Quote from: Telarus;550035I have to admit that moving to a side-based initiative is really attractive. Mostly to avoid the "please wait.....loading" sensation of rolling/asking/sorting.
 
My current thought is to have one player rolling (their choice) VS an enemy tactician in an Initiative Test to "take the initiative". This Initiative Test would grant one side or another a +4 bonus to every-one's Initative Results (no roll, based on Init. Step). Then let players freely swap Initiative Results among themselves, if they end up with one or two Init Results that go after the monsters, they get to decide who gets to wait.
 
Agreed on Facing, as well.
 
I think having some advice as to what dead simple facing rules are good for in play would be worth including in a new product. The current 5e playtest has free movement before and after you attack/action, right? It doesn't have to cost Move or anything fiddly.
 
Facing is fairly implicit in my system of choice, but that's because Eearthdawn has grided hex combat as a completely optional playstyle (and only roughly developed, with the basics in there). I let characters reface freely on their turn (i.e. as part of you move or action, or secondary attacks if you have them). I also allow re-facing as a Free Action in Earthdawn, but sometimes require a Dex Check (or a Perception check to see if they notice the threat fast enough) with consequences for failure.

Sounds right to me. That totally should be used.

Quote from: Imp;550030It's weird, because combat facing would make a whole lot more sense in 3e, where a combat round is 6 seconds, than it does in AD&D, where a combat round is a full minute.

The problem is that, once you break combat down into sequential turns (which is a useful abstraction that's difficult to abandon), facing rules tend to create a lot of nonsensical results.

Once you get done adding a whole bunch of qualifiers onto your facing system to avoid the nonsensical results, you end up with something that basically looks like 3E flanking. (IOW: If you're in a melee, you're only going to let someone "get behind you" if you're preoccupied by somebody on the other side.) The flat-footed condition took care of the rest.

If someone wants to postulate a facing system that provides a result which is both (a) frequently useful and (b) not nonsensical that isn't rendered irrelevant through 3E-style flanking and flat-footed mechanics, I'm all ears.

Quote from: Imp;550030It's weird, because combat facing would make a whole lot more sense in 3e, where a combat round is 6 seconds, than it does in AD&D, where a combat round is a full minute.

From what I've read, the designers of 3e felt that even 6 seconds was too long of a stretch of time to assume that any combatant would be stuck facing a single direction, and agree, and I agree with Justin Alexander's comments about facing rules creating problematic results.

I like rules for facing.  I've never had any problems managing rules for facing.  I only use them where they apply, though.  For example, if we're talking about a "general melee" in the open in AD&D, position isn't necessarily fixed and defined.  In that case, specific facing rules don't make sense.  If we're talking about a more defined situation where facing makes sense, then I'd apply facing rules.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;550273I like rules for facing.  I've never had any problems managing rules for facing.  I only use them where they apply, though.  For example, if we're talking about a "general melee" in the open in AD&D, position isn't necessarily fixed and defined.  In that case, specific facing rules don't make sense.  If we're talking about a more defined situation where facing makes sense, then I'd apply facing rules.

I've decided you make sense and I should just leave the the thread.  I am not old school and don't want to be lumped in as being so. But common sense is called common for a reason.  It means even Marleycat gets it.

Here are my facing rules (first graphic on this post):

The 52 Pages: Combat

They seem to work OK in practice. Combats would probably go faster if it was less griddy and more free-form but I really can't do without facing for surprise, etc. When caverns open up or rogues operate in the city or wilderness it's pretty much necessary.

I've never really liked systematized "facing" rules; all they ever seem to do in my actual play is lead to players arguing with the GM about how they should get the facing bonus.

RPGPundit

I like facing for the 1 sec tactical combat round but for an abstracted combat like D&D facing should only really count for initial positions. Once melee is started combatants are moving all over the place anyway so trying to pin down where a fighter is facing during a split second of a longer combat round just isn't worth tracking.

For the same reason, flanking bonuses based on precise positioning are extraneous as well. I prefer something like the gang up bonus from Dragon Age. If your attention is divided by more attackers then they get a bonus. It doesn't matter if they are exactly opposite on some grid.

I agree with Exploderwizard on moving away from Grid Combat.

We've been using a +1 per attacker, regardless of position, and it works fine.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;550872I like facing for the 1 sec tactical combat round but for an abstracted combat like D&D facing should only really count for initial positions. Once melee is started combatants are moving all over the place anyway so trying to pin down where a fighter is facing during a split second of a longer combat round just isn't worth tracking.
 
For the same reason, flanking bonuses based on precise positioning are extraneous as well. I prefer something like the gang up bonus from Dragon Age. If your attention is divided by more attackers then they get a bonus. It doesn't matter if they are exactly opposite on some grid.

Sounds like my cup of tea. I like the idea of facing so everybody knows the general picture but too much mutinae bogs things down.