caltrops?). These actions can be effective in limiting the space available.
As the DM, both terrain and enemy types and strategy are under your control. Use them :)
answered Mar 20 at 14:49
Rad80Rad80
1675
$endgroup$
Use terrain and enemy battlefield control
I find that considerations like this one are made under a few assumptions:
- There is a vast stretch of featureless terrain on a combat grid that is virtually infinite.
- The enemy only does melee attacks.
This can change if you have to fight in close quarters. Small dungeon rooms are not the only options, you can use thick underbrush, hazards (traps, cliffs, etc.), tree trunks, cover, uneven rooftops and the like. They either make flanking harder by limiting the available squares to or give a different incentive to be somewhere else.
The enemies can use varied tactics: ranged attacks (maybe from above, requiring climb checks to reach them) and also affecting the battlefield with means of their own (spells, maybe caltrops?). These actions can be effective in limiting the space available.
As the DM, both terrain and enemy types and strategy are under your control. Use them :)
answered Mar 20 at 14:49
Rad80Rad80
1675
answered Mar 20 at 14:49
Rad80Rad80
1675
answered Mar 20 at 14:49
Rad80Rad80
1675
answered Mar 20 at 14:49
Rad80Rad80
1675
1675
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
2
$begingroup$
How have you used terrain and battlefield control successfully as a DM to combat the congo line? These are all good theoretical ideas, but answers here need to be supported by gameplay.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@NautArch I never had this problem to begin with, so no: this answer is not "supported by gameplay". However your comment made me reread the tour and I found no mention of this requirement for answers. (Personally, I would agree with it for house rules suggestions but this is not the case). I guess you're referring to a discussion that took place on meta? If this is such an important requirement to warrant downvoting by itself I'd suggest to specify it explicitly at least in the tour.
$endgroup$
– Rad80
Mar 21 at 8:53
1
$begingroup$
The good subjective/bad subjective guidance is here; we had a Q&A on meta a while back on what is or isn't permitted tour material There is also the help center which provides more detailed guidance for using this SE site.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:16
1
$begingroup$
Just as a point of clarity, the desire is for supported answers. Sometimes, there isn't documentation, or the documentation is muddy. At table experience for "how this worked for our group" is a form of a supported answer.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:20
$begingroup$
@Rad80 You brought up a great point about the tour missing that, so i raised that on meta - but it looks like it can't be added :(. Korvin has provided you with the requirements we have here with regard to citation needs to support answers.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
How have you used terrain and battlefield control successfully as a DM to combat the congo line? These are all good theoretical ideas, but answers here need to be supported by gameplay.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@NautArch I never had this problem to begin with, so no: this answer is not "supported by gameplay". However your comment made me reread the tour and I found no mention of this requirement for answers. (Personally, I would agree with it for house rules suggestions but this is not the case). I guess you're referring to a discussion that took place on meta? If this is such an important requirement to warrant downvoting by itself I'd suggest to specify it explicitly at least in the tour.
$endgroup$
– Rad80
Mar 21 at 8:53
1
$begingroup$
The good subjective/bad subjective guidance is here; we had a Q&A on meta a while back on what is or isn't permitted tour material There is also the help center which provides more detailed guidance for using this SE site.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:16
1
$begingroup$
Just as a point of clarity, the desire is for supported answers. Sometimes, there isn't documentation, or the documentation is muddy. At table experience for "how this worked for our group" is a form of a supported answer.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:20
$begingroup$
@Rad80 You brought up a great point about the tour missing that, so i raised that on meta - but it looks like it can't be added :(. Korvin has provided you with the requirements we have here with regard to citation needs to support answers.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
How have you used terrain and battlefield control successfully as a DM to combat the congo line? These are all good theoretical ideas, but answers here need to be supported by gameplay.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
How have you used terrain and battlefield control successfully as a DM to combat the congo line? These are all good theoretical ideas, but answers here need to be supported by gameplay.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@NautArch I never had this problem to begin with, so no: this answer is not "supported by gameplay". However your comment made me reread the tour and I found no mention of this requirement for answers. (Personally, I would agree with it for house rules suggestions but this is not the case). I guess you're referring to a discussion that took place on meta? If this is such an important requirement to warrant downvoting by itself I'd suggest to specify it explicitly at least in the tour.
