Optional Facing Rule: do you use it?

[Skyscraper]

Has anyone tried using the DMG's option Facing rule (DMG p. 252)?

If so, what are your thoughts on it?

 

[Skyscraper]

Ancillary questions to using the facing rule:

1) Since 5E allows movement around a creature without provoking an OA, how do you handle a creature with multiple attacks first moving to the rear arc for a first attack, drawing a facing change as a reaction by the opponent; then moving to the new rear arc for one or more additional attacks with advantage? This seems unbalanced in favor of creatures that have multitple attacks.

2) how do you handle the situation where a creature moves around an enemy to its rear arc, and then simply moves away from it without drawing an OA? Indeed, broken down: the creature moves around the creature (no OA), then when he moves away (without disengaging), if the enemy uses its reaction for a facing change, it does not have a reaction left to make an OA. So unless I misunderstand, could any creature flee from an opponent without an OA by first moving to its rear arc, with the facing rule?

Thanks for comments or play experience.

 

[Nevvur]

I implemented it as a DM for one session. I liked the rule on the surface, but it ended up feeling too fiddly compared to the rest of the combat mechanics. The rogue's player liked it, another player was indifferent, the remaining four of us disliked it* after seeing it in actual play.

edit: * - for pretty much the exact reasons stated in your ancillary post.

 

[Skyscraper]

How about:

1) using the facing rule RAW, except:
2) you can use a reaction to BOTH change facing AND make an OA (this is pretty much only useable when a creature wishes to run by you, I believe)
3) removing the rule that says that you can break up your move, EXCEPT if you do away with your opponent (e.g. killed or paralysed). So it's back with the attack-move or move-attack rule of 4E/3E; unless your enemy is done away with, in which case you can continue moving to another enemy to attack it with your remaining attacks. This is probably a minor restriction in any situation except where you'd want to abuse the facing rule, since normally once you attack an enemy you'll stay there until it's dead anyway.

Thoughts?

 

[Eltab]

Since the default is that you can see everything happening around you in combat, Facing rules chiefly enable Rogue sneak attacks (and of course Assassins) and entrance of 'second wave' reinforcements. In my experience.

I've worked both ways, and it depends on how big Surprise & Stealth are to your PC group's tactics / playstyle.

 

[fjw70]

I haven’t used it and am not interested in using it.

 

[Li Shenron]

Has anyone tried using the DMG's option Facing rule (DMG p. 252)?

If so, what are your thoughts on it?

I have never tried them, mainly because most of our encounters have been TotM, and even when we use minis we actually play gridless. The facing rules are based on a square/hex grid, so we can't use them as such, we would need at least to consider some adjustments.

Ancillary questions to using the facing rule:

1) Since 5E allows movement around a creature without provoking an OA, how do you handle a creature with multiple attacks first moving to the rear arc for a first attack, drawing a facing change as a reaction by the opponent; then moving to the new rear arc for one or more additional attacks with advantage? This seems unbalanced in favor of creatures that have multitple attacks.

2) how do you handle the situation where a creature moves around an enemy to its rear arc, and then simply moves away from it without drawing an OA? Indeed, broken down: the creature moves around the creature (no OA), then when he moves away (without disengaging), if the enemy uses its reaction for a facing change, it does not have a reaction left to make an OA. So unless I misunderstand, could any creature flee from an opponent without an OA by first moving to its rear arc, with the facing rule?

Thanks for comments or play experience.

Just speaking theoretically here since I haven't use these in practice...

1) If I understand right, you can only change your facing direction at the end of a move or as a reaction to someone else's move. I remember having wondered when I read the facing rules, whether by "move" they really mean all your movement in a turn (so for instance, if you use Dash, you only change your facing once) or if they meant each move (so with Dash you can change your facing twice in that round). Either way, I think that if you split your move, you can't change facing after the first fragment, but only at the end of the entire movement (otherwise you could effectively change facing once every 5ft right?). I am not really sure about it, but that's how I read it. At the same time, a reaction occurs after the trigger. So I'd say that the opponent can't change facing after the attacker's first move fragment, but only at the end of it. Either way, the net result is the same: multiattackers can obtain facing advantage to at least all their attacks minus one.

2) The cost of a reaction to change facing always sounded too high for me. But then if changing facing didn't have an action cost, then facing rules would be moot. Notice that in this case, the enemy just never gets the OA, whether it chooses to change facing (because that consumes its reaction) or chooses to keep the current facing (because it can't attack towards it back arc).

These are the kind of silly situations that leads me to the conclusion that facing rules aren't really my cup of tea!

 

[MarkB]

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.

 

[5ekyu]

How about:

1) using the facing rule RAW, except:
2) you can use a reaction to BOTH change facing AND make an OA (this is pretty much only useable when a creature wishes to run by you, I believe)
3) removing the rule that says that you can break up your move, EXCEPT if you do away with your opponent (e.g. killed or paralysed). So it's back with the attack-move or move-attack rule of 4E/3E; unless your enemy is done away with, in which case you can continue moving to another enemy to attack it with your remaining attacks. This is probably a minor restriction in any situation except where you'd want to abuse the facing rule, since normally once you attack an enemy you'll stay there until it's dead anyway.

Thoughts?

Seems like a lot of effort and changes to core to make an,optional rule produce slightly less odd outcomes.

So my questions are "what is the payoff that makes this effort and change worth it? How will these changes make your combats more fun? Will you now be saying "no, you cant do that now" more or to more cool things than the new options add?"

I dont adopt optional rules or make house rules unless i see them adding to the game fun.

 

[Skyscraper]

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