Post/Author/DateTime	Post
igronimus 03-10-04, 11:45 AM	The new facing rules are getting a bad rap here. I think they're better and here's why....I dare anyone to disagree! Oh and feel free to add! 1. A dwarf with a tower shield doesn't have total cover against ALL opponents when surrounded by an army of elf archers. 2. If I run behind an orge he can't miraculously hit me on his AoO with unerring accuracy, he will be at -5 or maybe even -10. 3. Tumbling under a dragon to get behind him in a narrow tunnel becomes useful. 4. If the silly orc turns his back on my rogue to run away, I can backstab him. 5. If I'm the orc and the rogue is sticking me in all my vital organs, I can turn towards him and try to fend him off. 6. If my opponent does the slick horse maneuver where he swings down beside his saddle using his horse for cover, my comrade on the other side can still get a clean shot on him. 7. If someone's looking the other direction, I can quietly walk up, and have a chance of not being seen.
Xeviat-DM 03-10-04, 01:01 PM	Yes, I do like the facing rules in theory. But they bring up a hole slew of new problems: 1: Why should you get a penalty attaking into your flank with a one handed weapon? Your arms are ment to turn that direction anyway. Also, fighting styles like two weapon fighting were designed to help deal with multiple attackers. 2: Tumble becomes the #1 required skill for all melee intensive rogues. With tumble, a medium sized rogue can tumble around to the back of a medium sized opponent and get a sneak attack, and +4 to hit, every round, all for a DC 15 check (read: achievable at level one with a 60% chance of success every round). Previously, it took a rediculous bluff check (opposed by BAB+sense motive+wis) and a feat (improved feint) to do this every round.
TrueExodite 03-10-04, 01:23 PM	8. Because the additional bookkeeping and battle mat space is so much fun for DMs and players alike. Facing might make sense, I haven't seen the rules, but it's by far to cumbersome to deal with in-game.
Vaelan 03-10-04, 03:28 PM	1. A dwarf with a tower shield doesn't have total cover against ALL opponents when surrounded by an army of elf archers. That's only a problem with DMs that care about rules over logic. 2. If I run behind an orge he can't miraculously hit me on his AoO with unerring accuracy, he will be at -5 or maybe even -10. Yes, because it is obviously unfair to let monsters hear you, turn around, and smack you as you run up to them... You seem to have a problem with the concept that, since people don't like to be caught unaware in battle, they take measures not to be caught unaware in battle, such as turning, or keeping an eye on everything that's happening and not just the person right in front of them. This concept is not unreasonable. 3. Tumbling under a dragon to get behind him in a narrow tunnel becomes useful. This, too, is only a problem with DMs that care about rules over logic. Of course, if your DM can't play a superhumanly intelligent creature well enough to not get him stuck in a tunnel he can't turn around in... 4. If the silly orc turns his back on my rogue to run away, I can backstab him. You can. The Run action provokes an AoO, and a running creature loses their Dexterity bonus to AC unless they have the Run feat. On the other hand, if he uses the Withdraw action, which was specifically made for safely leaving combat, then you do not and should not get to Sneak Attack him. 5. If I'm the orc and the rogue is sticking me in all my vital organs, I can turn towards him and try to fend him off. You are able to do this in the standard system. It may force you to ignore the person flanking you(if that is the case), which has significant penalites, but it is possible. 6. If my opponent does the slick horse maneuver where he swings down beside his saddle using his horse for cover, my comrade on the other side can still get a clean shot on him. Again, this is a problem with DMs who care about the rules more than they care about logic. 7. If someone's looking the other direction, I can quietly walk up, and have a chance of not being seen. Outside of combat, this is just a Move Silently vs. Listen check. Song & Silence has a rule for this situation that applies to combat quite nicely. You have to make a Hide vs. Spot check every round, and when you're within 1 ft./Hide rank, you can sneak up and attack before the target sees you. The only points you made that weren't just an incomplete knowledge of the rules can easily be solved by simple DM arbitration.
