Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8163110" data-attributes="member: 6779196">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.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.</blockquote>

Verification