Facing

[Pex]

Facing was brought up in another thread, but I want to expand on it in its own topic rather that clutter the original thread.

Those who like facing have said so because it adds realism and/or interesting tactical options. I lean towards not liking facing. I don't need or even care about realism. Campaign verisimilitude is important, but how accurate the game reflects real world physics is irrelevant to me. That is a matter of taste, and I don't think an issue that can be resolved other than to agree to disagree. However, what really bothers me about facing is that I think it puts warriors at a disadvantage.

It boils down to AC. A shield no longer provides universal AC. You will be attacked from where your shield AC doesn't apply, so it's almost pointless to have one. Being flanked is bad enough (3E flanking perspective for point of reference), but with facing rules there are more spaces where you become easier to hit and location of other enemies is irrelevant. It bugs me that your AC is practically an illusion. It fluctuates depending on from where you're attacked, and monsters with reach just add to the problem. AC is no longer something you can depend on.

[mephnick]

I agree. To me it adds nothing to the game, slows down combat, and punishes melee even more than the system already does. It's fumbles all over again.

[Hytheter]

I personally don't like the assumption that a character will spend a whole 6 seconds facing the same direction. Seems pretty dumb to me. A round is a very long time to not look around you.

Although facing could make Stealth based encounters have a bit more depth. I don't think it could fit into DnD's mechanics though.

[cobaltstarfire]

My DM has it set up so we can change our facing using our reaction. (we play on a hex grid). I think we can only shift over by one face though, I'll have to ask for clarification on that next time we meet.

I don't think too deeply about these things though but it seems to work ok for us, dunno if it messes with the balance of the game noticeably. I'll leave it to those of you who are good at breaking down the crunch to decide that. :smallsmile:

[metaridley18]

It boils down to AC. A shield no longer provides universal AC. You will be attacked from where your shield AC doesn't apply, so it's almost pointless to have one. Being flanked is bad enough (3E flanking perspective for point of reference), but with facing rules there are more spaces where you become easier to hit and location of other enemies is irrelevant. It bugs me that your AC is practically an illusion. It fluctuates depending on from where you're attacked, and monsters with reach just add to the problem. AC is no longer something you can depend on.

Have you played with facing? It works fairly well. I am not of the opinion that it is particularly needed, but it scratches a certain itch for some groups.

First, you only have one square that is a melee back arc, so not every monster will be able to hit it every time. Second, anything moving from in front of you will get attacked when they leave your reach to try and hot your back arc (you don't threaten your back arc), so many monsters won't risk it. Third, you have buddies! And terrain! You can put your back to a huge number of things!

I hated the facing rules when I read them but after playing a few combats, they work well and add a nice dimension. They aren't for every group (one group I DM for would bit be able to handle the tactics. Combat would slow to a halt), but they add something for those who want it.

Just don't play with flanking granting advantage. ...that is too good.

[ghost_warlock]

Facing was a big part of Final Fantasy Tactics, one of my favorite console games, so I was really tempted to add facing to my D&D group. I decided not to because it does really seem like it would slow combat down and, really, most of the time I use pogs for monsters so it'd be a pain representing which way certain creatures are facing.

I can see it being pretty neat in 4e D&D, but combat is already so slow in that edition that it really doesn't need one more thing to slow things down more.

[metaridley18]

Facing was a big part of Final Fantasy Tactics, one of my favorite console games, so I was really tempted to add facing to my D&D group. I decided not to because it does really seem like it would slow combat down and, really, most of the time I use pogs for monsters so it'd be a pain representing which way certain creatures are facing.

I can see it being pretty neat in 4e D&D, but combat is already so slow in that edition that it really doesn't need one more thing to slow things down more.

Yeah, we don't use it in my in-person group but we do on Roll20. Much easier to track it with pictures.

[silveralen]

It helps in two ways that I've seen.

1. Allows rogues to be more independent. Helpful for small parties.

2. Forces more mobile combat. May or may not be a plus, but facing has made our table much more likely to trigger AoO which is fun in its way.

If course it also has a couple downsides

1. Kinda makes bounded accuracy look like a joke, as the chance of missing really drops off to nothing for even moderately optimized characters

2. Makes some abilities less useful due to advantage being easy to gain. With flanking the problem becomes really apparent. Barbarian is by far the hardest hit, especially a wolf barbarian which is almost not worth bothering with. Reckless attack can be hard to justify as a class feature when it's almost built into the combat (with people circling each time).

3. Shields are... useless. Completely useless. Even shield master hardly helps, as the bonus action is usually unhelpful thanks to easier ways to get advantage. I ended up just ditching the shield on a character after we brought in facing, it was too useless.

