D&D 5E Flanking

[Charlaquin]

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...

It doesn't directly address the second problem, no. The idea is that it indirectly addresses it, because with the difficulty of gaining the upper hand via tactical positioning under the facing rule as compared to the flanking rule, advantage becomes a more appropriate benefit relative to the effort required to gain it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yep, that is one reason why I understand @Charlaquin liking the idea of facing.

Yeah, I'll admit that part of the appeal of facing to me is due to my own bias in favor of rogues.

 

[Charlaquin]

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:

• 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
• Using Marking as well gives OAs without needing to use the Reaction, easing the constraint imposed by using 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)
• 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).
• 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.
• 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.

To me there's just a whole bunch of synergies and elegance about things that play really nicely together that end up being more than just the individual parts.

Yep, you nailed it. This is exactly my thinking on the matter.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Let's say you're engaged in melee combat with an orc, and you are each facing towards each other at the top of the round. You can use 15 feet of movement (or 10 feet if you don't sweat diagonals) to maneuver into the orc's back arc. Now, the orc can use its reaction to turn around and prevent you from attacking with advantage, but you'll still have enough movement left to move around them again and get into their back arc, and the orc no longer has a reaction available to punish this maneuver with an attack of opportunity.

While I see your point I have to disagree unless you have two attacks or more.

The orc only need use its reaction if you attack. If you don't and continue moving around it, it never uses its reaction. If you have two attacks and have the speed and clear spaces to move around your target, then the orc would use its reaction to negate the first "rear" attack with advantage by facing you but your second attack would be with advantage since you are behind it.

(The whole scenario of running circles around your target is comical IMO, and a reason why moving more than 5 feet in a threatened space should still provoke an OA--but it doesn't, sadly).

Frankly, nothing you are doing would allow the orc an OA anyway (what I bolded) so why would you be concerned about it still having one?

By introducing the marking rule, the orc can change facing and still protect its back arc by threatening an opportunity attack.

In 5E as long as your are moving within the target's reach, your movement doesn't provoke an OA (you know this) so I fail to see how the above movement would provoke one or require the orc to protect its back arc?

Finally, it isn't moving away from you so you don't need your reaction to get an OA, either.

It doesn't directly address the second problem, no. The idea is that it indirectly addresses it, because with the difficulty of gaining the upper hand via tactical positioning under the facing rule as compared to the flanking rule, advantage becomes a more appropriate benefit relative to the effort required to gain it.

What effort? You move behind the target and attack it. If you use the facing rule and allow it to turn around, your ally can move to gain the advantage of a rear attack because it has no reaction left to turn. One of your or the other will benefit from the rear attack and the advantage it grants.

This is certainly better than flanking in that only one person can do it, but that all really (a big improvement--not knocking that). I don't really see it requiring much more effort, though. All I see is the reaction allows the DM to deny it to one player and thus grant it to another--sort of frustrating but possibly amusing as well. shrug

 

[Charlaquin]

While I see your point I have to disagree unless you have two attacks or more.

The orc only need use its reaction if you attack. If you don't and continue moving around it, it never uses its reaction. If you have two attacks and have the speed and clear spaces to move around your target, then the orc would use its reaction to negate the first "rear" attack with advantage by facing you but your second attack would be with advantage since you are behind it.

Actually by the flanking rule in the DMG, the orc can respond to you moving around behind it by changing facing, but not to you attacking it from behind. That’s because the only trigger for using your reaction to change facing (at least by DMG RAW - you could house rule this if you wanted to) is when another creature ends its movement. Now, you could argue that your movement hasn’t really “ended” if you then go on to move back around to the other side of the orc, but those are reeds I have no interest in getting into. The way movement works in 5e allows you to split it up however you like during your turn, and I like that about it. I wouldn’t ask my players to declare when they’ve “ended” their movement for the turn.

(The whole scenario of running circles around your target is comical IMO, and a reason why moving more than 5 feet in a threatened space should still provoke an OA--but it doesn't, sadly).

Frankly, nothing you are doing would allow the orc an OA anyway (what I bolded) so why would you be concerned about it still having one?

In 5E as long as your are moving within the target's reach, your movement doesn't provoke an OA (you know this) so I fail to see how the above movement would provoke one or require the orc to protect its back arc?

