Post/Author/DateTime	Post
cato 07-20-07, 01:44 AM	Lets say you are engaged in melee with an opponent in front of you, and some guy moves within the threatened space directly behind you. Do you spontaneously 180% degrees, hit him and turn back to your opponent? And as a part2 of this question: If the above is true, is it limited by the fact that humanoids have 170ish degree of vision in front of them?
Ainamacar 07-20-07, 01:58 AM	In standard 3.5 there are no facing concerns whatsoever. If, however, you are using the facing variant from Unearthed Arcana the answer can be found in the SRD. The short answer is that you would take a -10 on the attack roll. Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm#attacksofOpportunity)
TaiSharShaidar 07-20-07, 02:02 AM	The short answer on the first of these is yes, you threaten 360 degrees. So if someone moves through a threatened square "behind" you, you do "turn" and strike him. And as to the second one no its not limited. Technically in standard play you have no facing, it’s not tracked in the fight. There is an option for it but I’m not sure where to find it. Edit: lol beat me to it
cato 07-20-07, 02:45 AM	The short answer on the first of these is yes, you threaten 360 degrees. So if someone moves through a threatened square "behind" you, you do "turn" and strike him. And as to the second one no its not limited. Technically in standard play you have no facing, it’s not tracked in the fight. There is an option for it but I’m not sure where to find it. Edit: lol beat me to it If facing was irrelevant what would be the point of flanking only on opposite squares as opposed to flanking on 90% angle squares? If that is the case why does the robe of eyes give you the ability to have all around vision ?
Leilond 07-20-07, 02:55 AM	Remember that a round is 6 second. During this six seconds, you can turn and attack everywhere. Do not complicate your life with the facing, it is not in the D&D representation. The character do not "turn 180% and attack". The character is probably following all his opponents movement and thus you can think he turn around in every moment to keep the situation under control; during opponents turn the creatures aren't freezed to face a single direction, they're moving, dodging, parrying and so on
Ainamacar 07-20-07, 03:29 AM	What Leilond said. Facing isn't explicitly modeled in the standard combat system. The flanking rules are an attempt to achieve a similar tactical effect through a very simplifying abstraction. Think of it this way: in real time you can't simultaneously face in two opposite directions, so if we don't model actual facing in the game, a sensible alternative is to associate some bonus to attackers (and/or penalty to defender) when they put a defender in a position that would typically require its full attention in both ways at once, which we can't normally do. When the attackers aren't on opposite sides of the defender, the designers of the game decided that the defender would generally have sufficient opportunity to adaquately defend himself against them both. The Robe of Eyes and similar items or effects are taken to grant sufficient ability to handle or mitigate the downsides of those difficult situations. All these things try to take into account, at some basic level, the fact that you are probably bobbing all around in the middle of combat, as Leilond said. I would also point out that it is important for the DM to know if you gain the ability to see all around you, even if the combat system doesn't deal with it explicitly. For example, if all the players, out of combat, are facing one direction (e.g. gazing at the sunset) they are all probably easier to sneak past. The DM might reasonably grant characters a circumstance penalty on their spot checks, but not to the character who has the Robe of Eyes. In other words, even if facing isn't modeled explicitly in tactical combat, information about such abilities (like all-around vision) is useful for other reasons. Taken in the context of the rest of the game, your objection is a bit misplaced, in my opinion. The game is broken into rounds, and everyone takes their turn in order. Time (as experienced by the characters) in a D&D world doesn't actually work like that, but we model it that way for simplicity. In the same way that simultaneous action and periods of time smaller than 6 seconds exist in an "actual" D&D world (even though we model them as rounds with initiative orders) characters need to worry about facing, but the players playing them through the medium of the game don't.
cato 07-20-07, 04:20 AM	Remember that a round is 6 second. During this six seconds, you can turn and attack everywhere. Do not complicate your life with the facing, it is not in the D&D representation. The character do not "turn 180% and attack". The character is probably following all his opponents movement and thus you can think he turn around in every moment to keep the situation under control; during opponents turn the creatures aren't freezed to face a single direction, they're moving, dodging, parrying and so on I get where you are coming from, what I don't agree with is that while being engaged with one enemy its highly improbable you will notice someone coming from behind, since you are trying to attack and/or defend against said opponent. I believe its a fundamental element of real combat, and its one of the drawbacks of actually being in the battlefield against having an isometric view of it. Even though a facing rule as you said is not explicitly mentioned in the rules, there are all sorts of items/feats or combat situations based on it, not to mention adventure scripts based on encounters approaching from behind. Based on that I think it adds to the realism and to the game experience to disallow the insta- 360 turns and disproportionate + unrealistic movement that results from not taking facing into account. Or in the least moderate it.