4. It gets a little silly when you basically have a ballroom dance of death, with each character constantly circling behind the other.

[Naanomi]

I use it for situations where mobility in combat is not expected... surprise attacks of various types, people paralyzed or webbed, squeezing down a too-small corridor (medium sized people unable to turn around except in rooms between passages, kobolds with more mobility, traps... dangerous times)

[Knaight]

There are games where I feel facing works well. I wouldn't use it in D&D, for a few reasons. The really big one is the six second round - GURPS uses facing and it feels natural, but that's in the context of a one second round. The other one is the bizarre circling that can come up, where one can't just turn around when someone is trying to circle them.

[SiuiS]

There is only one side that you can't apply your shield to, if we are going real world physics, and even that's not true; a shield on your left arm can be pulled almost flat to your chest and a hip pivot protects your right side completely.

[Knaight]

There is only one side that you can't apply your shield to, if we are going real world physics, and even that's not true; a shield on your left arm can be pulled almost flat to your chest and a hip pivot protects your right side completely.

You can also turn around very quickly, which is the bigger thing. As for what you described, it generally works better to just turn partially, so that you can get the shield a little further away when it's struck. How aggressively it gets used varies by person and by shield, but sometimes the best block involves getting the edge of your shield into their arm pit.

[odigity]

I agree with the concerns posted in this thread, as well as the potential up-sides in terms of making combat more interesting, and so it'd be nice to find a way to fix the problems so we can derivce the benefits.

It seams like the biggest problem (other than making some abilities more valueable and others less) is that it basically adds the flanking-is-advantage rule in for the case of being behind a person, and we all agree that the flanking rule is broken, because advantage is too good to give that easily. A +1 should be the cap if there's to be a benefit at all.

I'm mostly interested in the new stealth possibilities inherent in adding the Facing concept. It bugs me that you can't have the tank attack a foe as a way to distract them while the rogue sneaks up behind him.

[Knaight]

It seams like the biggest problem (other than making some abilities more valueable and others less) is that it basically adds the flanking-is-advantage rule in for the case of being behind a person, and we all agree that the flanking rule is broken, because advantage is too good to give that easily. A +1 should be the cap if there's to be a benefit at all.


The flanking rule actually seems reasonable to me. Being outnumbered in melee really, really sucks, and while there are situations where it sucks a lot less (a spear against a few swords), being outright flanked is not one of the good situations. D&D has historically given a small benefit, but other games have given heft ones. Fudge gives a -1 penalty per person outnumbering you, and you need to beat all of their rolls to hit any of them, and that's a system where a -1 is close to a -3 or -4 in 5e.

[Hytheter]

4. It gets a little silly when you basically have a ballroom dance of death, with each character constantly circling behind the other.

See, that's one of the things that really gets to me. In a combat, you can't just run around and get behind another person unless you're incredibly fast, because they can obviously turn around faster than you can circle them. At the very least, you should be able to keep facing at least one opponent, so it would only matter if there are multiple enemies surrounding you.

[cobaltstarfire]

I agree with the concerns posted in this thread, as well as the potential up-sides in terms of making combat more interesting, and so it'd be nice to find a way to fix the problems so we can derivce the benefits.

It seams like the biggest problem (other than making some abilities more valueable and others less) is that it basically adds the flanking-is-advantage rule in for the case of being behind a person, and we all agree that the flanking rule is broken, because advantage is too good to give that easily. A +1 should be the cap if there's to be a benefit at all.

I'm mostly interested in the new stealth possibilities inherent in adding the Facing concept. It bugs me that you can't have the tank attack a foe as a way to distract them while the rogue sneaks up behind him.

We simply aren't using flanking in my game, although the rogue I think does get some of his perks for getting behind enemies that the rest of us don't. Sometimes he has to use up his special actions to do it though.

It also hasn't noticeably bogged down the game I'm in, but there's only 3 of us too, and I guess when each character can only change facing once a turn it won't happen as much. (also makes us think about if we want to save our reaction for something else or not...)

[Knaight]

See, that's one of the things that really gets to me. In a combat, you can't just run around and get behind another person unless you're incredibly fast, because they can obviously turn around faster than you can circle them. At the very least, you should be able to keep facing at least one opponent, so it would only matter if there are multiple enemies surrounding you.

Of course, this then runs into the issue where there are two people in front of you, one runs around behind you, and you can't just move sideways so they are both on one side. It's generally pretty hard to actually surround someone without involving a surprise attack from the back at some point, and facing makes it way too easy to get behind people.