Combat Facing [Archive] - Wizards Community

Combat Facing [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
luchexx
10-18-07, 01:04 AM Hi, I'm interested in this UA variant and plan to use it sometime, I just wanted to know it's reception among players and DMs using this rule. I find it way more realistic, but are there any drawbacks?

I think rogues do suffer against "faceless" creatures, because their combat style relies on sneak attack, and believe me, it is no fun getting one sneak attack per encounter (ie. A flatfooted "faceless" creature). I play a rogue in the campaign I do not DM and I know it would hurt.

How would you deal with this issue which I think is not fair for rogues?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
kuonji
10-18-07, 06:16 AM Any time a rogue flanks a critter that can be sneak attacked, the rogue can use sneak attack. It's rather easy to flank, especially with Tumble to dodge potential AoOs. I've never really felt too bad about "faceless" combat.

Also consider using bluff to feint and the Improved Feint feat.

I think adding facing just further complicates an already complicated combat system.
ShadowF
10-18-07, 03:24 PM Any time a rogue flanks a critter that can be sneak attacked, the rogue can use sneak attack. It's rather easy to flank, especially with Tumble to dodge potential AoOs. I've never really felt too bad about "faceless" combat.

Also consider using bluff to feint and the Improved Feint feat.

I think adding facing just further complicates an already complicated combat system.

In 2ed they didn't have sneak attack it was back stab which at maximum was 5x regular damage. So, facing was really important.

I use facing to speed up combat for that sole purpose. I wouldn't suggest this without minis because a lot of the time it is a real head ache.

On tumbles I only give flanking bonuses to individuals that tumble through the creatures squares which is usually DC 25. So depending on your Dex without equipment enchantments you can do this successfully at every chance at level 15 without rolling. Facing may seem game breaking to most individuals, besides I never really liked the fixed DC for a lot of skills because Swim, Jump, balance, climb, ride, tumble, perform, Survival and heal skills can be easily optimized.
ShadowF
10-18-07, 04:03 PM If your going to improve Fient I'd suggest taking prone attack from CWAR or CADV
CrazyOzzy
10-22-07, 01:31 PM Has anyone tested Combat Facing while playing a Rogue?

Under the rules Rogues can get Sneat Attacks from behind a target AND +4 bonus to hit. What is to stop the Rogue tumbling around his target every turn and Sneak Attacking him? There is no need for Feint with this variant if I understand correctly.

I like the whole idea of Facing but Rogues seems to break it.
FponkDamn
10-22-07, 06:32 PM We used it in a smaller group (3 PCs, including one Rogue) and it was very nice. There isn't actually anything stopping a Rogue from tumbling past his opponent to attack him from behind every round, except that he'll then only get one attack. Unless he suddenly faces off against a Knight, and the DC 25 tumble becomes DC 40 and he fails, promptly getting chopped in half... it happened.

Anyway, it fits; the acrobatic rogue leaping around his enemy for a better advantage, while the fighter just chops from the front.

What we liked most of all, though, was the spot penalties for facing the wrong way. Made a lot of sense, and made sneaky encounters much more fun.

Overall, if you can keep track of it easily, it's worth it. If you find that it's trouble to remember, it might not be worth it. But give it a try for a session or two, and I don't think you'll be disappointed.

- Johnny
CrazyOzzy
10-23-07, 12:03 PM Thanks Johnny.

At high level, that 1 attack is alot more desirable than 2-3 or even 4 more attacks with no sneak attack. 1d6+7+10d6 once is alot better than 1d6+7 three or even four times. My only fear was that Rogues would destroy heavy tanks but it will not happen because once the Rogue has done his Tumble + SA trick, the Fighter, on his turn, will unleash a Full Attack that the Rogue will not want to recieve.

I agree it can be a nuissance to remember especially as we do not use figurines but only graph paper and a pencil:D

However I believe it's one of the few "combat realism" rules that is worth using because the hassle is minimal and the players gain alot tactically. Other such rules like fumbles and crits and all that are not worth it IMO because the game is just not meant to be played in that way.
Shadowhowler
10-23-07, 12:34 PM I like facing in the game. I think it seems artifical and odd without it... but then again, I like a sense of realisim and internal consistancy in my games.

As far as Rogues go... I would allow a character to change his facing as a swift action, if he had reason to. So if a rogue is standing in front of you, and starts tumbling around you, you can turn to keep facing him. Realisticly, you WOULD. Why would you stand still and let the guy roll around to your back and do nothing about it?

