Optional Facing Rule: do you use it?

[Skyscraper]

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?

That's another fair question.

Flanking I've used extensively, not only in RPGs, but I continue to play DDM (Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures skirmish game - the game lives on visit the volunteer-operated DDM Guild if this interests any of you, incidentally) and flanking is a big part of that miniature skirmish game.

I see facing differently since it allows a single creature to gain advantage over an enemy in some situations (akin to sneaking up on it), as opposed to requiring two combatants to gain advantage. I also like the idea of allowing the defender to take up a defensive position with it back against a wall or to an ally's back. The possibility of archers moving to opposite sides of a shield bearing character to fire arrows with at least one avoid the shield's defense, also seems interesting.

But, I have not used facing yet. The idea is actually not from me, but someone who tested in in the DDM community and posted about it. But it seemed/seems like a fun idea.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

First, no. I haven't. I have no need nor desire to implement such strict miniature-battle-like rules.

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.

If you want it to be "D&D, The Tactical Miniatures Game", then sure. Go for it. If you want to keep your game firmly in the RPG box, then no sane DM would allow anything like the above to happen. It simply makes zero sense from a "picture it in a story/movie".

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.

Again, same thing. If you are trying to play a tactical miniature game, then those rules are fine. Do they make sense when applied to "real life", or at least "real RPG life"? Nope...not in the least. Go watch any boxing or martial arts match and you'll see why it makes absolutely zero sense. But, for a purely "tactical game", sure. Sometimes the rules don't make sense if applied to "but if this was real..."; it doesn't have to . It's a tactical game. You are supposed to use the RULES to devise strategies to WIN. Look at Chess. Why does chess have rules? Because it's a game of strategy...not imagination.

So my suggestion would first be to decide what is more important: "tactical miniature battle strategy", or "suspension of disbelief for role-playing". That will give you your answer on how/if to use the RAW. You don't need to ask us anything. Miniature focus = use RAW. RPG focus = use RAW except when it makes no sense, then adjudicate.

(PS: My "adjudication" if using them would be simply that if it's 1-on-1 fighting, the foe is always facing you; if it's 2-on-1 then the foe has a decision to make...follow you, or follow the other guy's moves; extrapolate from there).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Harzel]

FWIW, I use a facing rule, but not the one in the DMG. We use miniatures, which naturally makes it appear that each creature is facing a certain direction, and my players seemed to want a bonus for attacking from behind, so I decided to grant +1 from the side and +2 from behind. (Advantage just seemed like too much to me.) Each creature gets to change its facing once per turn for free. At least so far, it seems to work ok (as measured by my players seem satisfied with it).

 

[ccs]

[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!

Oh, we thoroughly "tested" it way back when.
It's not an issue of it not making sense, especially concerning multiple foes. It just proved too fiddly. Within any given combat it'd get taken into account unevenly. By both DMs & players. You know, busy rolling dice, accounting for various effects, interspersed BS, whatever. And then you realize you forgot to account for the facing modifier.... And that's not counting the guy who's actually cheating! This happened wether we were using minis or not.
The result was a lot of wasted time as the game bogged down with A) applying yet one more modifier, B) discussions about how much damage should be applied/rescinded because so&so forgot the facing change on round x.

In the end we just dropped it.
Sure, it makes some sense that you can't completely defend yourself 360 degrees with a shield. But showing that mechanically via facing rules just wasn't worth the effort. At least not in D&D.

And that's been my xp with facing rules in D&D ever since. A bunch of bog, not enough added fun.
Like I said, I'll PLAY in a game using it. Afterall, I know that after about a month the group will drop it. Sometimes formally, other times it'll just fade away.

But hey, give it a shot & let us know how it works for your group.

 

[Skyscraper]

FWIW, I use a facing rule, but not the one in the DMG. We use miniatures, which naturally makes it appear that each creature is facing a certain direction, and my players seemed to want a bonus for attacking from behind, so I decided to grant +1 from the side and +2 from behind. (Advantage just seemed like too much to me.) Each creature gets to change its facing once per turn for free. At least so far, it seems to work ok (as measured by my players seem satisfied with it).

Interesting idea. One thing I particularly like about this, is allowing one free facing change per turn (I assume you mean, per round?). Perhaps creatures could be allowed to change facing during their own turn as much as they want; and then one free facing change per round, out of the creature's turn. This would at least address the problem of the OA vs the enemy passing by: the creature can change facing without spending a reaction to OA the enemy with its reaction as it leaves the square that was in the rear arc before the facing change.

