D&D 5E Flanking

[DND_Reborn]

First off, thanks for the reply. I know it is a lot to digest sometimes (at least, it feels that way to me LOL!).

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.

I am not thrilled with movement in 5E, either.

But as written it is a discrete activity on your turn--that is when you get to move. In order to get an actual "break" in your movement, you need to take some form of action. So, a PC can move, attack, and continue moving or move, open a door, and continue moving, etc. but you need an action of some kind.

The part that is bolded is what I don't agree with. If the rogue stops, and then continues moving without doing an attack, he didn't really "stop his movement"--he continued it. With your interpretation, the rogue is always guaranteed an attack with advantage--which is the same as flanking. shrug

I don't think the orc getting an OA via marking would really stop such tactics, since as well PCs get to use them against other creatures, but I could be wrong.

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.

Well, it didn't face the fighter, it put the fighter on its side (yellow) so the fighter was no longer in the rear (red). Anyway, I wouldn't say it made an error because one foe or the other will be at its back and it has no way of "knowing" who is fighter or rogue or whatever, so it moved to try to position itself to the current threat after the fighter moved.

With your ruling, the only thing that would be good would be to hold the reaction to get an OA as the fighter passes, but if there is room to move he can move into the rear position and never pass through the orc's reach until that square--so no OA for that then.

And now the orc as either to change its facing or allow the fighter to attack with advantage. Now, this is true only in this case. In other cases with your idea of the rear "leaving your reach" the orc might get an OA. It just depends. It still doesn't make sense to me to allow an OA when some is moving behind you, but you see it that way so okay. I'm not here to try to change your mind.

but the former has several more decision points involved

Several more decision points to arrive at basically the same thing isn't a good thing IMO, especially since 5E is supposed to be simpler when possible.

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.

Since it appeals to you, kudos!

I do think limiting the advantage to few allies helps balance out flanking (however it is achieved) so I am totally onboard with that. Facing does help with "hiding" for rogues, so I, too, am all for that.

FWIW, we already use facing in our VTT and the rear advantage mechanic. For flanking, you have to use your bonus action to grant your ally advantage on their next attack (not all of them, just the next one). Those have balanced it out well for us, but thanks again for providing more detail. Much appreciated.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Which is how we deal with facing. You are facing the last creature you attacked or such. Until your next turn, that is your facing. Works easily for my groups. shrug

 

[Rockyroad]

I did, yeah.

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.

In this situation I don't see how you would say that the rogue stopped after spending 15 ft to get behind the orc. It would still be the rogue's turn and either it continues to move or make an attack or do some other action. We always played it such that you could take your reaction to change facing right before the moment you were attacked.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I still feel like your facing/flanking mechanic is overengineered & too easy to obtain without cost but your right about the design of movement mechanic in 5e... the move attack object interact attack some more move finish your "attack" move bonus action is a seriously boneheaded design that should never have gotten printed in the end as it did

 

[Charlaquin]

First off, thanks for the reply. I know it is a lot to digest sometimes (at least, it feels that way to me LOL!).

No problem!

I am not thrilled with movement in 5E, either.

I actually am thrilled with it lol. It’s one of the design moves 5e made that I think was really clever and great. To each their own though.

But as written it is a discrete activity on your turn--that is when you get to move. In order to get an actual "break" in your movement, you need to take some form of action. So, a PC can move, attack, and continue moving or move, open a door, and continue moving, etc. but you need an action of some kind.

The part that is bolded is what I don't agree with. If the rogue stops, and then continues moving without doing an attack, he didn't really "stop his movement"--he continued it. With your interpretation, the rogue is always guaranteed an attack with advantage--which is the same as flanking. shrug

We just aren’t going to agree on this. That’s cool, you do you.

I don't think the orc getting an OA via marking would really stop such tactics, since as well PCs get to use them against other creatures, but I could be wrong.

Well, assuming my interpretation, the advantage on opportunity attacks against marked targets is what really makes the runaround tactic not worthwhile. If the orc only got a regular opportunity attack, that’s a net gain, or at least net neutral in exchange for an attack with advantage. But the orc getting an opportunity attack against you with advantage really isn’t worth the advantage attack. IMO.

Well, it didn't face the fighter, it put the fighter on its side (yellow) so the fighter was no longer in the rear (red). Anyway, I wouldn't say it made an error because one foe or the other will be at its back and it has no way of "knowing" who is fighter or rogue or whatever, so it moved to try to position itself to the current threat after the fighter moved.