I think facing is useful for many many reasons beyond allow a rogue to get extra sneak attacks in.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
luchexx 10-18-07, 01:04 AM	Hi, I'm interested in this UA variant and plan to use it sometime, I just wanted to know it's reception among players and DMs using this rule. I find it way more realistic, but are there any drawbacks? I think rogues do suffer against "faceless" creatures, because their combat style relies on sneak attack, and believe me, it is no fun getting one sneak attack per encounter (ie. A flatfooted "faceless" creature). I play a rogue in the campaign I do not DM and I know it would hurt. How would you deal with this issue which I think is not fair for rogues? :confused: :confused: :confused:
kuonji 10-18-07, 06:16 AM	Any time a rogue flanks a critter that can be sneak attacked, the rogue can use sneak attack. It's rather easy to flank, especially with Tumble to dodge potential AoOs. I've never really felt too bad about "faceless" combat. Also consider using bluff to feint and the Improved Feint feat. I think adding facing just further complicates an already complicated combat system.
ShadowF 10-18-07, 03:24 PM	Any time a rogue flanks a critter that can be sneak attacked, the rogue can use sneak attack. It's rather easy to flank, especially with Tumble to dodge potential AoOs. I've never really felt too bad about "faceless" combat. Also consider using bluff to feint and the Improved Feint feat. I think adding facing just further complicates an already complicated combat system. In 2ed they didn't have sneak attack it was back stab which at maximum was 5x regular damage. So, facing was really important. I use facing to speed up combat for that sole purpose. I wouldn't suggest this without minis because a lot of the time it is a real head ache. On tumbles I only give flanking bonuses to individuals that tumble through the creatures squares which is usually DC 25. So depending on your Dex without equipment enchantments you can do this successfully at every chance at level 15 without rolling. Facing may seem game breaking to most individuals, besides I never really liked the fixed DC for a lot of skills because Swim, Jump, balance, climb, ride, tumble, perform, Survival and heal skills can be easily optimized.
ShadowF 10-18-07, 04:03 PM	If your going to improve Fient I'd suggest taking prone attack from CWAR or CADV
CrazyOzzy 10-22-07, 01:31 PM	Has anyone tested Combat Facing while playing a Rogue? Under the rules Rogues can get Sneat Attacks from behind a target AND +4 bonus to hit. What is to stop the Rogue tumbling around his target every turn and Sneak Attacking him? There is no need for Feint with this variant if I understand correctly. I like the whole idea of Facing but Rogues seems to break it.
FponkDamn 10-22-07, 06:32 PM	We used it in a smaller group (3 PCs, including one Rogue) and it was very nice. There isn't actually anything stopping a Rogue from tumbling past his opponent to attack him from behind every round, except that he'll then only get one attack. Unless he suddenly faces off against a Knight, and the DC 25 tumble becomes DC 40 and he fails, promptly getting chopped in half... it happened. Anyway, it fits; the acrobatic rogue leaping around his enemy for a better advantage, while the fighter just chops from the front. What we liked most of all, though, was the spot penalties for facing the wrong way. Made a lot of sense, and made sneaky encounters much more fun. Overall, if you can keep track of it easily, it's worth it. If you find that it's trouble to remember, it might not be worth it. But give it a try for a session or two, and I don't think you'll be disappointed. - Johnny
CrazyOzzy 10-23-07, 12:03 PM	Thanks Johnny. At high level, that 1 attack is alot more desirable than 2-3 or even 4 more attacks with no sneak attack. 1d6+7+10d6 once is alot better than 1d6+7 three or even four times. My only fear was that Rogues would destroy heavy tanks but it will not happen because once the Rogue has done his Tumble + SA trick, the Fighter, on his turn, will unleash a Full Attack that the Rogue will not want to recieve. I agree it can be a nuissance to remember especially as we do not use figurines but only graph paper and a pencil:D However I believe it's one of the few "combat realism" rules that is worth using because the hassle is minimal and the players gain alot tactically. Other such rules like fumbles and crits and all that are not worth it IMO because the game is just not meant to be played in that way.
Shadowhowler 10-23-07, 12:34 PM	I like facing in the game. I think it seems artifical and odd without it... but then again, I like a sense of realisim and internal consistancy in my games. As far as Rogues go... I would allow a character to change his facing as a swift action, if he had reason to. So if a rogue is standing in front of you, and starts tumbling around you, you can turn to keep facing him. Realisticly, you WOULD. Why would you stand still and let the guy roll around to your back and do nothing about it? I think facing is useful for many many reasons beyond allow a rogue to get extra sneak attacks in.