Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 2984543" data-attributes="member: 31734">Whoa, easy, I never required the 'forward' arc to be a direction of travel.  I think we are confounding arguments here.  The inclusion of flying/maneuverability is only included in this discussion as another example of a type of 'facing' in D&D, as explicitly defined in the rules.  This is not combat facing as per the variant, but a type of facing where directions (north, south, etc. or up, down, left, etc. or whatever you want to term it) are important.For flying, it is important to know which direction you are heading, because to go in another direction requires a certain amount of turning and whatnot.  Without these rules, feats like wingover are useless and rules like minimum forward speed are meaningless. That time, yes, and I'm glad you took it for the joke it was meant to be. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I completely agree.  A beholder can travel in the direction of his 'backward' arc for instance.The actual existance of the arcs, however, are a type of facing.  Which arc points where is critical for the beholder.  Not allowing the arcs to be rotated makes no sense to me at all (and I do not think you endorse that idea either, which would mean something as stupid as the beholder only being able to disintegrate north-facing walls) and not allowing the beholder to rotate arcs in movement is unnecessarily restrictive.It's unnecessary because the rules on flying do not restrict it.  And the rules in the beholder do not restrict it (IMO).  You merely disagree with this last point, do you not?  I have one more analogy to make after your response to this.</blockquote>

Verification