Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 JohnLynch Dec 24, 2014 23:34:12	Since 5th ed came out I've had people asking me about rules for facing or flanking. It didn't matter if they were new or old, they asked for rules on one or the other. I've held off on houseruling my own rules because I wanted to see what WotC would produce and I'm glad I did. The flanking rules work as expected based on 4th ed and 3.5e. The facing rules are always something I've missed in 4th ed and 3.5e. I really like the facing rules and the fact that rear facing grants advantage and allows sneak attack (something I accidentally call backstab much to the confusion of everyone). I can immediately start allowing advantage when stealthing from rear. I also love using your reaction to stop enemies from moving to your rear. The only thing I'm not completely sold on is the shield rules only working on one side and the forward rules. This seems like it might nerf shield use which already seems fairly suboptimal. What do people think of the rules? Do you plan on using either of them? Both of them? Will you be house ruling either of them before implementing them?
#2 Plaguescarred4 Dec 25, 2014 2:56:30	I think the facing rule is fine for people wanting that kind of complexity, its good yet simple enought. The shield only protecting from front + side is a typical aspect of facing, just like a free re-facing usually is.
#3 Adjule Dec 25, 2014 8:12:52	I believe 3rd edition had facing rules as well, but in the Unearthed Arcana book. *goes to check* Yep, page 124-131 of Unearthed Arcana has facing rules (square and hex). I don't have the DMG for 5th edition, so not sure about the facing rules for this edition. But a shield being useful only from the front and one side makes sense for realism, but sucks for a shield user. I know in UA, you only get the shield benefit in 3 squares (directly left, directly front, and the diagonal between them), which I think is a bit low. I think if I would do facing, to keep people from saying "Why use a shield and get hardly any use from it? Might as well go 2-handed weapon", I would go with shield giving its AC bonus to all 3 squares to the front and all 3 to whichever side the character has the shield equipped.   Or just not use facing. But I personally like facing rules, and would even use a shield in a game that used those rules, because it gives an extra layer of immersion (or verisimilitude, if you wish) for me.
#4 JohnLynch Dec 25, 2014 8:21:18	To help out shield users and facing (other than ignoring that rule) I was thinking of using a handedness rule. If your ambidextrous then you gain no benefit (default 5th ed rules). If you have a dominant hand, however, you gain a +2 bonus to damage when attacking with a one-handed weapon in you dominant hand. In addition when attacking with a weapon in your non-dominant hand you have disadvantage.   It incentivises shield use and 1 hand free fighters.
#5 Rhenny Dec 25, 2014 8:30:16	I really like facing rules because they make stealth decisions much more clear too.  If the guard is facing away, a PC can play.
#6 Lawolf Dec 25, 2014 11:41:49	Facing rules don't really make sense in D&D. After all, your characters are not static in a single location for six seconds straight. Once your turn is over, your character does not sand unchanging while the battle rages around him.   No, instead combat is fluid and dynamic. During a 6 second round, you could be facing any number of directions. Facing rules make D&D more of a miniatures war game than a RPG. Facing rules don't make sense given what combat in D&D is supposed to represent. Furthermore, the facing rules add unnecessary complexity to the game without making combat any more enjoyable.    Our group decidedly does not like the facing rules.
#7 edwin_su Dec 25, 2014 12:00:12	We talked about using flanking.   but it seems like it would be a way to easy way to get advatage. making other options like spells and class features  to get advanage feal less important
#8 Samrin Dec 25, 2014 12:49:11	Facing doesn't make sense in an abstract combat system. It suggests that the characters are just standing there like statues while its someone else's turn.
#9 Chiisai_Usagi Dec 25, 2014 15:17:38	Samrin wrote:
#10 Adjule Dec 25, 2014 19:49:29	If you think of it as a character just standing there picking its nose when it hasn't acted yet, then it doesn't make sense. But every action takes place in the same 6 seconds, at almost the exact same time. If you think of it that way, then facing rules make sense.
#11 JohnLynch Dec 25, 2014 22:43:26	Samrin wrote:
#12 Brock_Landers Dec 25, 2014 23:11:15	JohnLynch wrote:
#13 pukunui Dec 26, 2014 0:51:59	Brock_Landers wrote:
#14 Ramzour Dec 26, 2014 7:43:02	JohnLynch wrote:
#15 Ramzour Dec 26, 2014 7:52:39	JohnLynch wrote:
#16 JohnLynch Dec 26, 2014 8:01:14	Ramzour wrote:
#17 Ramzour Dec 26, 2014 8:01:20	pukunui wrote:
#18 Ramzour Dec 26, 2014 8:12:53	JohnLynch wrote:
#19 JohnLynch Dec 26, 2014 8:30:52	Ramzour wrote:
#20 Ramulf Dec 26, 2014 9:38:20	Part of the problem is many people feel they can do more in the six seconds than the game lets them. This make it feel like the pc are just standing around and looking every where to cover there back.
#21 Ramzour Dec 26, 2014 13:10:41	JohnLynch wrote:
#22 JohnLynch Dec 26, 2014 17:41:33	Ramzour wrote:
#23 Chiisai_Usagi Dec 26, 2014 21:27:02	Ramulf wrote:
#24 Samrin Dec 26, 2014 23:16:40	I think that in order for flanking to make sense, changing  should cost extra  movement or something. Combat is abstract. Facing defies that.
#25 Ramzour Dec 27, 2014 0:37:32	JohnLynch wrote:
#26 JohnLynch Dec 27, 2014 9:12:46	Quotes are in actual quote tags. If you wish to assert my interpretation came out of nowhere then you can. I feel the quote I made shows clearly where your saying using certain 5th edition rules means your using rules that are intended for a different game, thereby implying people wanting those rules want a different game. If you can't see how that's a reasonable conclusion to draw then that's on you.
#27 Azzy1974 Dec 27, 2014 11:44:56	Most (if not all) of the other RPGs I play have facing of some sort, so it simply makes sense for D&D to do so (again). Like you, I'm not to hip on the limitations placed on shields, but I also ignored similar limitations in AD&D. So, if I choose to use facing, I'll likely forego that. I doubt I'll use flanking it I choose to use facing.
#28 Ramzour Dec 27, 2014 12:16:41	JohnLynch wrote:
#29 sleypy Dec 27, 2014 14:21:07	JohnLynch wrote: