Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Flanking
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DND_Reborn" data-source="post: 8162774" data-attributes="member: 6987520"><p>I rarely see reactions needing more contention. Other than OAs, <em>shield</em>, and Uncanny Dodge, there isn't a lot for reactions IME.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which defeats the purpose of the first item, creating more contention. So, it is sort of self-defeating.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yep, that is one reason why I understand [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] liking the idea of facing.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Hitting in 5E is rarely a problem, so giving OAs advantage <em>and</em> making them free is overkill IMO. Making them a free reaction would be good enough I would think.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>So, using marking is fine if you want to make OAs stronger (not my goal, personally, and I don't think a goal of the OP but I could be wrong), and replacing flanking with facing solves at least one of the OP's issues, but not the second.</p><p></p><p></p><p>True, which is much less than flanking does (just facing alone, really).</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>one</em> creature advantage or whatever "something else" to replace it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DND_Reborn, post: 8162774, member: 6987520"] I rarely see reactions needing more contention. Other than OAs, [I]shield[/I], and Uncanny Dodge, there isn't a lot for reactions IME. Which defeats the purpose of the first item, creating more contention. So, it is sort of self-defeating. Yep, that is one reason why I understand [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] liking the idea of facing. Hitting in 5E is rarely a problem, so giving OAs advantage [I]and[/I] making them free is overkill IMO. Making them a free reaction would be good enough I would think. 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. 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. So, using marking is fine if you want to make OAs stronger (not my goal, personally, and I don't think a goal of the OP but I could be wrong), and replacing flanking with facing solves at least one of the OP's issues, but not the second. True, which is much less than flanking does (just facing alone, really). 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 [I]one[/I] creature advantage or whatever "something else" to replace it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Flanking
Top