$endgroup$
– Rad80
Mar 21 at 8:53
$begingroup$
@NautArch I never had this problem to begin with, so no: this answer is not "supported by gameplay". However your comment made me reread the tour and I found no mention of this requirement for answers. (Personally, I would agree with it for house rules suggestions but this is not the case). I guess you're referring to a discussion that took place on meta? If this is such an important requirement to warrant downvoting by itself I'd suggest to specify it explicitly at least in the tour.
$endgroup$
– Rad80
Mar 21 at 8:53
1
1
$begingroup$
The good subjective/bad subjective guidance is here; we had a Q&A on meta a while back on what is or isn't permitted tour material There is also the help center which provides more detailed guidance for using this SE site.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:16
$begingroup$
The good subjective/bad subjective guidance is here; we had a Q&A on meta a while back on what is or isn't permitted tour material There is also the help center which provides more detailed guidance for using this SE site.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:16
1
1
$begingroup$
Just as a point of clarity, the desire is for supported answers. Sometimes, there isn't documentation, or the documentation is muddy. At table experience for "how this worked for our group" is a form of a supported answer.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:20
$begingroup$
Just as a point of clarity, the desire is for supported answers. Sometimes, there isn't documentation, or the documentation is muddy. At table experience for "how this worked for our group" is a form of a supported answer.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:20
$begingroup$
@Rad80 You brought up a great point about the tour missing that, so i raised that on meta - but it looks like it can't be added :(. Korvin has provided you with the requirements we have here with regard to citation needs to support answers.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Rad80 You brought up a great point about the tour missing that, so i raised that on meta - but it looks like it can't be added :(. Korvin has provided you with the requirements we have here with regard to citation needs to support answers.
$endgroup$
– NautArch
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Associate a cost with flanking
Flanking is undoubtedly a cool mechanic: It makes positioning relevant, and models a thoroughly popularised tactic used in actual combat. There's plenty of reasons to want flanking in your games, the only question if how much you are willing to sacrifice to have it.
As other answers have pointed out, one of the inherent costs of flanking someone is risking to be flanked yourself, and that in and of itself is a cost . You can add multiple costs by making movement more expensive, implementing a facing mechanic, or other similar factors.
Alternatively, you can embrace the conga line of death as I will describe below
Embrace it
You won't have a conga line of death in your games if one side or the other is fighting with proper formation in regards to flanking. Breaking a formation then becomes a challenge worth overcoming to get the sweet flanking bonuses, and this encourages cooperation between players. That is always a good thing in my opinion.
You can go deeper down this route and implement counter-line AoE mechanics to punish conga liners.
Build around it
Being the GM you have agency over how your fighting spaces look like. You can force rooms to not allow for conga lines to form by their very layout. If you add a new tool to your story-telling kit, it's not just the players who get to have fun with it.
In the end, it all comes down to you and your troupe (as most things in role playing ) but I hope that these simple ideas, or maybe a mix of them, will help you add the right flavour of excitement to your games.
Happy role playing!
edited Mar 20 at 15:34
KorvinStarmast
82.3k19257444
answered Mar 20 at 11:37
Mister AmenMister Amen
774
New contributor
Mister Amen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
4
$begingroup$
Have you used these techniques yourself at your table, or did a DM do so when you were a player? If so, how did it work out? When one is answering in this manner, the Good Subjective/Bad Subjective guidelines need to be adhered to.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@Korivin, yes i have. I am a new contributor to this site, and as such am still fumbling a bit through the guidelines. I will edit my answer with back ups and references by the end of the day ( where suitable ) and refrain myself from posted undocumented answers in the future. Thank you for the guideline!
