Wow, go to sleep and look what you miss when a thread is active ! Lots of interesting discussion !
But again, I’ve taken up enough of this thread with discussion of Facing and Marking. I recommend trying them together, but if it isn’t for you, no worries!
Well, I don't see your suggestion really detracting from the thread in any fashion; after all, you are offering it as an alternative to normal flanking rules.
I also don't see it detracting from the thread, or off-topic at all. Quite the contrary I see it as an extremely elegant solution to the problem of what the OP is asking / trying to achieve.
Points from the OP:
* flanking as written in the DMG is too easy to obtain
* the advantage that it grants is too strong a benefit for something so easy to obtain
* advantage specifically obviates the benefits from certain class features
* however not using flanking reduces the driver for more tactical playstyle
Question from the OP:
* how many use flanking and do you use it as written or homebrew it ?
So in a nutshell, it seems the OP is looking for a solution that drives & incentivises a more tactical playstyle, but without being too easy to obtain a benefit that is too strong or that undermines class features, with consideration for as-written or homebrew rulings.
To me, using Facing & Marking gets a lot of ticks against these criteria:
* It is rules as written in the DMG (just as optional as Flanking, no more, no less) so no homebrew required. Tick.
* It means thinking about positioning & facing and involves judicious use of their mark, reaction and OA, so it drives a tactical playstyle. Tick.
* It isn't as easy as simply "I turn up to the melee so I have advantage in all my attacks". Tick.
* And, it only grants advantage to specifically OA's and attacks on the rear arc, so there is still room for class abilities that specifically grant advantage to still have an added benefit over this. Partial Tick (in some situations the class abilities might still be superceded).
* OAs become more useful than by default, some extra crunchiness is available if desired (such as shields only benefitting against attacks in front & left arcs, being surrounded or having someone behind you actually matters, etc). Not part of the original criteria but worthy of bonus points IMHO.
Overall rating vs OP critieria: 4/4 (if the partial tick and the bonus pts add up to a whole point between them)
That doesn't mean of course that it's the best/only valid solution to the OP, there may be others that are as good or better. But in terms of what the OP was asking for, it certainly looks pretty on-point to me !
Yes, I agree with you that Marking just seems to give you free advantage OAs at no cost, which is why I wouldn’t use it without Facing. With Facing though, I feel that free OAs are warranted, to compensate for the additional competition for the reaction resource.
No, I can't see myself using Marking to offer free OAs and allow other reactions (such as Uncanny Dodge) in addition to the OAs in my games. Facing would only mitigate the issue slightly, and even then I don't see it doing so in a sizable manner.
Frankly, I don't see too many issues with flanking as it is anyway. But one option I thought might work well (someone else probably already suggested it--but oh well) would be each ally in combat with your target grants a +1 bonus to all for attacks.
So, if a party of 5 PCs surrounded a giant, they would all get a +4 to attack rolls instead of giving them all advantage.
Both entirely fair points.
The stacking +1 instead of advantage is also another valid option. On the plus die it would definitely not undermine any class abilities as it's different from any existing mechanics. On the downside, it's different from any existing mechanics so it's entirely homebrew. It's probably in the same boat as the flanking rule of "I just turn up and get a big benefit" too.
Overall I'd give this one maybe a 2/4 vs the OP criteria.