Depends how “smart” you play the orc, I guess. I would assume an orc is a savvy enough combatant to recognize that the lightly armored opponent with the short swords is not someone you want to have behind you. Obviously you don’t want either behind you if you can help it, but since it should be able to recognize that it can’t guard its blind spot from both opponents at once, and tank n’ spank is a familiar enough tactic that the orc is going to want to try to avoid getting sneak attacked. Maybe a less intelligent foe like a troll would behave more like the one in your diagrams though.

With your ruling, the only thing that would be good would be to hold the reaction to get an OA as the fighter passes, but if there is room to move he can move into the rear position and never pass through the orc's reach until that square--so no OA for that then.
View attachment 130860

Oh, sorry, I should have clarified I use 3e style diagonals, so that maneuver would cost a total of 35 feet of movement. If the fighter started their turn 5 feet closer (or if they’re a wood elf) that would be a viable tactic though. And I would consider that smart play. That limits the orc’s options for how to respond, which is just good tactics.

And now the orc as either to change its facing or allow the fighter to attack with advantage. Now, this is true only in this case. In other cases with your idea of the rear "leaving your reach" the orc might get an OA. It just depends. It still doesn't make sense to me to allow an OA when some is moving behind you, but you see it that way so okay. I'm not here to try to change your mind.

Several more decision points to arrive at basically the same thing isn't a good thing IMO, especially since 5E is supposed to be simpler when possible.

Ah, see for me, decision points are the name of the game. Having to choose between two or more mutually exclusive things you want (or to choose to prevent one of two or more things you don’t want), and imagining how your character would make that choice, is the very soul of roleplaying to me. Sure, this is a very small case of that, but I still find it appealing.

Since it appeals to you, kudos!

I do think limiting the advantage to few allies helps balance out flanking (however it is achieved) so I am totally onboard with that. Facing does help with "hiding" for rogues, so I, too, am all for that.

FWIW, we already use facing in our VTT and the rear advantage mechanic. For flanking, you have to use your bonus action to grant your ally advantage on their next attack (not all of them, just the next one). Those have balanced it out well for us, but thanks again for providing more detail. Much appreciated.

Yeah, no problem! It’s been an engaging conversation.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

A very common complaint with the facing rules, and totally understandable.

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.

That’s... A very good idea! The drawback for me would be that your facing is then undefined until you’re being flanked, which means ranged attackers and stealth users can’t exploit your blind spot, which is something I like about facing. But in the other hand, this would be much easier to translate into TotM. I’ll have to consider this.

 

[Charlaquin]

In this situation I don't see how you would say that the rogue stopped after spending 15 ft to get behind the orc. It would still be the rogue's turn and either it continues to move or make an attack or do some other action.

I think about it in terms of the conversation at the table. The rogue’s player moves their token to the orc’s back arc and says “does the orc turn around?” If I say no, they attack. If I say yes, they use their remaining movement to get to the other side. Yes, there is an argument to be made that the rogue didn’t really “finish their movement” if they then continued moving without taking an action first, but that’s not really an argument I want to get into. I would rather just rule on the permissive side for the player.

We always played it such that you could take your reaction to change facing right before the moment you were attacked.

That’s a reasonable ruling, though the RAW does say you take the reaction when a creature ends its movement and doesn’t provide any other triggers for it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That’s... A very good idea! The drawback for me would be that your facing is then undefined until you’re being flanked, which means ranged attackers and stealth users can’t exploit your blind spot, which is something I like about facing. But in the other hand, this would be much easier to translate into TotM. I’ll have to consider this.

Yep. I run a lot of TotM play and it works easily for it. But, we use it for VTT as well with no issues.

 

[Charlaquin]

I still feel like your facing/flanking mechanic is overengineered & too easy to obtain without cost

It isn’t really “my” mechanic. It’s straight out of the DMG - though I suppose there are some points where my interpretation of the mechanic’s interactions with other mechanics might be different than others’.

but your right about the design of movement mechanic in 5e... the move attack object interact attack some more move finish your "attack" move bonus action is a seriously boneheaded design that should never have gotten printed in the end as it did

See, I love that you can break up your movement however you want on your turn. I do think the “object interaction” thing is rather silly, but the way 5e handles movement is brilliant in my opinion. That probably colors my interpretation of the way movement interacts with those reaction triggers though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't mind breaking up your move, what bothers me with it is the way initiative works in D&D. Fortunately, with CIV it works a lot better so I am pretty happy with it in that respect.

What I don't like are things like the lack of a 5-foot step, moving through threatened spaces without provoking OAs, etc.