$endgroup$
– Mister Amen
Mar 21 at 8:34
$begingroup$
Great, thanks for joining in and we look forward to "seeing" you more in the future. The format can take a little getting used to; it did for me.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Associate a cost with flanking
Flanking is undoubtedly a cool mechanic: It makes positioning relevant, and models a thoroughly popularised tactic used in actual combat. There's plenty of reasons to want flanking in your games, the only question if how much you are willing to sacrifice to have it.
As other answers have pointed out, one of the inherent costs of flanking someone is risking to be flanked yourself, and that in and of itself is a cost . You can add multiple costs by making movement more expensive, implementing a facing mechanic, or other similar factors.
Alternatively, you can embrace the conga line of death as I will describe below
Embrace it
You won't have a conga line of death in your games if one side or the other is fighting with proper formation in regards to flanking. Breaking a formation then becomes a challenge worth overcoming to get the sweet flanking bonuses, and this encourages cooperation between players. That is always a good thing in my opinion.
You can go deeper down this route and implement counter-line AoE mechanics to punish conga liners.
Build around it
Being the GM you have agency over how your fighting spaces look like. You can force rooms to not allow for conga lines to form by their very layout. If you add a new tool to your story-telling kit, it's not just the players who get to have fun with it.
In the end, it all comes down to you and your troupe (as most things in role playing ) but I hope that these simple ideas, or maybe a mix of them, will help you add the right flavour of excitement to your games.
Happy role playing!
edited Mar 20 at 15:34
KorvinStarmast
82.3k19257444
answered Mar 20 at 11:37
Mister AmenMister Amen
774
New contributor
Mister Amen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
4
$begingroup$
Have you used these techniques yourself at your table, or did a DM do so when you were a player? If so, how did it work out? When one is answering in this manner, the Good Subjective/Bad Subjective guidelines need to be adhered to.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@Korivin, yes i have. I am a new contributor to this site, and as such am still fumbling a bit through the guidelines. I will edit my answer with back ups and references by the end of the day ( where suitable ) and refrain myself from posted undocumented answers in the future. Thank you for the guideline!
$endgroup$
– Mister Amen
Mar 21 at 8:34
$begingroup$
Great, thanks for joining in and we look forward to "seeing" you more in the future. The format can take a little getting used to; it did for me.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Associate a cost with flanking
Flanking is undoubtedly a cool mechanic: It makes positioning relevant, and models a thoroughly popularised tactic used in actual combat. There's plenty of reasons to want flanking in your games, the only question if how much you are willing to sacrifice to have it.
As other answers have pointed out, one of the inherent costs of flanking someone is risking to be flanked yourself, and that in and of itself is a cost . You can add multiple costs by making movement more expensive, implementing a facing mechanic, or other similar factors.
Alternatively, you can embrace the conga line of death as I will describe below
Embrace it
You won't have a conga line of death in your games if one side or the other is fighting with proper formation in regards to flanking. Breaking a formation then becomes a challenge worth overcoming to get the sweet flanking bonuses, and this encourages cooperation between players. That is always a good thing in my opinion.
You can go deeper down this route and implement counter-line AoE mechanics to punish conga liners.
Build around it
Being the GM you have agency over how your fighting spaces look like. You can force rooms to not allow for conga lines to form by their very layout. If you add a new tool to your story-telling kit, it's not just the players who get to have fun with it.
In the end, it all comes down to you and your troupe (as most things in role playing ) but I hope that these simple ideas, or maybe a mix of them, will help you add the right flavour of excitement to your games.
Happy role playing!
edited Mar 20 at 15:34
KorvinStarmast
82.3k19257444
answered Mar 20 at 11:37
Mister AmenMister Amen
774
New contributor
Mister Amen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Associate a cost with flanking
Flanking is undoubtedly a cool mechanic: It makes positioning relevant, and models a thoroughly popularised tactic used in actual combat. There's plenty of reasons to want flanking in your games, the only question if how much you are willing to sacrifice to have it.
As other answers have pointed out, one of the inherent costs of flanking someone is risking to be flanked yourself, and that in and of itself is a cost . You can add multiple costs by making movement more expensive, implementing a facing mechanic, or other similar factors.
