Turn undead doesn't turn you into an undead, despite how it sounds
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)
DM Academy
718 readers
4 users here now
A community for discussion, questions, tools, or advice regarding being a Dungeon Master (or Game Master) for Dungeons and Dragons or RPG's in general
/c/DnD Network Communities
- Dungeons and Dragons
- Dungeons and Dragons - Art
- Dungeons and Dragons - Homebrew
- Dungeons and Dragons - Memes and Comics
- Dungeons and Dragons - AI
- Dungeons and Dragons - Looking for Group
Rules (Subject to Change)
- Be a Decent Human Being
- There are 4 types of posts here, Questions, Advice, Articles, and Tools; Stories belong in [email protected]
- DO NOT Downvote simple or beginner questions, this is a space for EVERYONE from beginners to advanced DMs
- No Piracy, this includes links to torrent sites, hosted content, streaming content, etc. Please see this post for details
- Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
- No NSFW content
- Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Thanks for the info but I meant directional turning, like where you face in combat.
Do you mean “turning” as in changing your direction on a battlemap? It seems like facing would be a factor during combat, such that, if you’re facing away from an opponent you’re likely at disadvantage to attack and/or they have advantage in attacking you (or whatever the bonus/penalty may be). I’m not sure how I’d handle the actual turning bit, if turning 180 degrees would constitute 1 full movement, and anything less than that can be done for free (or if all of it would be a free movement).
I generally like the idea, as anything that gives fighters more options and makes positioning important is great. I wonder though if Turning would need to be added as a reaction movement, since you could easily have a melee fighter just move to their opponent’s backside every turn to get an uncontested attack at advantage? So by making turning into a reaction, it gives the opponent a chance to respond, or gives at least gives them a decision on whether to use up their reaction for that or something else. I could see it making combat feel a bit more like a dance or a struggle to gain the upper-hand, which could be interesting for martial folks.
Yeah! One thing I thought of is that it costs 5 movement to turn 90 degrees. You could attack to the 3 squares in front of you normally, to the two sides with disadvantage, and not attack behind (or cast spells for that matter if they require sight or touch of the target or area.) You could move to your sides and forward, and backward as if through difficult terrain.
With what you said about it being a reaction, if the attack range is how I suggested, it could provoke opportunity doing that. A reaction could also be interesting though.
There's no point in a 90degree turn costing anything. It's absurdly easy and fast to do.
Go watch some sparring at a weapons class of some kind. While you're going to try to keep facing a single opponent, when there's a group doing 1 vs 2 or 3, you can pivot 90degrees in a split second. It's literally a half of a step at most. It's more repositioning your feet than moving any distance, which you're gone to be doing anyway; you don't fight flat footed, you use footwork.
Even in armor, fighters stay mobile and shift positions in a split second. You can even pull a 180 with one long movement of a leg, then a short one of the other if you practice enough.
Now, this isn't to say the there aren't drawback. It might make attacks of opportunity available, if there's multiple opponents.
There's no real issues with covering the an arc from each side across your front at all. So, the three in front and the two to the sides shouldn't have any difference in advantage at all either. The only time advantage would come into play is vs multiple attackers, which already gives you disadvantage.
Seriously, I'm damn near fifty and disabled. I can still pivot 90 degrees in no appreciable time. Once you've spent any time training or actually fighting, it just isn't a factor.
I use the optional facing rules from the DMG when I run games in a VTT that makes it easy to keep track of (TaleSpire for example, allows you to rotate minis)
Basically, the rules are that you have advantage when attacking the back hemisphere of a creature. A creature may use their reaction to face another direction when another creature moves. (I allow that rotation to continue throughout the attacking creature's turn to prevent players from moving a bit, to get enemies to face them, and then moving again after the enemy has used their reaction -- yes, there are players who will do that because they see the DM-player relationship as combative rather than as collaborative storytelling)
Shields only give the AC boost to the side that they are equipped on