 

[5ekyu]

[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!

Back to the wall instead of moving to attack, ranged etc... i was thinking of a fairly typical combat scene where the aggressors are the PCs and stopping killing the bad guys is their objectives - not cases where the PCs are the pursued or have no reason to get close to adversaries due to having superior range etc. it would seem just off the cuff that if the parrty is able to keep range open against the enemy splitting their party to opposite sides at range would be at least dubious.

But to boil it down along your new line of inquiry - it would seem that this rule encourages more static, positional placement to cover the backs for the defensive force, the ones under attack, the ones just wanting to hold as opposed to accomplish something and if that is the goal, that is the type of play you want to emphasize more or you feel is lacking in your game then it is likely this rule can help.

Cutting shields down to only half the protecvie "arc" likely does reduce their "desirability" so if you see shields are needing to be reduced in frequency, to see fewer sword and shield characters, then absolutely, this might be the way to go.

As for testing, one thing to keep in mind... there are lots of system out there and have been for decades with rules like this and with far more detailed combat complexity in the fantasy realm and a lot of people (likely some of those commenting here) have seen rules that do much the same things as this one in play for many games. They have seen the gains and losses that occur from this kind of thing. The 5e facing rule is quite literally nothing new - especially for those who came up in additions where "from behind" equals "sneak attack" and worse.

But, again, i come back to what seems to be the reversal of what normally is a good process... it is good to identify a gaol, a need, a lack etc and then try and find a rule that addresses it... know what you are wanting to do then add rules to make it happen.

basically, know where you want to go before picking a mode of travel and a route... driving from LA to London is not gonna get you much.

As opposed to adopting a rule and then seeing what it does just because the rule seems cool or is there.

If a Gm cannot answer "what i want out of it" my advice is "do not adopt an optional rule."

In my games as they play out now, there is quite a bit of movement on the battlefield. That keeps action sequences fun. So i dont see any reason to add a rule to make a good portion of the movement options "unwise" due to opening up advantage.

Just about half the characters with shield proficiency use shields and the others dont. Nobody has taken a feat to gain the proficiency that did not have it. So, i don't see any reason that it would be beneficial to reduce the utility of shields or to limit the mobility of shield users as they try to prevent anyone from getting off the arc of their shields.

For me it starts with "what makes the scenes fun and engaging - or more so or less so" and then proceeds to rules, not the other way around and this seems to not really add more than a lot of finagling on map grid lines and borders while costing a number of things that so far either seem fun or seem balanced.

So again, i ask, what do you see as the "how our scene plays out as fun for everyone" gains from this rule? Do you see the players and monsters moving so that this spot across a diagonal gives them advantage and that one doesn't to be more fun, a lot more fun or what?

Do you see having some players decide "nahm, dropping shield since it only covers half the battle field and the damage from two hand or TWF is fine" as good or more fun?


From my experience, if you want a more wargame precise movement, positioning and tactical flavor there are lots of systems around which add a lot more of that and create a very rich cornucopia of tactical fiddly bits which almost certainly include more options for shield use that serve as "alternatives" so that losing its defense is not so big.

 

[5ekyu]

Hiya!

First, no. I haven't. I have no need nor desire to implement such strict miniature-battle-like rules.



If you want it to be "D&D, The Tactical Miniatures Game", then sure. Go for it. If you want to keep your game firmly in the RPG box, then no sane DM would allow anything like the above to happen. It simply makes zero sense from a "picture it in a story/movie".



Again, same thing. If you are trying to play a tactical miniature game, then those rules are fine. Do they make sense when applied to "real life", or at least "real RPG life"? Nope...not in the least. Go watch any boxing or martial arts match and you'll see why it makes absolutely zero sense. But, for a purely "tactical game", sure. Sometimes the rules don't make sense if applied to "but if this was real..."; it doesn't have to . It's a tactical game. You are supposed to use the RULES to devise strategies to WIN. Look at Chess. Why does chess have rules? Because it's a game of strategy...not imagination.

So my suggestion would first be to decide what is more important: "tactical miniature battle strategy", or "suspension of disbelief for role-playing". That will give you your answer on how/if to use the RAW. You don't need to ask us anything. Miniature focus = use RAW. RPG focus = use RAW except when it makes no sense, then adjudicate.