Alternatively, you can embrace the conga line of death as I will describe below
Embrace it
You won't have a conga line of death in your games if one side or the other is fighting with proper formation in regards to flanking. Breaking a formation then becomes a challenge worth overcoming to get the sweet flanking bonuses, and this encourages cooperation between players. That is always a good thing in my opinion.
You can go deeper down this route and implement counter-line AoE mechanics to punish conga liners.
Build around it
Being the GM you have agency over how your fighting spaces look like. You can force rooms to not allow for conga lines to form by their very layout. If you add a new tool to your story-telling kit, it's not just the players who get to have fun with it.
In the end, it all comes down to you and your troupe (as most things in role playing ) but I hope that these simple ideas, or maybe a mix of them, will help you add the right flavour of excitement to your games.
Happy role playing!
edited Mar 20 at 15:34
KorvinStarmast
82.3k19257444
answered Mar 20 at 11:37
Mister AmenMister Amen
774
New contributor
Mister Amen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Mar 20 at 15:34
KorvinStarmast
82.3k19257444
edited Mar 20 at 15:34
KorvinStarmast
82.3k19257444
edited Mar 20 at 15:34
KorvinStarmast
82.3k19257444
82.3k19257444
answered Mar 20 at 11:37
Mister AmenMister Amen
774
New contributor
Mister Amen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Mar 20 at 11:37
Mister AmenMister Amen
774
answered Mar 20 at 11:37
Mister AmenMister Amen
774
774
New contributor
Mister Amen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Mister Amen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Mister Amen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
4
$begingroup$
Have you used these techniques yourself at your table, or did a DM do so when you were a player? If so, how did it work out? When one is answering in this manner, the Good Subjective/Bad Subjective guidelines need to be adhered to.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@Korivin, yes i have. I am a new contributor to this site, and as such am still fumbling a bit through the guidelines. I will edit my answer with back ups and references by the end of the day ( where suitable ) and refrain myself from posted undocumented answers in the future. Thank you for the guideline!
$endgroup$
– Mister Amen
Mar 21 at 8:34
$begingroup$
Great, thanks for joining in and we look forward to "seeing" you more in the future. The format can take a little getting used to; it did for me.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:11
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
Have you used these techniques yourself at your table, or did a DM do so when you were a player? If so, how did it work out? When one is answering in this manner, the Good Subjective/Bad Subjective guidelines need to be adhered to.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@Korivin, yes i have. I am a new contributor to this site, and as such am still fumbling a bit through the guidelines. I will edit my answer with back ups and references by the end of the day ( where suitable ) and refrain myself from posted undocumented answers in the future. Thank you for the guideline!
$endgroup$
– Mister Amen
Mar 21 at 8:34
$begingroup$
Great, thanks for joining in and we look forward to "seeing" you more in the future. The format can take a little getting used to; it did for me.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:11
4
4
$begingroup$
Have you used these techniques yourself at your table, or did a DM do so when you were a player? If so, how did it work out? When one is answering in this manner, the Good Subjective/Bad Subjective guidelines need to be adhered to.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
Have you used these techniques yourself at your table, or did a DM do so when you were a player? If so, how did it work out? When one is answering in this manner, the Good Subjective/Bad Subjective guidelines need to be adhered to.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@Korivin, yes i have. I am a new contributor to this site, and as such am still fumbling a bit through the guidelines. I will edit my answer with back ups and references by the end of the day ( where suitable ) and refrain myself from posted undocumented answers in the future. Thank you for the guideline!
$endgroup$
– Mister Amen
Mar 21 at 8:34
$begingroup$
@Korivin, yes i have. I am a new contributor to this site, and as such am still fumbling a bit through the guidelines. I will edit my answer with back ups and references by the end of the day ( where suitable ) and refrain myself from posted undocumented answers in the future. Thank you for the guideline!
$endgroup$
– Mister Amen
Mar 21 at 8:34
$begingroup$
Great, thanks for joining in and we look forward to "seeing" you more in the future. The format can take a little getting used to; it did for me.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:11
$begingroup$
Great, thanks for joining in and we look forward to "seeing" you more in the future. The format can take a little getting used to; it did for me.
