There are no penalties in D&D for moving within the reach of an enemy, so you should always be able to manoeuvre to be behind the enemy.
It is the same reason that I stopped using the Flanking optional rule, since it was too easy to get around to be opposite your ally.
In previous editions of the game, you triggered an AOO if you tried moving within an enemy's reach, so it made getting into a flanking position far more dangerous.
There are no penalties in D&D for moving within the reach of an enemy, so you should always be able to manoeuvre to be behind the enemy.
It is the same reason that I stopped using the Flanking optional rule, since it was too easy to get around to be opposite your ally.
In previous editions of the game, you triggered an AOO if you tried moving within an enemy's reach, so it made getting into a flanking position far more dangerous.
I've thought about removing Flanking from my games for this very reason. It does allow me to do it with enemies as well (and just as easily as the players) but it has the additional effect of making Advantage the standard and a normal attack becomes seen as almost a penalty (because of how easy it is to get in flanking)!
Shouldn’t two combatants have an advantage against one combatant?
I tend to agree about flanking. Besides, facing provides the flanking mechanic within itself.
One thing I like about the idea of facing is a creature can use their reaction to adjust their faced direction, but only once, so a very mobile character could use that to their advantage. This makes my think of two people fencing or swashbuckling. They don’t just stand toe to toe and swing at one another, as much of D&D combat seems to be. They use movement and footwork to try and gain...a momentary advantage!
Another thing I enjoy is the interaction of facing and shields. I love playing a character that uses a shield. But using facing really makes for a nice tactical battle. Like the Spartans protecting each other with their shields.
And of course, I love facing and vision. You are blind to your backside. Lovely fun tactical options there.
Finally, I like the diagonals optional rule from the DMG on its own, but I think that the diagonals rule should be used if a table is going to use with their flanking or facing rules. That way it uses quite a bit of movement to get behind an enemy, not include difficult terrain. Add that diagonals rule with the ability to change your faces direction as a reaction, and you have some really interesting options to employ.
It's fine if you want that level of detail during a fight, but generally a fight lasts only a few rounds, and the party are more interested in looting and exploring rather than trying to simulate a realistic combat.
Typically a 2-on-1 already has advantage because of action economy. Throwing advantage on top of that tends to encourage mass swarming, which I found actually takes away from the tactics at times.
Rather than remove the flanking option, perhaps give some monsters enhanced awareness so they are either resistant or immune to flanking? Perhaps that would introduce it's own problems... just an idea :)
Rather than remove the flanking option, perhaps give some monsters enhanced awareness so they are either resistant or immune to flanking? Perhaps that would introduce it's own problems... just an idea :)
Flanking makes it far to easy for melee PCs to gain advantage in a fight. At least make them find more inventive ways to get advantage than just moving around to the other side of the enemy.
Has anyone played with the optional rule from the Dungeon Master’s Guide, Facing, on page 252?
I haven't, and I wouldn't.
There are no penalties in D&D for moving within the reach of an enemy, so you should always be able to manoeuvre to be behind the enemy.
It is the same reason that I stopped using the Flanking optional rule, since it was too easy to get around to be opposite your ally.
In previous editions of the game, you triggered an AOO if you tried moving within an enemy's reach, so it made getting into a flanking position far more dangerous.
I've thought about removing Flanking from my games for this very reason. It does allow me to do it with enemies as well (and just as easily as the players) but it has the additional effect of making Advantage the standard and a normal attack becomes seen as almost a penalty (because of how easy it is to get in flanking)!
Shouldn’t two combatants have an advantage against one combatant?
I tend to agree about flanking. Besides, facing provides the flanking mechanic within itself.
One thing I like about the idea of facing is a creature can use their reaction to adjust their faced direction, but only once, so a very mobile character could use that to their advantage. This makes my think of two people fencing or swashbuckling. They don’t just stand toe to toe and swing at one another, as much of D&D combat seems to be. They use movement and footwork to try and gain...a momentary advantage!
Another thing I enjoy is the interaction of facing and shields. I love playing a character that uses a shield. But using facing really makes for a nice tactical battle. Like the Spartans protecting each other with their shields.
And of course, I love facing and vision. You are blind to your backside. Lovely fun tactical options there.
Finally, I like the diagonals optional rule from the DMG on its own, but I think that the diagonals rule should be used if a table is going to use with their flanking or facing rules. That way it uses quite a bit of movement to get behind an enemy, not include difficult terrain. Add that diagonals rule with the ability to change your faces direction as a reaction, and you have some really interesting options to employ.
It's fine if you want that level of detail during a fight, but generally a fight lasts only a few rounds, and the party are more interested in looting and exploring rather than trying to simulate a realistic combat.
Typically a 2-on-1 already has advantage because of action economy. Throwing advantage on top of that tends to encourage mass swarming, which I found actually takes away from the tactics at times.
If only there was a good way to discourage mass swarming... :)
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
whats that?? Hmmm... Thought I heard a 3rd level spell slot being used...
Rather than remove the flanking option, perhaps give some monsters enhanced awareness so they are either resistant or immune to flanking? Perhaps that would introduce it's own problems... just an idea :)
Flanking makes it far to easy for melee PCs to gain advantage in a fight. At least make them find more inventive ways to get advantage than just moving around to the other side of the enemy.
Cinematic advantage?
When do cinematic tactics just become run-of-the-mill tactics for your party? :-)
And how often do PCs really get cinematic advantage on anything other than the first round of combat?