Ah, see, the way I interpret Facing, your back arc isn’t within your reach, since the text says you “normally can’t attack creatures in your back arc.” So by my reading, entering a creature’s back arc while within 5 feet of it (or 10 feet if it’s wielding a Reach weapon) would provoke an opportunity attack. That’s actually another point in favor of Facing for me, as it curtails the ability to move freely around a target while within its reach, without going back to the gridlock of 3e and 4e OAs.

What effort? You move behind the target and attack it. If you use the facing rule and allow it to turn around, your ally can move to gain the advantage of a rear attack because it has no reaction left to turn. One of your or the other will benefit from the rear attack and the advantage it grants.

This is certainly better than flanking in that only one person can do it, but that all really (a big improvement--not knocking that). I don't really see it requiring much more effort, though. All I see is the reaction allows the DM to deny it to one player and thus grant it to another--sort of frustrating but possibly amusing as well. shrug

It requires you to coordinate with your teammate rather than simply standing on either side of your target. For example, if the fighter approaches and attacks the orc from in front first, and then the rogue approaches the orc’s back, it will turn around to deny the rogue advantage, meaning neither character got an advantage attack in that round. If the rogue first approaches the orc’s back, it will probably turn around immediately to deny the rogue advantage, potentially giving the fighter the opportunity to attack with advantage. Useful, but not optimal since the rogue benefits more from advantage than the fighter does. If the rogue first approaches the orc from in front and Readies an action to attack if the orc turns around, and then the Fighter approaches the orc from behind, the orc is in a tricky position, as it has to decide if it should allow the fighter that advantage attack, or turn around, exposing its back to the rogue. There’s a lot more for both the players and me to consider to try and take advantage of the Facing rule than the Flanking rule, and in my opinion that makes the advantage feel much more earned than it does with flanking. YMMV.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

It requires you to coordinate with your teammate rather than simply standing on either side of your target. For example, if the fighter approaches and attacks the orc from in front first, and then the rogue approaches the orc’s back, it will turn around to deny the rogue advantage, meaning neither character got an advantage attack in that round. If the rogue first approaches the orc’s back, it will probably turn around immediately to deny the rogue advantage, potentially giving the fighter the opportunity to attack with advantage. Useful, but not optimal since the rogue benefits more from advantage than the fighter does. If the rogue first approaches the orc from in front and Readies an action to attack if the orc turns around, and then the Fighter approaches the orc from behind, the orc is in a tricky position, as it has to decide if it should allow the fighter that advantage attack, or turn around, exposing its back to the rogue. There’s a lot more for both the players and me to consider to try and take advantage of the Facing rule than the Flanking rule, and in my opinion that makes the advantage feel much more earned than it does with flanking. YMMV.

I love everything about this.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Actually by the flanking rule in the DMG, the orc can respond to you moving around behind it by changing facing, but not to you attacking it from behind. That’s because the only trigger for using your reaction to change facing (at least by DMG RAW - you could house rule this if you wanted to) is when another creature ends its movement. Now, you could argue that your movement hasn’t really “ended” if you then go on to move back around to the other side of the orc, but those are reeds I have no interest in getting into. The way movement works in 5e allows you to split it up however you like during your turn, and I like that about it. I wouldn’t ask my players to declare when they’ve “ended” their movement for the turn.

I think you meant "facing" not flanking?

Correct, I misread that earlier. But (as you'll read below) unless you attack your movement hasn't ended and thus the orc won't use its trigger.

I was thinking about the "ending" movement. Technically, if you have two attacks you are ending your move twice, so I don't see any issue with that and how your scenario plays out--so nothing to get into on that IMO.

But without an attack (which is the only way you can split your movement, unless you dash or something maybe ), you are still moving and it wouldn't have ended yet (so, no triggering event for the orc). 5E doesn't allow you to split it [movement] up however you like turning your turn.

Ah, see, the way I interpret Facing, your back arc isn’t within your reach, since the text says you “normally can’t attack creatures in your back arc.” So by my reading, entering a creature’s back arc while within 5 feet of it (or 10 feet if it’s wielding a Reach weapon) would provoke an opportunity attack. That’s actually another point in favor of Facing for me, as it curtails the ability to move freely around a target while within its reach, without going back to the gridlock of 3e and 4e OAs.

LOL that's a pretty loose interpretation IMO and as I player I would not be cool with that, personally. After all, the attacker is moving into your blind spot so making an attack against it as an OA (especially with advantage via marking) seems a bit far-fetched.

