Optional Facing Rule: do you use it?

ccs

41st lv DM

• May 29, 2018

• #11

I quit tracking facing sometime back in the early '80s with 1e. It just never added enough to the game to be worth it in my experiences. I can't imagine wasting the effort to track it here in 2018/5e would produce any better result.

So as a DM, no, I will not use this option. Not even if the players request it.
As a player? If the DM wants to use this, fine.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

toucanbuzz

No rule is inviolate

• May 29, 2018

• #12

We tried it briefly and concluded it handed out Advantage too easily. My resolution to facing multiple enemies is that you're probably going to get hit more often, and that accounts for facing rather than adding a mechanic.

 

5

5ekyu

Hero

• May 29, 2018

• #13

Skyscraper said:

Thanks for the comments everyone.

@5ekyu: the intended payoff is increased movement over the battlemap; and increased tactics. Indeed, it seems like it would be advantageous to move around an opponent to:

1) try to force a reaction by facing change
2) get to the rear arc or side arc of the opponent that has no shield for an attack, including for ranged attackers

Click to expand...

I get the mechanical advantages of the maneuver.

I was asking what the advantages for the game Will be? Is it going to be more fun to have this rule in play in combat with the other changes to how movement is done? Is it going to produce more cool moments ir more questions about movement changes? Is it going to open up more character options abd choices or push away choices like say driving fewer people to take small races with lower speeds? Does it reduce the choice of shields vs two handed or two weapon - less diversity - if its easy to get around the shields??

Does it actually promote more movement in combat or less - keeping a column or wall at your back as opposed to running to and fro from one target to another in a fight?

It would seem on the surface to promote more atatic formation fighting where your back is protected or civered as opposed to more chaotic solo-but-team style engagements especially if numbers are favoring the others.

Are those the things you are wanting to change?

It seems like a number of the examples come from a persoective of "if we keep like we do now then this can hapoen" not from "how will this change what we do now."

I would expect more static and defensive formation combat scenes and play and wonder is that what you are shooting for?

 

Skyscraper

Explorer

• May 29, 2018

• #14

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]: all relevant questions, you have. This is pretty much why I am asking all these questions.

I wonder however: what would push a creature to have its back to a wall, instead of moving to attack another creature? I.e. you need to leave that space if forced to; but if you can, you'll stay in a defensive position. Does it become possible to shoot at opponents to force them to move out of their defensive position?

I'm surprised that so few people seem to have tested this rule; and those that did, appear to have glazed over it, more than throrough testing. It seems like a fun tactical rule from the exterior, but as you mention 5ekyu, perhaps it does the opposite of the intent.

Playtesting will be required!

 

aco175

Legend

• May 29, 2018

• #15

We play with the optional flanking rules and not facing. Flanking seems to take away most of the facing problems mentioned and gives a bit on the flanking where one character free moves around the bad guy and the other can now use advantage. It is not perfect, but works for my game and the players like it, even when the bad guys use it. Also makes the combat faster.

I allow monsters and PCs to have 360 view which is not perfect either, but allows for them to see someone moving past them and turn to keep them in view. As much as I do not like using real world examples in game mechanics I can see that fights involving someone moving around me would still involve me being aware of them , if not turning to keep up with them. Flanking where you add another person makes it harder to keep track of both should grant advantage.

 

Mouseferatu

Hero

• May 29, 2018

• #16

It's also, frankly, unrealistic.

I mean, not if you're facing multiple foes it's not. Then it's an issue.

But facing a single foe? The ability to run around behind an enemy, who can't turn to face you because they've already spent their reaction, is--even for D&D's abstract combat system--ludicrous. It makes zero sense however you slice it. (And yes, I'm speaking not just from observation but personal experience, as I've done a little bit of swordplay, back in the day.)

If I were to institute a facing rule--and I honestly don't think I ever would--it would only apply when facing multiple opponents from different angles.

(Edit: Or basically what [MENTION=27385]aco175[/MENTION] said while I was typing.)

 

mrpopstar

Sparkly Dude

• May 29, 2018

• #17

I took part as a player in a campaign where facing rules where implemented for roughly three sessions before we scrapped them. I think they're fine, they just didn't serve our game.

 

Skyscraper

Explorer

• May 29, 2018

• #18

[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION]
Facing a single foe: I guess it depends how you reprensent the usage of a reaction: maybe you opened up for an attack. I'm not trying to defend that, just seeing what it means to use a reaction.

That said, I do not entirely disagree with you and @aco175, but I guess the facing rules that limits to a single reorientation per round with a reaction, aim to represent that if an enemy is surrounded by multiple enemies, it is difficult not to grant advantage to some of them. 1v1, you can elect to keep your reaction and give no advantage to the enemy; or use it and possibly give him that advantage.

Getting your back to the wall then appears like a good solution - as it should be, intuitively - to facing any number of enemies and not allowing that advantage.

To me, all this does not seem ludicrous or unrealistic.

 

Mouseferatu

Hero

• May 29, 2018

• #19

If you limit it to situations where you're facing more than one foe from multiple angles, it might work. But then what's the advantage over the optional flanking rules?

 

M

MechaPilot

Explorer

• May 30, 2018

• #20

I've been considering the facing rule in my game because my setting has centuars who can spend a reaction to kick a foe that passes behind them. Maturally, you'd need to know where the centuar PC's equine behindus was facing to make this realistic. After a bit of thought I came to the conclusion that combatants are constantly jockeying about in the combat space they've been given, and that facing in D&D is really more effor than it's worth.

MarkB said:

I've recently been playing a lot of Battletech (the recent videogame version), which is turn-based and features facing heavily as a tactical component. It works really well in that game, but that's mainly because it emphasises the nature of the combatants as massive, cumbersome walking tanks. It doesn't feel so appropriate when applied to an agile monk or rogue.

Click to expand...

I agree. Facing in Battletech makes an immense amount of sense, and it plays right into the flavor of a giant walking tank game.