(PS: My "adjudication" if using them would be simply that if it's 1-on-1 fighting, the foe is always facing you; if it's 2-on-1 then the foe has a decision to make...follow you, or follow the other guy's moves; extrapolate from there).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

"If you are trying to play a tactical miniature game"

Actually as a minor quibble, most tactical miniatures game i have played had either much more realistic focus on rules *or* they used a high level abstract representation... so its not in my experience accurate to ascribe that kind of unrealistic plus fiddly as a "tactical wargame" thing.

its much more of a "board game" type feel, IMO. The Axis and Allies or Risk or Kingmaker or maybe more on point - Frag or Wiz Wars.

All good games mind you (well all but one IMO.)

We agree on principle however.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Yeah, [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], I think you're probably more correct with the "board game" analogy. At any rate, I think you (and others) get my point. That when a game starts to have hard-n-fast rules that can't really be changed without drastically changing the playing of it (re: denying a creature with multiple attacks the ability to use them to do what the OP stated), at times like those the players have to sacrifice "realism/believability" in order to maintain the tactical/strategic aspect of it. Lucky for us, 5e D&D is a roleplaying game so we can change, modify, add or subtract what we want to any of it. If it doesn't work out, we just change it again and nobody cares because nobody really "looses" in an RPG (technically, at least; if you aren't having fun or your PC's keep dying left right and center...then that's probably "loosing a RPG").

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[toucanbuzz]

In follow up, I previously stated why we tried and ditched facing (as written). But, I dug a bit more to see what others had done to see if it could be done (and easily). Some suggestions:

Attacks of Opportunity. The optional Facing Rule (DMG 252) changes the area you can attack to what's ahead and to the flanks (aka your threat zone). Attacks of Opportunity (PHB 195) occur if a creature moves out of your reach. Treat your reach as your threat zone. This helps compensate for the absurdity of an enemy running circles around you like a bad game of old school Goldeneye. If they leave your threat zone, AoO.

As a criticism, I'm not sure how much sense it makes that an enemy gravitating to your side would somehow open itself to an attack. Also, since foes must affirmatively trigger an AoO, wouldn't be triggered by you changing facing to abuse the rule.

Reaction. Alternately, as previously suggested, considering abolishing the need to use a Reaction to adjust Facing. My addition to that is to grant a character the option to change Facing once per round, no reaction needed, by selecting one foe to mimic (wherever it goes, you face until you can't see it anymore). If you react to the first thing that comes your way or strategically wait, your call. This prevents the silliness of single foe darting behind your back while you stand there like a fool. Used in conjunction with above, eliminates single foe movement abuse and requires multiple foes to easily gain a bonus.

Bonus to Attack. That's tough. We didn't like that Facing would denigrate class abilities that granted Advantage and was fairly easy to achieve. And, Advantage is pretty strong. Still a major attraction of Advantage is that it eliminated the extreme # of modifiers to track, +1 to this, +2 to that, -1 because of this, and so on. Personally, I'd settle for a +2 and leave it at that. It's middle ground for a Bless spell's +1d4 modifier to attack without adding more dice to the equation.

Shields. I don't like what D&D did with shields. The idea of one-size-fits-all shields that can guard, on a grid, 2 squares (front and whatever side shield is worn) is silly when you compare a Buckler and Tower Shield. Consider a House Rule that would require you to implement prices and weight from previous editions.

Brainstorm

Buckler: covers your flank only. Can gain benefit of shield even when taking other actions that occupy that hand (like casting).
Medium Shield (heater, kite, etc.): covers front and one flank. Occupies use of that hand totally.
Tower Shield: covers front and flank, occupies use of hand and reduces movement by 5. Can use an Action to use this shield as Half Cover.

 

[Harzel]

Interesting idea. One thing I particularly like about this, is allowing one free facing change per turn (I assume you mean, per round?).

Oops, yes, I meant per round.

Perhaps creatures could be allowed to change facing during their own turn as much as they want; and then one free facing change per round, out of the creature's turn. This would at least address the problem of the OA vs the enemy passing by: the creature can change facing without spending a reaction to OA the enemy with its reaction as it leaves the square that was in the rear arc before the facing change.

It seems like this should have come up in our games, but it hasn't. I'm not sure why.

More recently, I have gone to resolving all actions in a round as simultaneous. That changes the use and effect of movement quite a bit. OAs seem to be less of a thing.