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 21 at 12:11
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.
answered Mar 19 at 13:40
SpitemasterSpitemaster
2593
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 13:52
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 14:44
2
$begingroup$
"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
Mar 19 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Actually, some monsters technically are stupid. (Check the int and or wis in a given monsters stat block)
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:35
$begingroup$
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, but those monsters won't be trying to flank, so it's a moot point.
$endgroup$
– Spitemaster
Mar 20 at 15:45
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.
answered Mar 19 at 13:40
SpitemasterSpitemaster
2593
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 13:52
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 14:44
2
$begingroup$
"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
Mar 19 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Actually, some monsters technically are stupid. (Check the int and or wis in a given monsters stat block)
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:35
$begingroup$
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, but those monsters won't be trying to flank, so it's a moot point.
$endgroup$
– Spitemaster
Mar 20 at 15:45
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.
answered Mar 19 at 13:40
SpitemasterSpitemaster
2593
$endgroup$
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 Mar 19 at 13:40
SpitemasterSpitemaster
2593
answered Mar 19 at 13:40
SpitemasterSpitemaster
2593
answered Mar 19 at 13:40
SpitemasterSpitemaster
2593
answered Mar 19 at 13:40
SpitemasterSpitemaster
2593
2593
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 13:52
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 14:44
2
$begingroup$
"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
Mar 19 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Actually, some monsters technically are stupid. (Check the int and or wis in a given monsters stat block)
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:35
$begingroup$
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, but those monsters won't be trying to flank, so it's a moot point.
$endgroup$
– Spitemaster
Mar 20 at 15:45
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
Mar 19 at 13:52
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 14:44
2
$begingroup$
"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
Mar 19 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Actually, some monsters technically are stupid. (Check the int and or wis in a given monsters stat block)
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:35
$begingroup$
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, but those monsters won't be trying to flank, so it's a moot point.
$endgroup$
– Spitemaster
Mar 20 at 15:45
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 13:52
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 13:52
3
3
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 14:44
$begingroup$
@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
Mar 19 at 14:44
2
2
$begingroup$
"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
Mar 19 at 20:25
$begingroup$
"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
Mar 19 at 20:25
$begingroup$
Actually, some monsters technically are stupid. (Check the int and or wis in a given monsters stat block)
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:35
$begingroup$
Actually, some monsters technically are stupid. (Check the int and or wis in a given monsters stat block)
$endgroup$
– KorvinStarmast
Mar 20 at 15:35
$begingroup$
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, but those monsters won't be trying to flank, so it's a moot point.
$endgroup$
– Spitemaster
Mar 20 at 15:45
$begingroup$
@KorvinStarmast Yeah, but those monsters won't be trying to flank, so it's a moot point.
$endgroup$
– Spitemaster
Mar 20 at 15:45
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.
answered Mar 19 at 20:46
Ross ThompsonRoss Thompson
99
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.
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Mar 19 at 20:55
1
$begingroup$
This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Mar 19 at 20:55
$begingroup$
I've never seen a conga line of death in practice; as a player (or when controlling NPCS), I find myself moving out of being flanked about as often as moving in to flank. Except when playing a rogue, where the benefits are worth the risks.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:26
1
$begingroup$
Of course, as the question is being asked by a GM, the obvious answer is "just don't have the NPCs move into the conga line." If you feel like you need some justification for that "They don't want to be flanked" should suffice.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:28
$begingroup$
But all of that is context that you need to include in the answer, including citing your own play experience.
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
Mar 20 at 16:30
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.
answered Mar 19 at 20:46
Ross ThompsonRoss Thompson
99
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.