Leilond 07-20-07, 04:33 AM	I get where you are coming from, what I don't agree with is that while being engaged with one enemy its highly improbable you will notice someone coming from behind, since you are trying to attack and/or defend against said opponent. I believe its a fundamental element of real combat, and its one of the drawbacks of actually being in the battlefield against having an isometric view of it. Even though a facing rule as you said is not explicitly mentioned in the rules, there are all sorts of items/feats or combat situations based on it, not to mention adventure scripts based on encounters approaching from behind. Based on that I think it adds to the realism and to the game experience to disallow the insta- 360 turns and disproportionate + unrealistic movement that results from not taking facing into account. Or in the least moderate it. I understand where you coming from, but you forgot that "the enemy that arrive from behind" need 6 second to arrive to me. An experienced adventurer will surely glance behind him every now and then to prevent someone to "surprise him". You're playing like all the movement happen in the precise moment you "move the miniatures". But, as the DMG say, all the moment happens nearly in the same moment. It means that "while I attack, you defend, the third is moving, while a take a glance to the general situation, while my friend cast a spell and another friend shout me to keep my back" and so on This is represented by the simple "flanking rules" and the AC, the dexterity, the hide checks and so on
Anathema 07-20-07, 04:38 AM	They're also not up in each others faces the whole time. Remember that by the abstract laws of this game there's 5' between every combatant. It's an abstract system; some rules will be there more for balance then for logic. That being said, you do not provoke an AoO for simply entering a threatened square, only for leaving one. For a medium sized creature without a reach weapon, you may enter melee without drawing an AoO.
cato 07-20-07, 04:41 AM	I understand where you coming from, but you forgot that "the enemy that arrive from behind" need 6 second to arrive to me. An experienced adventurer will surely glance behind him every now and then to prevent someone to "surprise him". You're playing like all the movement happen in the precise moment you "move the miniatures". But, as the DMG say, all the moment happens nearly in the same moment. It means that "while I attack, you defend, the third is moving, while a take a glance to the general situation, while my friend cast a spell and another friend shout me to keep my back" and so on This is represented by the simple "flanking rules" and the AC, the dexterity, the hide checks and so on I have to disagree with the time snap-shot theory here as you can divide time any way you like, but in reality even if it was 40 secs and you were fighting someone armed you were never gonna turn your head in a way where you would see 180% degrees unless you yourself move in space at the same time. I dont believe its a matter of time here, its more of a rules simplification, in my opinion oversimplification which substantially distorts real combat. Another thing I noticed is that although you can make attacks of opportunity on every square you threaten, you can only make attacks of opportunity providing you can attack; cant a DM easily rule that you cant attack "at your back"?
ibayboy 07-20-07, 04:50 AM	Another thing to remember is that in the OP's example, the opponent only moved through the threatened square. He did not do anything to avoid an AoO, nor was he stopping to attack the character. So the AoO gained by the character is only a quick jab directed at the moving opponent. This action is easily covered in the description of combat liad out by WotC and given in this thread. If the opponent instead tumbled up and stopped in that position, he would gain flanking, and the character would start to have all the problems associated with not being able to concentrate on both opponents at once.
