D&D 5E (2014) Flanking

[Charlaquin]

I just don't see how they are supposed to help with flanking.

They aren’t, they’re supposed to replace flanking. Like I said earlier, I find flanking makes it too easy to gain advantage in 5e. Facing allows you to gain advantage from tactical positioning, but makes doing so more difficult to achieve. I find, in this edition, it gives me more of what I want out of a flanking rule than flanking does.

We "use" facing but only in the sense if a target is being attacked from the rear (and thus we have an unseen attacker... which grants advantage). But if the target is in melee with another foe, it is being "flanked" anyway--which also gives advantage so it becomes a moot point.

Right, that’s the point. Facing emulates flanking, but does it in a way where the necessary positioning is more precise than the flanking rule does, making it more worth granting advantage for.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah there seemed to be some confusion from my original post where I talked about "facing" in my proposed flanking rule. It is not the facing rule from the DMG. It is only an orientation marker to tell attackers where to stand in order to be either at the sides (flanks) or rear of the target. There are no other mechanical effects for facing in that context. I think the DMG facing is too much to consider and keep track of.

No, no confusion. Just an alternative suggestion.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah there seemed to be some confusion from my original post where I talked about "facing" in my proposed flanking rule. It is not the facing rule from the DMG. It is only an orientation marker to tell attackers where to stand in order to be either at the sides (flanks) or rear of the target. There are no other mechanical effects for facing in that context. I think the DMG facing is too much to consider and keep track of.

Ah... ok. I don't mind the more fiddly stuff if the DM wants to keep track of it, but with ToM it is entirely up to them. Using VTT or miniatures makes it easier for everyone to see. Personally, for the "reality" aspect of it, I preferred the difference ACs: front/normal, shieldess, surprised, rear from prior editions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

They aren’t, they’re supposed to replace flanking. Like I said earlier, I find flanking makes it too easy to gain advantage in 5e. Facing allows you to gain advantage from tactical positioning, but makes doing so more difficult to achieve. I find, in this edition, it gives me more of what I want out of a flanking rule than flanking does.

Right, that’s the point. Facing emulates flanking, but does it in a way where the necessary positioning is more precise than the flanking rule does, making it more worth granting advantage for.

So, you are only granting advantage from the rear, when the attacker is unseen?

Also, you mentioned using it with Marking--what does that have to do with the other?

 

[Charlaquin]

So, you are only granting advantage from the rear, when the attacker is unseen?

Correct.

Also, you mentioned using it with Marking--what does that have to do with the other?

Makes it so that opportunity attacks and changing facing aren’t competing for your reaction.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Makes it so that opportunity attacks and changing facing aren’t competing for your reaction.

It also makes it so OA and other reactions (Uncanny Dodge, shield, etc.) also aren't in competition for your reaction. It seems to me that would lead to more problems. That was my point earlier.

 

[Rockyroad]

Correct.

Makes it so that opportunity attacks and changing facing aren’t competing for your reaction.

Ah I see what you're saying now. That makes sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

It also makes it so OA and other reactions (Uncanny Dodge, shield, etc.) also aren't in competition for your reaction.

It does, but those options are now in competition with changing facing for your reaction, so IME it works out.

It seems to me that would leads to more problems. That was my point earlier.

How so?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Regarding such things, it seems if you have a target flanked on both sides, it would be easier to just have the target turn to face one enemy head on, granting the rear attacker advantage, instead of allowing both attackers to have advantage due to flanking.

It does, but those options are now in competition with changing facing for your reaction, so IME it works out.

If it works for you, that's fine--I'd have to see it in use to determine if I found it problematic or not.

How so?

Just in dealing with other possible uses for reactions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Regarding such things, it seems if you have a target flanked on both sides, it would be easier to just have the target turn to face one enemy head on, granting the rear attacker advantage, instead of allowing both attackers to have advantage due to flanking.

No, again, my suggestion is to use Facing in place of Flanking. Only the attacker in the rear flank gets advantage. That’s literally the point.

Just in dealing with other possible uses for reactions.

Players should be able to use those features, though. Facing on its own makes that much more difficult, because players have one more thing (and a very important thing at that) competing for their reaction. Adding in Marking frees OAs up from using your reaction (at least in melee, which is where you’re most likely to need your reaction to change facing), so you’re back to the normal number of things competing for that resource.