igronimus 03-10-04, 03:44 PM	1. A dwarf with a tower shield doesn't have total cover against ALL opponents when surrounded by an army of elf archers. That's only a problem with DMs that care about rules over logic. Exactly. The conventional rules don't work, the facing rules do. 2. If I run behind an orge he can't miraculously hit me on his AoO with unerring accuracy, he will be at -5 or maybe even -10. Yes, because it is obviously unfair to let monsters hear you, turn around, and smack you as you run up to them... You seem to have a problem with the concept that, since people don't like to be caught unaware in battle, they take measures not to be caught unaware in battle, such as turning, or keeping an eye on everything that's happening and not just the person right in front of them. This concept is not unreasonable. I would argue it's perfectly unreasonable for an ogre to turn around and attack someone behind him, while properly engaging someone directly in front of him. You have what six seconds in a round? I think you'd be hardpressed to swing your weapon 2 or 3 times as your BAB dictates while still spinning in circles facing every opponent that runs by. 3. Tumbling under a dragon to get behind him in a narrow tunnel becomes useful. This, too, is only a problem with DMs that care about rules over logic. Of course, if your DM can't play a superhumanly intelligent creature well enough to not get him stuck in a tunnel he can't turn around in... As above, the facing rules work, the conventional rules don't! 4. If the silly orc turns his back on my rogue to run away, I can backstab him. You can. The Run action provokes an AoO, and a running creature loses their Dexterity bonus to AC unless they have the Run feat. On the other hand, if he uses the Withdraw action, which was specifically made for safely leaving combat, then you do not and should not get to Sneak Attack him. OK, you're right on run, but change it from run to any other non-dex forfeiting action that provokes an AoO. 5. If I'm the orc and the rogue is sticking me in all my vital organs, I can turn towards him and try to fend him off. You are able to do this in the standard system. It may force you to ignore the person flanking you(if that is the case), which has significant penalites, but it is possible. Those aren't even official rules and they're overly awkward in and of themselves. 6. If my opponent does the slick horse maneuver where he swings down beside his saddle using his horse for cover, my comrade on the other side can still get a clean shot on him. Again, this is a problem with DMs who care about the rules more than they care about logic. Once again, the conventional rules fail, the facing rules work fine with no need for DM fudging. 7. If someone's looking the other direction, I can quietly walk up, and have a chance of not being seen. Outside of combat, this is just a Move Silently vs. Listen check. Song & Silence has a rule for this situation that applies to combat quite nicely. You have to make a Hide vs. Spot check every round, and when you're within 1 ft./Hide rank, you can sneak up and attack before the target sees you. I apologize for not being aware of the splat book rules. But in the core rules everyone has 360' perception and awareness.
Lord Schpungus 03-10-04, 04:34 PM	True Exodite has the best reason for not using the cumbersome facing rules. If I tried to implement them, it would be a nightmare for bookkeeping. I would argue it's perfectly unreasonable for an ogre to turn around and attack someone behind him, while properly engaging someone directly in front of him. You have what six seconds in a round? I think you'd be hardpressed to swing your weapon 2 or 3 times as your BAB dictates while still spinning in circles facing every opponent that runs by. Have you timed 6 seconds? It's longer than it seems. I feel I could take a stab at a couple people during 6 seconds, definitely.
strenoth 03-10-04, 05:11 PM	watch a well done battle scene some time of one opponent vs multiple opponents, and have a timmer set to 6 seconds. count how many attack, parries, and turns the single guy does inside of 6 seconds. bet it''s higher than DnD rules allow for attacks, and a greater number of facing changes than the alternative facing rules use. in combat vs multiple opponents, you do NOT stay facing in any single direction or more than a couple seconds at most, and can react to change your direction in less than a second.
