6ENow!
The Game Is Over
You know, maybe I missed it, but @Rockyroad, are you more concerned about flanking with a VTT or minis or in Theatre of Mind???
I use the shield limitation...The only problem with @Darryl Wright's review is both @Rockyroad and @Charlaquin acknowledge their use of the "facing" concept to make getting into position harder, but do not employ the full facing rules @Darryl Wright cites from the DMG, with the use of shield limitation, etc.
My apologies, I thought you mentioned earlier that you didn't use the full facing rules.I use the shield limitation...
We use VTT. We didn't employ the shield rules for facing.You know, maybe I missed it, but @Rockyroad, are you more concerned about flanking with a VTT or minis or in Theatre of Mind???
Oh. Yeah, I do. I streamline the Marking rules very slightly because it seems like an unnecessary extra step to declare that you’re Marking a target when it’s free to do. I just assume you Mark any creature you target with a melee attack to speed things up a bit.My apologies, I thought you mentioned earlier that you didn't use the full facing rules.
Yeah I like that, makes sense.Oh. Yeah, I do. I streamline the Marking rules very slightly because it seems like an unnecessary extra step to declare that you’re Marking a target when it’s free to do. I just assume you Mark any creature you target with a melee attack to speed things up a bit.
You can only Mark a creature you've made a melee attack against. Of course, if you attack multiple targets, I would assume you could mark any of them...Oh. Yeah, I do. I streamline the Marking rules very slightly because it seems like an unnecessary extra step to declare that you’re Marking a target when it’s free to do. I just assume you Mark any creature you target with a melee attack to speed things up a bit.
Well, it’s kinda explicitly stated by the position of the mini (or token on a VTT). I don’t think I’d use facing in TotM. Too much to keep in your head.Yeah I like that, makes sense.
Do you also assume a facing if not specifically stated?
Cant face diagonally by DMG rules. Which is why spaces half in one arc and half in another favor front, then side, then back. Which also further contributes to the specificity of positioning required to gain advantage for being in a target’s back arc.
Exactly, so specifying that you Mark a target is an unnecessary extra step. If you make a melee attack against a target, you Mark it. Nothing in the Marking rule says you can’t have multiple target’s Marked, so I assume if you make melee attacks against multiple targets in one round, you Mark all of them.You can only Mark a creature you've made a melee attack against. Of course, if you attack multiple targets, I would assume you could mark any of them...
Yeah, it is a limitation of the grid system IMO.Cant face diagonally by DMG rules. Which is why spaces half in one arc and half in another favor front, then side, then back. Which also further contributes to the specificity of positioning required to gain advantage for being in a target’s back arc.
That’s correct.Yeah, it is a limitation of the grid system IMO.
Since you only allow advantage on attacks from the rear, it basically limits only one creature to gaining that advantage.
The latter.But (correct me if I am wrong) you also require the target be marked?
Or does also marking the target simply allow you the free OA against it?
No problem! Sorry if I’ve been unclear. I just use the facing rule and the marking rule both RAW, apart from the fact that I don’t require players to declare that they are marking a target when they attack it. I find the two rules compliment each other very well, and accomplish what I want out of a flanking rule (encouraging tactical positioning), without the problems I’ve found the flanking rule in the DMG to cause (making it too easy to gain advantage). As an added benefit, they’re both optional rules I can just point to in the DMG rather than having to introduce a house rule.I don't mean to be thick, I am just trying to piece together exactly what you are doing compared to RAW.
Oh yeah. Derr.... !!Well, it’s kinda explicitly stated by the position of the mini (or token on a VTT). I don’t think I’d use facing in TotM. Too much to keep in your head.
This ^^I just use the facing rule and the marking rule both RAW, apart from the fact that I don’t require players to declare that they are marking a target when they attack it. I find the two rules compliment each other very well, and accomplish what I want out of a flanking rule (encouraging tactical positioning), without the problems I’ve found the flanking rule in the DMG to cause (making it too easy to gain advantage). As an added benefit, they’re both optional rules I can just point to in the DMG rather than having to introduce a house rule.
This is a completely valid alternative approach.So, recapping from Darryl's work:
Flanking is too easy to get.
Then you need to create a house-rule to make it harder to get into position.
Having it grant advantage detracts from class features that otherwise grant advantage.
Then you need to have it grant something other than advantage.
Ok, I can see how using facing more encourages tactics (I always preferred such options in AD&D and 3E, despite the complexity):No problem! Sorry if I’ve been unclear. I just use the facing rule and the marking rule both RAW, apart from the fact that I don’t require players to declare that they are marking a target when they attack it. I find the two rules compliment each other very well, and accomplish what I want out of a flanking rule (encouraging tactical positioning), without the problems I’ve found the flanking rule in the DMG to cause (making it too easy to gain advantage). As an added benefit, they’re both optional rules I can just point to in the DMG rather than having to introduce a house rule.