$endgroup$
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Mar 19 at 20:55
1
$begingroup$
This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Mar 19 at 20:55
$begingroup$
I've never seen a conga line of death in practice; as a player (or when controlling NPCS), I find myself moving out of being flanked about as often as moving in to flank. Except when playing a rogue, where the benefits are worth the risks.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:26
1
$begingroup$
Of course, as the question is being asked by a GM, the obvious answer is "just don't have the NPCs move into the conga line." If you feel like you need some justification for that "They don't want to be flanked" should suffice.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:28
$begingroup$
But all of that is context that you need to include in the answer, including citing your own play experience.
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
Mar 20 at 16:30
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.
answered Mar 19 at 20:46
Ross ThompsonRoss Thompson
99
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.
answered Mar 19 at 20:46
Ross ThompsonRoss Thompson
99
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 Mar 19 at 20:46
Ross ThompsonRoss Thompson
99
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 Mar 19 at 20:46
Ross ThompsonRoss Thompson
99
answered Mar 19 at 20:46
Ross ThompsonRoss Thompson
99
99
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.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Mar 19 at 20:55
1
$begingroup$
This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Mar 19 at 20:55
$begingroup$
I've never seen a conga line of death in practice; as a player (or when controlling NPCS), I find myself moving out of being flanked about as often as moving in to flank. Except when playing a rogue, where the benefits are worth the risks.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:26
1
$begingroup$
Of course, as the question is being asked by a GM, the obvious answer is "just don't have the NPCs move into the conga line." If you feel like you need some justification for that "They don't want to be flanked" should suffice.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:28
$begingroup$
But all of that is context that you need to include in the answer, including citing your own play experience.
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
Mar 20 at 16:30
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
Mar 19 at 20:55
1
$begingroup$
This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Mar 19 at 20:55
$begingroup$
I've never seen a conga line of death in practice; as a player (or when controlling NPCS), I find myself moving out of being flanked about as often as moving in to flank. Except when playing a rogue, where the benefits are worth the risks.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:26
1
$begingroup$
Of course, as the question is being asked by a GM, the obvious answer is "just don't have the NPCs move into the conga line." If you feel like you need some justification for that "They don't want to be flanked" should suffice.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:28
$begingroup$
But all of that is context that you need to include in the answer, including citing your own play experience.
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
Mar 20 at 16:30
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Mar 19 at 20:55
$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
Mar 19 at 20:55
1
1
$begingroup$
This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Mar 19 at 20:55
$begingroup$
This answer as it is seems purely theoretical. Is this something that you have seen happen in practice?
$endgroup$
– Sdjz
Mar 19 at 20:55
$begingroup$
I've never seen a conga line of death in practice; as a player (or when controlling NPCS), I find myself moving out of being flanked about as often as moving in to flank. Except when playing a rogue, where the benefits are worth the risks.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:26
$begingroup$
I've never seen a conga line of death in practice; as a player (or when controlling NPCS), I find myself moving out of being flanked about as often as moving in to flank. Except when playing a rogue, where the benefits are worth the risks.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:26
1
1
$begingroup$
Of course, as the question is being asked by a GM, the obvious answer is "just don't have the NPCs move into the conga line." If you feel like you need some justification for that "They don't want to be flanked" should suffice.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:28
$begingroup$
Of course, as the question is being asked by a GM, the obvious answer is "just don't have the NPCs move into the conga line." If you feel like you need some justification for that "They don't want to be flanked" should suffice.
$endgroup$
– Ross Thompson
Mar 20 at 14:28
$begingroup$
But all of that is context that you need to include in the answer, including citing your own play experience.
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
Mar 20 at 16:30
$begingroup$
But all of that is context that you need to include in the answer, including citing your own play experience.
$endgroup$
– Bloodcinder
Mar 20 at 16:30
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
25
$begingroup$
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
Mar 19 at 12:17
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
Mar 19 at 15:18
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
Mar 19 at 16:35
1
$begingroup$
Do you have an actual concrete incident where this occurred, and can you describe it? Or is this just theoretical?
$endgroup$
– Yakk
Mar 20 at 13:22
1
$begingroup$
Is this an actual problem? Wouldn't combat be improved by people trying to maintain advantageous positions beyond just standing in the same spot all day?
$endgroup$
– SeriousBri
Mar 20 at 13:57