Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Optional Facing Rule: do you use it?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7431796" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>As opposed to adopting a rule and then seeing what it does just because the rule seems cool or is there.</p><p></p><p>If a Gm cannot answer "what i want out of it" my advice is "do not adopt an optional rule." </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7431796, member: 6919838"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Optional Facing Rule: do you use it?
Top