I mean, it seems like you are trying to create a more realistic and tactical situation, but I don't see how (realistically) it makes sense that if someone is moving behind you, you get a chance to attack them. shrug

It requires you to coordinate with your teammate rather than simply standing on either side of your target. For example, if the fighter approaches and attacks the orc from in front first, and then the rogue approaches the orc’s back, it will turn around to deny the rogue advantage, meaning neither character got an advantage attack in that round. If the rogue first approaches the orc’s back, it will probably turn around immediately to deny the rogue advantage, potentially giving the fighter the opportunity to attack with advantage. Useful, but not optimal since the rogue benefits more from advantage than the fighter does. If the rogue first approaches the orc from in front and Readies an action to attack if the orc turns around, and then the Fighter approaches the orc from behind, the orc is in a tricky position, as it has to decide if it should allow the fighter that advantage attack, or turn around, exposing its back to the rogue. There’s a lot more for both the players and me to consider to try and take advantage of the Facing rule than the Flanking rule, and in my opinion that makes the advantage feel much more earned than it does with flanking. YMMV.

Ok, let's see if I have this right...

1. The fighter moves into the rear position (red). The orc can either make an OA (with your interpretation) or change facing. Note: the orc has not attacked yet, so hasn't marked the fighter, so the OA won't be free or with advantage. So...
2. The orc changes facing to deny the fighter advantage. Turning to keep the fighter and rogue both on its sides (yellow).
3. The rogue then moves into the rear position (red) to attack with advantage as an unseen attacker since the orc cannot turn again.

Now, how is this ANY different from the set up for normal flanking without worrying about facing:

Honestly, it seems more like you are making things convoluted with only the semblance of tactics.

Now, I understand compared to normal flanking rules, only one PC would gain advantage with via the facing rules. I think that part is great because a big issue with flanking for many people is that its too easy for everyone to get advantage on their attacks.

But, what am I missing? I am not concerned about marking, frankly, as I would never use it without some sort of action cost, but that is just my personal preference. So, other than limiting "flanking" advantage to the rear position only, what does all this accomplish?

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Rockyroad

Here's a crazy thought: instead of the attackers gaining a direct benefit when flanking, what about imposing a penalty on the flanked creature?

I am just spit-balling stuff here, and thinking in terms more of the narrative:

If an orc is being attacked by a fighter and rogue, it has to divide its attention between them, basically increasing its defensive stance (so to say). In my mind, this lessens its offense, so maybe imposing disadvantage on its attacks would work well? It isn't going full on Dodge, but it is holding back its attack a bit.

If the orc wanted to ignore the situation and focus solely on one target (fighter or rogue), then allowing the other PC something (advantage or whatever...) a bonus of some sort makes sense to me. The orc is trying to kill one foe quickly so it can focus on the other.

This would nicely translate into the concept of two or more allies harassing a foe IMO.

It also allows attackers to benefit from other sources of advantage, which was something you wanted, when the orc accepts disadvantage on its own attacks. True, if it ignores one threat and attacks the other, you are stuck with advantage for the other attacker or something else. This is where my idea before of +1 per extra attacker might work? shrug

Ex. A party is facing a hill giant. Three PCs move to engage in melee and surround the giant. Depending on the giant's actions:

1. If the giant focuses its defenses, turn and such to keep an eye on its foes, it accepts disadvantage on its own attacks.
2. If the giant focuses on one PC and attacks it normally, the other PCs would get a +2 on their attack rolls. The PCs that stayed back and are attacking at range (say a caster with cantrips and an archer maybe?) would also get the +2 bonus I would think, but they don't count towards increasing the bonus.

Just a thought.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think you meant "facing" not flanking?

I did, yeah.

Correct, I misread that earlier. But (as you'll read below) unless you attack your movement hasn't ended and thus the orc won't use its trigger.

I was thinking about the "ending" movement. Technically, if you have two attacks you are ending your move twice, so I don't see any issue with that and how your scenario plays out--so nothing to get into on that IMO.

But without an attack (which is the only way you can split your movement, unless you dash or something maybe ), you are still moving and it wouldn't have ended yet (so, no triggering event for the orc). 5E doesn't allow you to split it [movement] up however you like turning your turn.

The thing is, the way the rules for movement in 5e are written, it isn’t a discrete activity with a start and an end. It’s a resource you expend to change your character’s position. It’s actually something I find to be a bit of a flaw in the way the Facing rules are written, since short of a creature running out of movement, there’s no mechanism in the rules to indicate when they’ve “ended their move.” My interpretation is that, when a creature stops moving, you can use a reaction to change facing. If the rogue spends 15 feet of movement to get behind the orc and then stops, the orc has an opportunity to use a reaction change facing. The can either take that reaction, in which case it will turn around and then the rogue can spend 15 more feet of movement to get behind the orc again and attack, or the orc can not take that reaction, in which case the rogue will simply stay where they are and attack. Either way, the rogue can attack the orc with advantage.

