What would facing rules do to 5e?

[PeteNutButter]

I recognize that 5e's core design philosophy is simplicity, but that doesn't stop me from fiddling with the rules in theory. I'm thinking some well designed facing rules could really spruce up grid play for those who enjoy miniatures and playing tactically. Since you could make these rules as simple or complex as needed I'm going to propose the most complex rules that I think I'd consider using.

Facing. Each creature has facing and a threaten zone. Facing is part of a move that can be done freely during a creatures turn, but is set at the end of their turn. Creatures with a 0 ft movement speed (such as from grapple) cannot change their facing. On a square grid, creatures threaten the three squares in front of them and the two beside them.

Threatened Zone
X|X|X
X|PC|X
-| - | -

Flanking. Whenever a creature within 5 feet makes an attack, the attacker is flanking the target if no part of the attacking creature is in the threatened area of the target. Flanked targets do not get their shield bonus or dexterity modifier to their AC.

This requires a second AC stat that is sort of like 3.x flatfooted AC, which could be called a "Flanked AC." If that's too complicated you could always fall back on the boring advantage.

Add the level 1 monk feature: "As long as you are unarmored and using only monk weapons, your unarmed strikes threaten in every direction." Monks are never flanked, because ninja.

Flanking means two foes in melee are forced to leave the threatened zone of each other if they want to flank. The choice is either take an Opportunity attack and get a better chance to hit, or just swing at the foe's face. With balanced foes, the intent is the opportunity attack isn't usually worth it. This changes with the foe, as clunky plate wearers don't much care about flanking (other than shields), but the dexterous types certainly do.

If you want to incorporate ranged/reach flanking its a bit more complicated: "An attacker is flanking its target if when attacking from further than 5 feet away the direction of the attack passes through no part of the target's threatened zone."

This allows archers and reach weapons to flank, but prevents an ogre from flanking if he reaches over your threaten zone. The intent is to make sure any melee threat risks an opportunity attack if they wish to flank.

Possible auxiliary effects:

Especially mobile characters like monks and rogues will be able to freely flank targets often making these classes particularly effective at taking down those enemy squishies that rely on dex for AC such as archers and many robe wearing casters.

The Mobile feat may be too strong and could need a rework or to be removed entirely. It's cool that the "striker classes," monk and rogue can flank often, but when the GWM fighter picks up Mobile he'll be stealing their thunder.

If everyone only values offense, it could get silly as everyone runs circles around each other just soaking up opportunity attacks for a little more chance to hit.

This rule will likely make numbers even more important. Once a creature uses their reaction, they are easily flanked.

What do you guys think? Fun or overly complex? I realize more complicated RPG systems exist to accommodate this, but I am just spit-balling here. I like 5e, but I feel like there isn't enough tactical decision making for pure martials. It's just "move up and attack."

[KorvinStarmast]

If everyone at the table has some system mastery and thinks tactically, probably not a big problem but the party has to be very careful about positioning during a combat.

If the above is not true, it will slow the game down. Seen it already in one campaign.

[UrielAwakened]

In theory it makes getting advantage a ton easier because you can't see something you aren't facing and things you can't see have advantage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aren't there optional facing rules already in the DMG?

Self-answer: yes, see page 252.

[Mister_Squinty]

My main concern with this would be Rogues with their Cunning Action. They could, on their turn, disengage, run around the target, and re-engage at the flank, getting Advantage and Sneak Attack every turn, even solo.

Because actions are not simultaneous, I would allow a defender to change facing as a Reaction to prevent those kind of shenanigans.

I would also allow the DX modifier to be kept as part of AC. Defenders are aware of opponents in their flanks, preventing them from being "flat-footed".

[Scripten]

Page 252 of the DMG has a section on optional facing rules which are actually a bit more complex than this. (It is largely similar in practice, from what I can tell. I don't use it in my games.) You'll also find flanking rules in the DMG, but the gist of those is that Advantage is granted by flanking an enemy. I've found that it makes fighting multiple enemies much, much harder - you'll want almost every significant monster encounter to have at least three or more enemies, lest they become trivialized or too swingy.

[PeteNutButter]

My main concern with this would be Rogues with their Cunning Action. They could, on their turn, disengage, run around the target, and re-engage at the flank, getting Advantage and Sneak Attack every turn, even solo.

Because actions are not simultaneous, I would allow a defender to change facing as a Reaction to prevent those kind of shenanigans.

I would also allow the DX modifier to be kept as part of AC. Defenders are aware of opponents in their flanks, preventing them from being "flat-footed".


