Using facing as an optional rule from DMG (p.252)

[Kukify_Foo]

Are you using optional rules for facing? If so can you share some insight?

I like that optional rule but me and my players foresee some potential problems. For instance... Two characters are dueling, what's to stop one another from always going behind each others back. Sure the character who is getting flanked can use reaction to turn, however the flanking character can move, attack, move again and attack effectively getting Advantage on the second attack. Other option for flanked character is it's use reaction for AO (since the flanker has effectively moved out of reach when he moves to back) but flanked character opens himself for (potentially) multiple attacks with Advantage. Thanks for your input.

[Grod_The_Giant]

How about allowing you to designate one creature that you're focusing on, and automatically turn to face them? That eliminates the "lol I run around behind you lol" issue you pointed out, seems to fit with the general idea of combat facing, and still leaves you open when faced with multiple attackers.

[dejarnjc]

Didn't 4e have some rules regarding movement when directly adjacent to the enemy? I think it limited characters to half movement or made it rough terrain or something. This would prevent multiple "flanks" I'm one turn in 1v1 scenarios.

[georgie_leech]

Didn't 4e have some rules regarding movement when directly adjacent to the enemy? I think it limited characters to half movement or made it rough terrain or something. This would prevent multiple "flanks" I'm one turn in 1v1 scenarios.

No, it just triggered AoO's when you left any space in reach, rather than needing to leave an opponent's reach entirely. It also had Move Actions as discrete actions that generally couldn't be broken up between multiple attacks, however you get those.

[Knaight]

I'm not particularly fond of facing - or more accurately, I don't think that facing, individual combatants, and a six second round all work together very well. One person can change their facing in a heck of a lot less than six seconds, and paying a mechanical cost to make things less believable doesn't sit well with me. Duels turning into repeated back stabs from both sides is an example of an issue caused by facing, but it's far from the only one.

[pwykersotz]

How about allowing you to designate one creature that you're focusing on, and automatically turn to face them? That eliminates the "lol I run around behind you lol" issue you pointed out, seems to fit with the general idea of combat facing, and still leaves you open when faced with multiple attackers.

I think this is a great suggestion. I might also allow a free switch of creatures on other turns assuming they are in your direct field of vision.

This would allow someone to try and trick that beholder into focusing his anti-magic eye on them instead of the Wizard, for example.

But the core suggestion of designating a creature to face is a great one, regardless of add-ons.

[Thrudd]

I think if you use facing rules, you need to use stricter movement rules, as well. Once engaged in melee, there should be no free lateral or forward movement. The only normal movement option should be directly away from the opponent, either walking in reverse at slower speed, or turning and fleeing which provokes an opportunity attack.

[Plaguescarred]

We're not using facing rules. I prefer the default all around abstract facing rules and find it more simple to adjucate. I also avoid DM arbitrarily dictating what PCs can or cannot see.

[E’Tallitnics]

Are you using optional rules for facing? If so can you share some insight?

I like that optional rule but me and my players foresee some potential problems. For instance... Two characters are dueling, what's to stop one another from always going behind each others back. Sure the character who is getting flanked can use reaction to turn, however the flanking character can move, attack, move again and attack effectively getting Advantage on the second attack. Other option for flanked character is it's use reaction for AO (since the flanker has effectively moved out of reach when he moves to back) but flanked character opens himself for (potentially) multiple attacks with Advantage. Thanks for your input.

Are you discussing Facing or Flanking? They're two different things.

Flanking is when an opponent is surrounded by 2 or more enemies. Facing just limits what you can see/perceive in a given direction (rather than the default of 360 degree perception).

Your example of Flanking is invalid with only 2 combatants.

[Kukify_Foo]

How about allowing you to designate one creature that you're focusing on, and automatically turn to face them? That eliminates the "lol I run around behind you lol" issue you pointed out, seems to fit with the general idea of combat facing, and still leaves you open when faced with multiple attackers.

I have similar line of thinking. In DMG p. 271 there are optional rules for marking. Idea was that marked combatant is always being faced.
However, I posted question to see if somebody else had problems with facing and if there were more elegant solutions. I've already Googled the problem and so far not many people were bothered about facing rules or rather they weren't bothering with facing.

[Kukify_Foo]

I think if you use facing rules, you need to use stricter movement rules, as well. Once engaged in melee, there should be no free lateral or forward movement. The only normal movement option should be directly away from the opponent, either walking in reverse at slower speed, or turning and fleeing which provokes an opportunity attack.

Yes, you are right. However I hoped for a more elegant solution. RPG combat rules are like Jenga blocks, one is leaning on the other. Change one and you may have to change a whole lot more for the system to work.
I remember my group changing a few combat rules of Aeon:Trinity and in the end we wrote a document full of new rules with more pages than the original combat rules.
I kind of like elegance of D&D 5 but would like some more tactical options in combat.


Are you discussing Facing or Flanking? They're two different things.

Flanking is when an opponent is surrounded by 2 or more enemies. Facing just limits what you can see/perceive in a given direction (rather than the default of 360 degree perception).

Your example of Flanking is invalid with only 2 combatants.

We are talking about facing, of course. You were maybe confused by the use of the word "flanking". In that particular example I was referring to flanking maneuver (can't post wiki link), not the flanking rules of D&D per se.
The example is indeed very much valid. :smallwink:

[R.Shackleford]

This is something that is a cool concept but can get clunky really really fast and not to mention it can really make a player mad when they don't see something and then something bad happens...

I'm not against facing rules and I've used them from time to time just to get a feel for them but I don't think 5e's HURRY THE HELL UP ideology really meshes well with the idea of facing rules.