LexTalinis 03-10-04, 05:21 PM	:rant: Nice rant about the new varent rules, Igronimus, but quite frankly any DM that does not use logic and arbatraite their game should not be a DM. The DMG makes it very clear that the DM must make command decisions and not get stuck on rules. People that do not use their dense greay matter in their head value rules over logic. He is another example from the DMG... ...if a rule does not suit you then change it to fit your campaign... So by saying that the use of the variant ruels are better than using your brain is just like :banghead: I have been using many similar variants to the rules in my campaigns ever since 3rd ed. came out. The only new variant I've adopted is the Vitality/Wound points variant...and Star Wars has been using it for years. :OMG! "YOU MEAN IT'S NOT A NEW IDEA??!!!" Half of these variants have been used for years by DM's how do you think Wizards got the ideas to publish the book...by submissions. :bump:
Vaelan 03-11-04, 02:21 AM	The conventional rules do work, with a little common sense. If your DM isn't afraid to take a bit of the game into his own hands, the facing rules aren't worth the hassle. I would argue it's perfectly unreasonable for an ogre to turn around and attack someone behind him, while properly engaging someone directly in front of him. You have what six seconds in a round? I think you'd be hardpressed to swing your weapon 2 or 3 times as your BAB dictates while still spinning in circles facing every opponent that runs by. In this situation, the ogre is flanked, which means that while he can attack normally, he cannot defend himself adequately and thus incurs penalties to their AC. If there is a problem in this situation, it is that the defensive fighting actions do not nullify flanking to at least some degree. OK, you're right on run, but change it from run to any other non-dex forfeiting action that provokes an AoO. When you use the Run action, all of your effort and attention are focused on moving as quickly as possible. While performing other actions, you are still able to defend yourself, just not optimally. Thus, AoOs are provoked, but Sneak Attacks have greater requirements and are thus not viable. Funny how this is completely outside of the bounds of the facing system though... The core rules work perfectly with DM arbitration, and the small amount of DM arbitration is nowhere near as much as a hassle as the facing system is.
Woas 03-11-04, 12:18 PM	I my big arguement to the facing system comes down to flavor and raw discription and persepective of how the game is played. First off, not to be rude, but Dungeons and Dragons is not Final Fantasy Tactics. I personally hate, above everything else all things with the title Final Fantasy in it... so I might be a little biased. When its not your turn during combat, your character does not just stand there like a sprite, kicking his feet around like a hyper-active midget. Turns in combat are just an easy way to create order in a very chaotic situation. In reality, everyone is acting at the same time during combat. Everybodys '6 seconds' are all the same 6 seconds and span of time. As I said earlier, its how you percieve combat. Because everyone, PCs and NPCs/Monsters a like are all really moving at the same time, I feel facing shouldn't really play any matter. It just seems that in the 6 seconds everyone has to do something, you would assume people would face the correct way and shift when needed. In the example of the dwarf with towershield. Just draw line of sight to the dwarf and have the player specify which 'side' of his 5 foot square s/he is holding the shield to. No reason to add a whole system of flanking. If thats to much, grant the dwarf only half cover or something. So, my arguement to facing is that it really doesn't add much to combat other than exorbitant amount of extra rules for combat, which already has a slew up rules.
zifnab2525 03-11-04, 07:08 PM	Facing is a nice variant in a very strategically centered game. If you've got more than ten troops on the board, if you're commanding a band of hobgoblins or footsoldiers and you want to flank their band of elven archers from the south and have it mean something, facing is worth looking into. But facing has its own set of problems that have been detailed above so I won't argue too much. The bottom line is that D&D isn't perfect. I like the idea that a door shield can't give 100% cover 100% of the time. Of course, I also like the idea that I can turn freely to face a band of rogues tumbling around behind me. Facing has its time and place and if you're comfortable with those rules and your players are comfortable too, then have fun. Personally, they're too much of a headache for any of my campaigns.
