So in a throwaway line in the latest Rule-of-Three, it was revealed that Mike Mearls had a cool idea for facing rules he wanted to try.

This exploded the internet. Well slightly burped it I suppose.

But their did seem to be a lot of people claiming that facing was the worst rule ever, never used in prior editions and its removal in 3rd edition was hailed as a great achievement by mankind, because it meant you did not have to mutilate your books with black marker pen to eradicate the awful and maddening rules from your mind.*

Is my group the only group in the world that actually missed them? We seem to have spent the whole of 3.x and 4th making plans based upon facing, that then do not work mysteriously because their is no facing. I mean obviously, in 1st/2nd we endured the huge problems the facing rules cause like... erm, like... no I don't remember any fucking issues before at all.

So do people use Facing? Do Facing rules induce rage? Do people miss facing in 3.x/4th? IS this just the same people who hate everything about 5th finding something else to hate about 5th, or was facing actually unpopular before?


*god it's getting hard to over exaggerate these days.

3.0 sort of had facing inasmuch as long creatures like horses were 2 squares by 1 square... I remember 3.5 causing some consternation over its 'square' (2x2) horses.
 
I liked nonsquare horses, but don't really see much point in facing for humanoids since I don't think that turning should provoke AoOs or use up movement particularly.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;5498823.0 sort of had facing inasmuch as long creatures like horses were 2 squares by 1 square... I remember 3.5 causing some consternation over its 'square' (2x2) horses.
 
I liked nonsquare horses, but don't really see much point in facing for humanoids since I don't think that turning should provoke AoOs or use up movement particularly.

This.

Square horses are retarded, and a snake doesn't really need to "squeeze" to fit through a space smaller than the big square they assign it. But otherwise, I find facing to be an unnecessary detail.

I like facing.

Quote from: Benoist;549920I like facing.

Let me get this clear for the less tactially minded. Is that the phase were the DM asks you which direction are you pointing? So you know which is your front and back for sneak attacks et al?  If that's what it is I like facing.

I don't like rules that add to the length of time spent on figuring out how to resolve your character's combat action.  Keep things moving, or else that player with the slowest initiative has built a dice tower by the time it gets to his or her turn.

Quote from: Marleycat;549924Let me get this clear for the less tactially minded. Is that the phase were the DM asks you which direction are you pointing? So you know which is your front and back for sneak attacks et al?  If that's what it is I like facing.

Yes. Facing basically means the rules take into account that your character (and thus, token or mini on the table) has a "front", a "back", and "sides", with related effects on the game, like indeed backstabbing, flanking, the use of your shield and so on.

Quote from: Marleycat;549924Let me get this clear for the less tactially minded. Is that the phase were the DM asks you which direction are you pointing? So you know which is your front and back for sneak attacks et al?  If that's what it is I like facing.

Yes, facing is indeed rules for 'which direction are you pointing'.

If I have to figure out whether or not I get a shield bonus against a particular attack, I don't like facing.

I like the IDEA of facing, but in practice it usually meant screwing the PCs.  Monsters always sneak up from behind, but whenever you're being sneaky you enter a hallway with one way to go and the monster guard is facing you, so you're automatically seen.  

Also, descriptions of combat as 'fluid' make facing difficult.  I can't see a movie that involves any type of fighting (whether swords, superheroes, gun-fu or other) that doesn't involve someone spinning around while fighting two or more people at once.

The third edition rules where you're assumed to be responding to threats on all sides more or less equally (but giving a bonus for flankers) is pretty good.  The fact that you only got the benefit of flanking if you're on OPPOSITE sides was unnecessarily restrictive.  I think if you have two opponents side-by-side facing you (so in front and on a corner, according to the grid) I think they probably deserve a bonus on attacks because you're splitting attention - I don't think that 135 degree spread is much easier to respond to than a 180 degree spread...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;549925I don't like rules that add to the length of time spent on figuring out how to resolve your character's combat action.  Keep things moving, or else that player with the slowest initiative has built a dice tower by the time it gets to his or her turn.

This is also why I much prefer group initiative, so when its the players' turn to go as a group they can all take an interest in each others actions as it relates to what they want to do without sitting around waiting for a "turn" as if they are playing a board game.

To me a "turn" represents 10 minutes of exploration time.

Facing doesn't need to be complicated. Since we are not talking GURPS style second by second combat the characters should be free to face whatever direction they can physically do as a free action. However once set, then his opponents can take advantage of it to strike from behind or flanking.  And monsters have facing as well  so it works as much for the PC as their opponents.

Quote from: estar;549959Facing doesn't need to be complicated. Since we are not talking GURPS style second by second combat the characters should be free to face whatever direction they can physically do as a free action. However once set, then his opponents can take advantage of it to strike from behind or flanking. And monsters have facing as well so it works as much for the PC as their opponents.

Pretty much how we run it.
 
GM: which way you facing?
Me: I am to the left of the troll and in front of him
GM: Then the orc that is beside you can attack you, but at a -2

Quote from: estar;549959Facing doesn't need to be complicated. Since we are not talking GURPS style second by second combat the characters should be free to face whatever direction they can physically do as a free action. However once set, then his opponents can take advantage of it to strike from behind or flanking.  And monsters have facing as well  so it works as much for the PC as their opponents.

Ditto. The idea that facing has to be this very complex affair is misguided.

It'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.

I 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.