I can see how @Charlaquin's idea to use facing helps with the first part (harder to get into position) but doesn't really help with the second because it is still advantage...This is a completely valid alternative approach.
Upsides are that you can play around with the exact mechanics to tune it to your desired strength, and you can streamline the amount of overhead required to run it at the table.
Downsides are you don't have the DMG RAW to point to, plus it's more work to come up with it.
YMMV as which works for you better.
My take on what Charlequin is saying about using them both together (and the reason I'm interested in trying them at my table) is as follows:Ok, I can see how using facing more encourages tactics (I always preferred such options in AD&D and 3E, despite the complexity):
1. Making sure you are facing the target(s) you want to use your shield against and also not allow advantage against you (from rear attacks).
2. Gaining the rear attack position to gain advantage on your attacks.
In #2, having allies engaged with the target is what creates the situation for you to get "behind" the target.
This (replacing flanking) means the only way to get advantage is to be in the rear position. It is obviously much less applicable than flanking since only one creature can gain it.
For the most part, the OP's idea of side-position getting +2 and rear attacks getting +5 mimic this closely and still allows other sources of advantage to come into play. IIRC in AD&D it was +2 and +4 for rear attacks...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But how does Marking help? I mean, OAs are rare IME and don't happen that often, so gaining advantage on them is sort of meh and even allowing it as a free action would (IME) not benefit many builds (mostly rogue will LOVE this!!!).
I mean, they are two separate things: flanking (advantage on all attacks) vs. marking (free OA with advantage).
Sometimes they'll get advantage through these rules, but not always. Only on OAs or rear attacks.I can see how @Charlaquin's idea to use facing helps with the first part (harder to get into position) but doesn't really help with the second because it is still advantage...
I rarely see reactions needing more contention. Other than OAs, shield, and Uncanny Dodge, there isn't a lot for reactions IME.Using Facing means there is an addition contender for use of the Reaction, meaning OAs will be even less likely to be used than normal
Which defeats the purpose of the first item, creating more contention. So, it is sort of self-defeating.Using Marking as well gives OAs without needing to use the Reaction, easing the constraint imposed by using Facing.
Yep, that is one reason why I understand @Charlaquin liking the idea of facing.Using Facing only gives advantage when attacking from the rear, which isn't going to be all the time (but as you say, Rogues will love it)
Hitting in 5E is rarely a problem, so giving OAs advantage and making them free is overkill IMO. Making them a free reaction would be good enough I would think.Using Marking gives advantage when doing OAs as well, so it's still not all the time, but it's more often that just rear attacks (and gives the tanks some love too).
Again, I understand why facing is a good option to replace flanking, I just don't see how marking really brings anything to the "replace flanking" table.Using Facing means people will be encouraged to think about their positioning & facing, for reasons 1 & 2 you mention above, which encourages a level of strategic playstyle.
Again, increasing the chance of hitting is not much of a benefit. IME players are already loathe to provoke OAs, so will disengage if they have to before risking an OA. Only features like those from Sentinel which offer other means to gain an OA will really benefit from marking as the advantage is there and the OA becomes free.Using Marking as well means that OAs are more likely to hit meaning they bump up in the threat assessment, so that movement taking advantage of Facing needs to be more considered.
True, which is much less than flanking does (just facing alone, really).Sometimes they'll get advantage through these rules, but not always. Only on OAs or rear attacks.
In which case the OP might as well remove flanking and not worry too much about facing, simply declare any attacker in position opposite the target's last attack as "rear", and give that one creature advantage or whatever "something else" to replace it.There'll still be plenty of opportunities for class features that grant advantage in other situations to still be of benefit.
As opposed to just always getting advantage for every attack from flanking just because you showed up to the fight with a mate nearby.
Because without marking, you can't change your facing and make an opportunity attack in the same turn. Without marking, a single attacker can gain advantage against a target by literally running circles around them.Ok, I can see how using facing more encourages tactics (I always preferred such options in AD&D and 3E, despite the complexity):
1. Making sure you are facing the target(s) you want to use your shield against and also not allow advantage against you (from rear attacks).
2. Gaining the rear attack position to gain advantage on your attacks.
In #2, having allies engaged with the target is what creates the situation for you to get "behind" the target.
This (replacing flanking) means the only way to get advantage is to be in the rear position. It is obviously much less applicable than flanking since only one creature can gain it.
For the most part, the OP's idea of side-position getting +2 and rear attacks getting +5 mimic this closely and still allows other sources of advantage to come into play. IIRC in AD&D it was +2 and +4 for rear attacks...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But how does Marking help? I mean, OAs are rare IME and don't happen that often, so gaining advantage on them is sort of meh and even allowing it as a free action would (IME) not benefit many builds (mostly rogue will LOVE this!!!).
I mean, they are two separate things: flanking (advantage on all attacks) vs. marking (free OA with advantage).