SpaceHopper 07-20-07, 08:31 AM	Cato, it may well be worth you checking out and using the optional facing rules in Unearthed Arcana or as written in the SRD if you're really not happy with the way facing is handled (or rather isn't handled) in the standard rules. I've played in games with facing, and without. Fighting with facing is slightly more tactical, takes a little longer, and really really needs miniatures or counters on a map to work. Personally, i prefer the standard, no-facing rules, purely for the simplicity they give and the more free-form nature of combat they allow.
cato 07-20-07, 10:26 AM	Cato, it may well be worth you checking out and using the optional facing rules in Unearthed Arcana or as written in the SRD if you're really not happy with the way facing is handled (or rather isn't handled) in the standard rules. I've played in games with facing, and without. Fighting with facing is slightly more tactical, takes a little longer, and really really needs miniatures or counters on a map to work. Personally, i prefer the standard, no-facing rules, purely for the simplicity they give and the more free-form nature of combat they allow. Well free form combat is a double edged knife, but I have to agree with you on the grid thing. But I just recently started using a grid, and tbh it made our game much faster than arguing about who is where and who can go where target what and aoe which area. Also assuming you do use a grid, facing doesn't really cost any more time.
mvincent 07-20-07, 01:22 PM	But I just recently started using a grid, and tbh it made our game much faster than arguing about who is where and who can go where target what and aoe which area. Also assuming you do use a grid, facing doesn't really cost any more time.Although there is no facing in regular D&D, some optional rules for facing can be found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm).
Sorath 07-20-07, 04:28 PM	First of all, D&D is not reality. So you can only make it "so" realistic. I am a big believer in logic and things that make sense. And to me, I completely agree with the "no facing" rules. In no combat ever conceived do the combatants stand completely facing each other and have tunnel vision. Combatants move their feet, change their stances, parry, attack, duck, etc. How many coreographed movies have you seen where the opponents block each others sword strikes while having their backs turned to that foe and blocking overhead? I have seen it many many times. It is completely conceivable. How many times have you seen where the hero was able to take a swipe at a passing by foe without even seeming to see them at all? Plenty of times. There is something called "Combat Awareness" that seasoned adventurers have and make use of in a combat which is what allows them to make these attacks IMO. Also, keep in mind that someone moving by you in combat is not necessarily doing it silently. You may get that gently breeze or smell you notice as they are running past you that allows you that brief moment to strike. I find it very realistic and believable personally, but that is just me.
Centauri 07-20-07, 04:36 PM	Once you introduce facing, people will try to get around it by, say, hiring someone to warn them when they're being flanked, or by claiming that they are always snapping looks behind them. Frankly, I'm impressed with D&D for eliminating facing. It's one of the many things D&D combat does to assume that the characters, despite being low level, are not complete dopes about combat and are reasonably aware of their surroundings.
Werral 07-20-07, 04:50 PM	What if you just said that anyone that's flanking you does not provoke attacks of opportunity?
cato 07-20-07, 06:28 PM	First of all, D&D is not reality. So you can only make it "so" realistic. I am a big believer in logic and things that make sense. Dnd is not reality but it does emulate reality. I only try it to make as realistic so far as it doesn't hinder my game. In no combat ever conceived do the combatants stand completely facing each other and have tunnel vision. Not tunnel vision but 170ish degree of vision or lets say 200ish if your not facing an opponent attacking you. Combatants move their feet, change their stances, parry, attack, duck, etc. How many coreographed movies have you seen where the opponents block each others sword strikes while having their backs turned to that foe and blocking overhead? I have seen it many many times. Ok, citing movies is a really bad example. You make my argument a lot easier though since you mention the word "choreographed". Being in martial arts for some time myself I can safely tell you that what you see in movies, are pre set scenarios and applications of katas at their best. A broad definition of a kata is a move practiced for form improvement and even with a sparring partner to get the feel of the technique. In no way does a kata, or a choreographed movie scenario represent a real combat situation. The same applies to martial arts exhibitions and to certain competitive-sport martial art rule sets. The best way to experience a more original kind of melee combat are championships of MMA (mixed martial arts category). Depending on what you choose there are different rule sets, but they are by far closer approximations to the real thing than anything else atm - (although weapons are not used there, you can still grasp the feel of a 1on1 melee confrontation between two similarly skilled combatants). Real combat situations are also a good example - although most wars today dont involve a lot of small group or 1 on 1 melee fighting, and if it did you probably would not see it. Nor can you see street fights with crowbars which resemble fights between seasoned fighters, since morale and numbers are the most defining factors there.(According to the rules even a lvl 1 peasant/whatever gets an attack of opportunity in the same manner btw) All that out of the way, I can safely say that whether I was holding a 2-handed sword or a sword and a shield, it would be next to insane for me to turn around hit a foe running behind me and turn back to my assailant without heavy risk of damage. The lighter and more manageable weapon sets I use it might get easier, but still attempting something of the sort with an opponent of similar skill as mine in front of me would in all probability prove perilous to me, unless of course I was the main character in a movie.
