@Firesnakes, I responded to you on a different thread, but I'll repeat it here
While it is technically true that Facing rules are in the DMG, there are a other important components to that rule that Larian didn't implement. Namely, the "a creature can change its facing as a reaction to another creature's move." This component of the rule basically negates facing unless you are surrounded by enemies because you only have 1 reaction. Thus, Larian's implementation IS a rule change.
In addition, DMG Facing: "A creature can only target creatures in its front or side arc." Depending on how you equate "threatening" with "targeting", this might imply that you'd provoke an AoO from circling around a creature. Not implemented by Larian.
On all your other points I agree. Monsters can have ranges of HP, the only reason DMs don't typically do this is because it is a hassle to run encounters with differing-HP goblins. The DM is allowed to change monsters or make up new ones. These ^ follow the rules. I argue with Larian's implementation (decrease AC+increase HP+don't change Saves=nerfed ST/HP-affecting spells) but Larian is not going against the rules of 5e in these cases.
Common sense should also apply with the facing.
Being able to leapfrog back and forth over a melee opponent to always attack with advantage in a 1v1 situation is just... well dumb.
But I'm afraid the devs at Larian might think it's good to let players do this. They seem to be all about removing restrictions and letting players do OP stuff.
But the restrictions are what make the game. As a player, I feel rewarded when I master those restrictions and become good at the game. I'd love to hear from Larian what they think of all this.