Aren't there optional facing rules already in the DMG?

Self-answer: yes, see page 252.


Page 252 of the DMG has a section on optional facing rules which are actually a bit more complex than this. (It is largely similar in practice, from what I can tell. I don't use it in my games.) You'll also find flanking rules in the DMG, but the gist of those is that Advantage is granted by flanking an enemy. I've found that it makes fighting multiple enemies much, much harder - you'll want almost every significant monster encounter to have at least three or more enemies, lest they become trivialized or too swingy.

Yeah, advantage nearly at will for the PCs is what the DMG flanking results in. The rules proposed here are a bit more balanced, IMO. Additionally I went with the removal of dex and shield AC instead of advantage because what is usually probably an average of +2-3 to hit is more in line with what we want. Advantage is a great simple mechanic but is overused, and overlaps with too many things. Since the bonus/AC penalty varies opponent by opponent it makes the decision less of an automatic thing and one that the players would have to consider. Don't bother flanking the guy in plate with a big sword, but try to flank the dex guy, etc.

I specifically didn't use "flatfooted," just said it was similar in mechanics. While you'd be aware of foes behind you, I figure it's much harder to dodge their attacks. I considered reducing dex bonus in half rounded down, but that felt a bit too complex even if it's more accurate.

[Lombra]

Aren't there optional facing rules already in the DMG?

Self-answer: yes, see page 252.

Came to say this.

It will slow down combat and add strategic layers to it, it can be a lot of fun with the right group.

[mephnick]

I don't really see how facing rules go with an abstracted six second round. So everything else is abstracted but for some reason this dude is staring in one direction the whole time like a statue?

The default of everyone being aware of their surroundings seems less gamey to me, not more.

[CharonsHelper]

I don't think that facing works well with D&D's initiative system. It can work - but with a more dynamic initiative system.

I actually invented an initiative system once for fun just to figure out how to make facing work well in a TTRPG. I've since built a TTRPG out of it (still adding content & polishing - but basically done), but amusingly enough I dropped facing rules along the way as adding too much complexity for what little tactical depth you'd gain.

[Scripten]

Yeah, advantage nearly at will for the PCs is what the DMG flanking results in. The rules proposed here are a bit more balanced, IMO. Additionally I went with the removal of dex and shield AC instead of advantage because what is usually probably an average of +2-3 to hit is more in line with what we want. Advantage is a great simple mechanic but is overused, and overlaps with too many things. Since the bonus/AC penalty varies opponent by opponent it makes the decision less of an automatic thing and one that the players would have to consider. Don't bother flanking the guy in plate with a big sword, but try to flank the dex guy, etc.

I specifically didn't use "flatfooted," just said it was similar in mechanics. While you'd be aware of foes behind you, I figure it's much harder to dodge their attacks. I considered reducing dex bonus in half rounded down, but that felt a bit too complex even if it's more accurate.

Oof, negating Dex bonuses to AC is pretty harsh - that penalizes Dex martials quite a lot. I would just negate AC bonuses granted by shields (to promote good formation tactics) and give a +1/2 to Attack rolls while flanking. That means that medium armor is affected more than heavy, but light armor isn't totally useless.

[PeteNutButter]

I don't really see how facing rules go with an abstracted six second round. So everything else is abstracted but for some reason this dude is staring in one direction the whole time like a statue?

The default of everyone being aware of their surroundings seems less gamey to me, not more.

You're confusing my system with the system in the DMG. No where in my facing system do I propose that you can't see targets behind you. It more closely would represent that you can't face two people on opposite sides of you at the same time, and you'd be wrong footed/out of position for an attack or two. Most foes would provoke OAs though in order to do that.


Oof, negating Dex bonuses to AC is pretty harsh - that penalizes Dex martials quite a lot. I would just negate AC bonuses granted by shields (to promote good formation tactics) and give a +1/2 to Attack rolls while flanking. That means that medium armor is affected more than heavy, but light armor isn't totally useless.

It's primarily a verisimilitude design. IRL armor is more effective than trying to dodge everything, especially against multiple foes. Yet since dex is otherwise a superior stat to str in 5e, it's a bit of balance to make dex AC suffer when flanked. As it stands dex fighters are probably hit by this more than most classes, and they can just wear medium armor. If foes want to get behind a rogue and provoke an OA they will regret giving that rogue another sneak attack. Most squishy casters relying on dex for some AC should usually be far enough back that flanking them would be difficult.