Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Flanking instead of attack from behind.

Since third edition there is no such thing as facing in combat. Character counted to be quite mobile during combat, so never facing one specific direction only.
That never returned in any D&D editions, and neither in Pathfinder editions.

Much more reasonable way is flanking. Target can't properly defend itself against two enemies on opposite side of him. Which gives opponents advantage on attack rolls (in 5e optional rules in particular).
And as such rogues can use it for sneak attacks.

Facing is an optional rule presented in the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide (page 252), flanking is an optional rule on the preceding page. Both are means of generating advantage in combat, they just aren't standard rules for simplicity.

I think there are times when facing makes sense, such as determining whether your shield is effective when shot at, but in melee combat, unless they are also flanked, an enemy should be able to turn as their opponent circles them. IMO the backstab status should only be possible if your are able to run/sneak up behind someone from further away, not by circling an engaged opponent.

+1. If Larian is bound and determined to use the option rule, then please use Flanking instead. The only downside is that with the current party limit of 4 and almost every fight involving more enemies than player characters, this will generally benefit enemies more.

Well, flanking is optional rule in 5e. It's still way better than attacking from behind.

In a 1 on 1 fight, you should not be able to circle an enemy to gain advantage on the strike. If they're engaged with a second hostile, then this is fine.

You pretty much just described flanking...

I agree. Facing creates a recipe for advantage. Move around your enemy=advantage. You will always do it if you have enough movement. At least flanking forces the player to think tactically about positioning.

Well, this is weird. I've been positioning my melee characters for no reason.

Backstab add unnecessary position to the game, I have to make sure my character is facing enemy every time ending my turn... This is tedious.

I think i agree. The current backstab mechanic is a bit much, but with a party size of four only having flanking grant advantage in melee could be quite punishing.
If they keep it maybe reducing the angle that allows a backstab could be a compromise. It feels like almost 180°. With a smaller angle positioning yourself with your back to a wall/object/companion could be more important.

I don't like the circle-around-to-get-advantage mechanics at all. Fifth edition rules already have various ways of gaining/granting an advantage, and simply walking around your opponent to gain advantage 1-on-1 negates them all. There's already one optional flanking rule from tabletop (an enemy engaged in combat with a friendly target), using the facing variant as well is just ridiculous.

This is the most dumb down version of DND.

I loved my bluffer in 3.5, having a skill to bluff (Feint) and pass a sneak attack in the front face of ennemy was soo satisfying.

Another garbage decision from WOTC.

Inquisitive rogues can attempt insight check as bonus action, against opponents deception. If successful - he can use sneak attack against the target.

Insight isn't a wisdom skill?

Feint was based on charisma which make way more sense.

Came to the forums to say this.

Please remove backstab.

Melee 1vs1 backstab should not work.
Controlling character facing ever turn is super tedious.

There are already lots of ways to gain advantage, ie flanking. We don't need backstab too.

Yeah definitely in favour of flanking, over backstabbing as well. It's grounded in the (optional) rules and removes quite a bit of tedium which currently is built in for playing the game optimally, and you know people will try to play optimally in a game in particular when it means you'll hit more cuz nobody likes to miss an unnecessary amount

I personally like it, because it adds a tactical aspect to the game, that I feel flanking doesn't add.
I get peoples frustrations with it though. I don't find it too tedious, and makes playing a melee fighter at least somewhat more interesting than "point, click, miss"

Flanking would mean you have to keep two melee characters on the one opponent at all times... not sure I personally would find that more fun to be honest, especially since the battle maps are very big and dynamic.

In my DM games we use neither system, we instead allow for the players to use the "help" action as a reaction to confer advantage. It's to simulate flanking and distractions.
(Of course the help action is completely different in BG3)


As for the "only sneaking characters should get it" argument, Rogues already get Sneak Attack, which works off of advantage, they don't need to sneak to get it though.

Well good thing thats exactly what the flanking rule does.

I think both systems are interesting for the tactical gameplay, that is a bonus when either "facing" the back of a character OR flanking with an ally.

I am somewhat on the fence, but the flanking logic is more "solid" in the sense that otherwise it can be easy to move to the rear of a character that cannot turn until its turn.

With the "facing" system, the tutorial needs to teach the player how to choose where you face before ending turn (I discovered that after 25 hours).
--

nb : in the tabletop game I play in, we went for the homebrew +2 to hit when flanking with an ally, as we felt Advantage was too much... Yes, that means Rogues need to find various tricks or surprises to get Advantage. In 5e, it is easy to run around an enemy and flank (you do not provoke AoO for moving around adjacent).

I think backstabbing here is an odd mechanic here, particularly since you can't perfectly control the direction your characters face.

Also, does it kick in if you try to move away from an enemy and get an attack of opportunity?