Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Streetbrad Mar 03, 2015 22:27:21	I realize it isn't for many, but our gaming group enjoys tactical play on a battlemap.  While the main 5e rules provide limited tactics, the facing rules in the DMG intrigued me.  We played with the rules some to try to balance out the shield drawback with flanking, to reduce the easy circling of an opponent in 5e RAW, and to restore our beloved 5 foot step.  After tweaking, testing, and more tweaking, we came up with the following rules set for facing and flanking in our games:   Facing
#2 Archon007 Mar 03, 2015 23:31:53	Not for me but I would strongly recommend you do NOT add the 5 foot step. They removed it for a reason. I absolutely hate the ranged attack guy just 5 foot step away from the engaged melee guy. It's lame and ruins tactical combat which I think you are trying for.
#3 Eck Mar 05, 2015 12:22:01	I was thinking about giving the facing rules a try, and I like your additions. I too am against the 5' step for similar reasons. Maybe don't allow a 5' step out of melee range, but you can do a 5' step to maneuver around foes avoiding the AoO. I think I'd make the following tweaks:   Instead of provoking attacks of opportunity when leaving the enemies reach, I think I'd change that rule to be: "You provoke an attack of opportunity when you leave a square the enemy threatens." That way people don't just circle around for free muggin's every time.  When using your reaction to face an enemy, I think you should be able to keep facing him as he tries to circle around (if you want)   - Eck
#4 Streetbrad Mar 05, 2015 19:02:16	Considering that range attacks while adjacent no longer provoke an Opportunity Attack, and casters have plenty of non-range attack options, I don't think the 5 foot step away is that bad.  Note that to use it they can't 5 foot and then move like they could in 4e; the 5 foot step has to be the ONLY movement they take that round.   We have been playing it that you can continue to adjust towards them as they move.  I'll make that more explicity.   A nice thing I've found with these rules in play is that it takes multiple opponents with a coordinated effort to take advantage of them, but then that effort occurs it become possible to gain advantage against an exposed target.  I also like the implications for sneaking up behind people who are facing the other way, and/or a PC using a reaction to spin around when an ally shouts that someone is behind the PC.
#5 Coredump00 Mar 05, 2015 19:15:19	My issue is that these rules dont' make any more sense than the other rules.  There is no reason moving around someone should provoke an AoO, but neither should leaving their range. Turning should be part of combat, not require a reaction.     There is an entire disconect because of the turn based system.  Someone should be able to turn as  you approach.... they should be able to step away if two of you try to flank him.  I think sensible rules could be possible, but it would likely be more complicated than fun.
#6 Archon007 Mar 05, 2015 19:34:50	Streetbrad wrote: