Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3728137" data-attributes="member: 22882">1. From a reality simulation perspective, facing is really, really stupid.&nbsp; Sorry, but it's true - &quot;look over your shoulder?&quot;&nbsp; More like duck, weave, get behind light cover, constantly switch places with your opponent, etc.&nbsp; A dragon or a centipede have an even EASIER time turning around, btw, since their necks or entire bodies are snaky and flexible.With that said, from a GAMEPLAY perspective, which is what matters to me, I LOVE facing.&nbsp; It adds another element of tactics to the Tactics/RPG that D&amp;D at its best is, making it more like Final Fantasy Tactics or Vandal Hearts.&nbsp; FTW.&nbsp; I'd like to see facing return but can't imagine it will happen.2. Man, what?&nbsp; Number one, D&amp;D was born from miniatures, has always been accompanied by a&nbsp; miniatures line (Ral Partha used to provide the minis) and is at its best relative to other RPGs when it's used as a Tactics/RPG.&nbsp; If I didn't want the squad-level tactics game element, I sure as heck would be playing Spirit of the Century rather than D&amp;D!Number two, how the heck can you handle facing WITHOUT minis?&nbsp; These two seem at cross purposes.3. Ugh, one I totally disagree with.&nbsp; The square spaces are so much easier to use with or without minis.&nbsp; As with facing, they actually make vastly more sense from a realism standpoint.&nbsp; Unlike with facing, 2x1 square spaces don't add a meaningful gameplay element.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoogleEmpMog, post: 3728137, member: 22882"] 1. From a reality simulation perspective, facing is really, really stupid. Sorry, but it's true - "look over your shoulder?" More like duck, weave, get behind light cover, constantly switch places with your opponent, etc. A dragon or a centipede have an even EASIER time turning around, btw, since their necks or entire bodies are snaky and flexible. With that said, from a GAMEPLAY perspective, which is what matters to me, I LOVE facing. It adds another element of tactics to the Tactics/RPG that D&D at its best is, making it more like Final Fantasy Tactics or Vandal Hearts. FTW. I'd like to see facing return but can't imagine it will happen. 2. Man, what? Number one, D&D was born from miniatures, has always been accompanied by a miniatures line (Ral Partha used to provide the minis) and is at its best relative to other RPGs when it's used as a Tactics/RPG. If I didn't want the squad-level tactics game element, I sure as heck would be playing Spirit of the Century rather than D&D! Number two, how the heck can you handle facing WITHOUT minis? These two seem at cross purposes. 3. Ugh, one I totally disagree with. The square spaces are so much easier to use with or without minis. As with facing, they actually make vastly more sense from a realism standpoint. Unlike with facing, 2x1 square spaces don't add a meaningful gameplay element. [/QUOTE]

Verification