Salla 07-20-07, 06:29 PM	attempting something of the sort with an opponent of similar skill as mine in front of me would in all probability prove perilous to me, unless of course I was the main character in a movie. Since D&D characters are the main characters in their movies, as it were, it works perfectly then. :)
starfire311 07-20-07, 06:44 PM	Not tunnel vision but 170ish degree of vision or lets say 200ish if your not facing an opponent attacking you. in combat when there is more than 1 opponent, that you are aware of, you will definatly try to keep an eye on all of them. heck in football, as a middle linebacker in college and high school, I was able to keep an eye on the entire field over the course of a few seconds by constantly swivelling my head, in DnD you are given 6 seconds to survey the field of combat, and if there are opponents that have you surrounded you better know where they are.
cato 07-20-07, 07:33 PM	in combat when there is more than 1 opponent, that you are aware of, you will definatly try to keep an eye on all of them. heck in football, as a middle linebacker in college and high school, I was able to keep an eye on the entire field over the course of a few seconds by constantly swivelling my head, in DnD you are given 6 seconds to survey the field of combat, and if there are opponents that have you surrounded you better know where they are. Good thing that in football they are not trying to kill you then :p, try this: Tackle someone (similar to charge) and right when someone tries to pass 5 feet behind you turn around and attack him (maintaining control of the ball during this time) and maintain the same ability to evade resist the opponent you just tackled while you do that. Would be interesting to field test ^^ Since D&D characters are the main characters in their movies, as it were, it works perfectly then. Er no they are not, they are the main characters in a fantasy game, and unlike movie heroes their opponents are not scripted/choreographed/stupid :p Although if you want to give a cinematic feel to your movies eberron has some things to contribute to that like some points you can spend for "rambo" effect :p
fatal error 07-20-07, 07:48 PM	Good thing that in football they are not trying to kill you then :p, try this: Tackle someone (similar to charge) and right when someone tries to pass 5 feet behind you turn around and attack him (maintaining control of the ball during this time) and maintain the same ability to evade resist the opponent you just tackled while you do that. Would be interesting to field test ^^ That wouldn't be a Grapple, would it (tackle implies grappling, to me)? Since you don't threaten while Grappling. Er no they are not, they are the main characters in a fantasy game, and unlike movie heroes their opponents are not scripted/choreographed/stupid :p Interesting, because I figured D&D games, apart from magic level, were sort of like Lord of the Rings. And, since Lord of the Rings is now a movie, I would think that's a fine template of imagining what a D&D combat looks like. Thus, I pose it to you, that the heroes of D&D could very well indeed be the main characters of a fantasy movie. And I don't suppose the fact that Star Wars and D20 Modern both use the exact same facing (or lack thereof) system, would affect your thoughts about D20 and movies, would it?
cato 07-20-07, 07:59 PM	That wouldn't be a Grapple, would it (tackle implies grappling, to me)? Since you don't threaten while Grappling. Interesting, because I figured D&D games, apart from magic level, were sort of like Lord of the Rings. And, since Lord of the Rings is now a movie, I would think that's a fine template of imagining what a D&D combat looks like. Thus, I pose it to you, that the heroes of D&D could very well indeed be the main characters of a fantasy movie. And I don't suppose the fact that Star Wars and D20 Modern both use the exact same facing (or lack thereof) system, would affect your thoughts about D20 and movies, would it? As for the first part, i pictured more of a bull rush. Actually lord of the rings was a book before it was a movie. Hint: The book was way better, and personally i regret ever seeing the movie, maybe there is a general preference for each individual which spans both genres. As for the game systems you mentioned, they are not actually different systems, its just the same system with a different "skin".