With marking though, (assuming the orc has made a melee attack against the rogue since its last turn), the orc can at least make an opportunity attack against the rogue - with advantage - when they try to move behind its back, making this rather silly tactic no longer viable.

Now, you may not agree with my interpretation of the rules, and that’s fine. But that is how I interpret them.

LOL that's a pretty loose interpretation IMO and as I player I would not be cool with that, personally. After all, the attacker is moving into your blind spot so making an attack against it as an OA (especially with advantage via marking) seems a bit far-fetched.

I mean, it seems like you are trying to create a more realistic and tactical situation, but I don't see how (realistically) it makes sense that if someone is moving behind you, you get a chance to attack them. shrug

Makes about as much sense as getting a chance to attack someone when they’re moving away from you, in my opinion. But regardless, “more realistic” is not my goal. More tactically engaging, yes; more realistic, no. I don’t think realism is a useful goal in game design.

Ok, let's see if I have this right...

1. The fighter moves into the rear position (red). The orc can either make an OA (with your interpretation) or change facing. Note: the orc has not attacked yet, so hasn't marked the fighter, so the OA won't be free or with advantage. So...
2. The orc changes facing to deny the fighter advantage. Turning to keep the fighter and rogue both on its sides (yellow).
3. The rogue then moves into the rear position (red) to attack with advantage as an unseen attacker since the orc cannot turn again.

View attachment 130854

I would say the orc made a bit of a tactical error by using its reaction to turn and face the fighter in fig. 2. By doing so, it has exposed its back to the rogue, which the rogue exploits for advantage in fig. 3. The orc can see that there are two opponents poised to flank it, so it knows one way or another, one of them will be able to get behind it and exploit its blind spot. That means the orc has to decide which opponent it’s going to allow to get at its back. Now, maybe if the fighter has multiple attacks it would be better to expose its back to the rogue, but if not, it’s probably smarter to let the fighter attack its back in order to keep an eye on the rogue. Especially since doing so would free up it’s reaction to make an opportunity attack against the fighter as they pass, which would also mark the fighter until the end of the orc’s next turn, giving the orc more options to punish the fighter’s next move.

Now, how is this ANY different from the set up for normal flanking without worrying about facing:

View attachment 130855

The end positioning you arrived at isn’t any different (though again, I would argue the positioning you reached in the first example was due to a tactical error on the orc’s part), but the former has several more decision points involved. The orc has to consider whether to make an attack of opportunity against the fighter or to save its reaction to turn. It has to consider whether it should allow the fighter to get into its blind spot or expose its blind spot to the rogue. And the fighter and the rogue have to try and anticipate what the orc will do if they want to take the most advantage of their own positioning.

Honestly, it seems more like you are making things convoluted with only the semblance of tactics.

Now, I understand compared to normal flanking rules, only one PC would gain advantage with via the facing rules. I think that part is great because a big issue with flanking for many people is that its too easy for everyone to get advantage on their attacks.

But, what am I missing? I am not concerned about marking, frankly, as I would never use it without some sort of action cost, but that is just my personal preference. So, other than limiting "flanking" advantage to the rear position only, what does all this accomplish?

It gives the players (and me) more factors to consider in positioning our characters. More decision points, more need to try and anticipate your opponent’s moves. As you said, it limits one attacker to gaining advantage rather than both, which is a significant plus. It also makes hiding in combat a more viable option for rogues, which as a big rogue fan I appreciate.

 

[Rockyroad]

We didn't necessarily have any issues with interpreting the facing rules or implementing them in the VTT. We interpreted the facing rule as at the end of your turn you get to chose where you want to be facing. Then as a reaction you can change the direction of your facing. The problem was it took people a bit of time at the end of their turn to decide how they want to be oriented and then later if they wanted to change it using a reaction. Multiplied by the number of players and the number of rounds the combat took, the time added up so we decided to ditch it. I like the idea of facing but not the time involved. Taking the decision out of the player's hand as to where you're facing as well as taking the reaction change is what I'm thinking about doing to speed things up. Therefore, the idea is you're defined as either facing the first attacker against you or the last target you attacked, something like that. No decision needed and no changing during the round, simple and sweet.