Kendrick 07-20-07, 11:04 PM	As for the first part, i pictured more of a bull rush. Actually lord of the rings was a book before it was a movie. Hint: The book was way better, and personally i regret ever seeing the movie, maybe there is a general preference for each individual which spans both genres. As for the game systems you mentioned, they are not actually different systems, its just the same system with a different "skin". Tackling definitely implies grappling rather than bull rush. That said, you have a point about the LotR movies. I actually enjoyed the Fellowship movie, but the other two were pathetic. The extensive changes the writers made to certain characters' personalities were bizarre and pointless, and detracted significantly from the story. The worst thing about those movies is that with their great production value, it'll be fifty years before anyone can even think about filming a new LotR movie without Jackson's pointless perversions of the plot.
cato 07-20-07, 11:24 PM	Tackling definitely implies grappling rather than bull rush. That said, you have a point about the LotR movies. I actually enjoyed the Fellowship movie, but the other two were pathetic. The extensive changes the writers made to certain characters' personalities were bizarre and pointless, and detracted significantly from the story. The worst thing about those movies is that with their great production value, it'll be fifty years before anyone can even think about filming a new LotR movie without Jackson's pointless perversions of the plot. Hehe, sorry, the only kinda football we play in Europe is not the padded shoulders type. In any case my example did not mean to imply grappling. I have to agree with you on the first movie, it was the only one that captured part of the book feeling. As far as I am concerned it will be a while before any kind of multimedia experience can match the emotion orbiting descriptions of LotR. As for peter jackson, I can never be mad at the guy who directed Braindead!
starfire311 07-21-07, 12:13 PM	Good thing that in football they are not trying to kill you then :p, try this: Tackle someone (similar to charge) and right when someone tries to pass 5 feet behind you turn around and attack him (maintaining control of the ball during this time) and maintain the same ability to evade resist the opponent you just tackled while you do that. Would be interesting to field test ^^ I bet I could hit someone, then within the same 6 second period, hit someone else that is on the opposite side of me from the perosn I hit.... 6 seconds is an eternity in combat and in football for that matter.
cato 07-21-07, 03:48 PM	I bet I could hit someone, then within the same 6 second period, hit someone else that is on the opposite side of me from the perosn I hit.... 6 seconds is an eternity in combat and in football for that matter. Time does indeed pass slowly in high adrenaline situations.. the point you are missing is that the same goes for your opponent.. turn around to hit someone and you are defo gonna get your ass kicked..
fatal error 07-21-07, 11:14 PM	Time does indeed pass slowly in high adrenaline situations.. the point you are missing is that the same goes for your opponent.. turn around to hit someone and you are defo gonna get your ass kicked.. So you should take an attack of opportunity for taking an attack of opportunity? Alright, but then, why does Flanking just give +2 to hit, when it is apparently so devastating to have to split your attention between two attackers? After all, I can full attack and hit both flankers, just as I can attack one and Attack of Opportunity one. So, it seems you need to make flanking drastically more powerful along with restricting attacks of opportunity.
Johnny_Angel 07-21-07, 11:32 PM	in combat when there is more than 1 opponent, that you are aware of, you will definatly try to keep an eye on all of them. heck in football, as a middle linebacker in college and high school, I was able to keep an eye on the entire field over the course of a few seconds by constantly swivelling my head, in DnD you are given 6 seconds to survey the field of combat, and if there are opponents that have you surrounded you better know where they are. I actually think the football/linebacker example is a good example. I was active duty infantry for a while, and the linebacker "head swivel" is similar to how we were taught to keep awareness on the battlefield - especially in urban operations (which I feel would be similar to the enclosed dungeon atmosphere that a lot of D&D adventures take place in.) It's definately not easy, but it's far from impossible; I honestly can say I've been in situations where I had to fight multiple attackers. I think something that people forget is that you have more than just eyesight; you can hear opponents as well; sometimes you can even smell them if they're wearing strong cologne or B.O. Other than that, I guess it just comes down to instinct. Is it difficult to hit/notice someone behind you? Yes it is; that's why the facing rules give you a negative modifier to hit something behind you. IIRC, the facing rules also detail bonuses/penalties on hide/spot checks. The normal rules simplify the added rolling and math by simply saying you're generally aware of things around you at all times. if you want a more detailed battle system, the facing rules are there. Personally, I've found that, if you use facing, it's a lot better to use a hex-grid instead of a square-grid.