full_plate 03-12-04, 09:17 AM	I am wondering how many people who are knocking facing have actually tried it? I have run version of facing in my campaigns for years and we never had any problem with over rulings and slowing down of combat. Quite the contrary actually. Of course I also slowed down the combat from 6 secs to the smallest increment of D&D time. This makes facing more of a physical thing. And I also use hexes not squares so there are only 6 choices not 8. And I don't have sides to the characters, just front and back. The way the 3.5 is written up makes, in my opinion, combat unrealistic. Facing is one of those. I mean for Budda sake the minis we all use have faces why not use them. They aren't just peices of amorphous plastic/metal. It always irks me when I visit another game and the minis are not looking in any particular direction, just out there staring off into space. It makes the game much more disconnected. Which is funny also is that those same players are so into having their minis look like their PCs right down to the right colors and weapons, but completely ignore them when it comes down to combat. However most players you will notice will move their mini to face who ever they are fighting and would be somewhat disturbed if another player decided to turn the mini a 180 degrees to the direction they were fighting. That is because facing is inherent in the game and in combat. It is just too bad people who haven't tried it knock it. And those who have tried it and still don't like it are probably using the unthoughtout rules printed in UA.
the_heart 03-12-04, 11:19 AM	used facing 1e and 2e and some strategy games, I've tried it and didn't like it, too unrealistic. slowed down combat. too arbitrary. 3e's assumption that you never stop moving/ maintain some awareness of your surroundings is both far simpler and far more realistic IMNSHO. the only issue i have with combat rules is that IRL flanking is much more effective, but that wouldn't make for a fun game :)
trapspringer 03-12-04, 06:11 PM	Have some courtesy in your berating guys, you come off as rude. Couple of things: 1. The guys at wizards are supposed to make rules and logic one thing, right? so using an arguement base on dm arbitration, which was once a good argument, isn't such a good one with this fairly impressive (if not detail-oriented) system. 2. The book keeping can easily be kept to a minimum by placing a small, brightly colored, dot on the 'front' of you base. (if you don't have models, use a square of paper waited with a penny, 1 in is equivalent to 5 ft) 3. The difficulty of a rouges tumble check is significantly higher than 15, being nearer to 24 I beleive. 4. It makes a lot of sense for you to be able to sneak up behind some one, (this isn't an effort to discredit anyones arguement over the example of the ogre) which was not something you would be able to do in the previous system because you need something to hide behind. I guess I have to think it feels more logical than confusing, and having tested it from the dm's perspective, found it to be remarkably workable and forward system.
Salla 03-13-04, 09:07 AM	Not better, just different.
danielinthewolvesden 03-13-04, 07:56 PM	One of the best things about the D20 system is getting rid of facing....:b:
Lago AM3P 03-13-04, 08:18 PM	Okay. A long time ago, back before WotC started pushing miniatures, there was a really, really good reason why they set up combat the way they did. It's done so that characters who do not break out the battlemat do not see a gigantic change in combat survivability. If this is the case, then you would have to do it for every encounter (or risk DYING), from barfights in the inn to a dual with the elves in the middle of the castle along with pre-planned dungeon crawls. This is grossly unfair to both players and DM, as it poses a huge imposition on either the types of encounters you can have or the metagame considerations of setting up the mat. Getting rid of facing was one of these elements.
Illithidbix 03-14-04, 10:38 AM	Well from my experience of martial recreational activities, and in particular LARPing (insert abuse here), I find that when fighting multiple opponents you change your facing quite a few times in 6 seconds (assuming that they are trying to out flank you, which intelligent opponents always do) and don’t have any clear facing. In this respect I find standard D&D flanking rather more “realistic” than facing. Having facing in non-combat situations with guards looking in one direction for a long period of times could work quite well though. And yes I’m fully aware that LARP isn’t a perfect simulation of real melee combat, but in this case I think it gives a good enough analogy.
Vaelan 03-15-04, 05:05 AM	1. The guys at wizards are supposed to make rules and logic one thing, right? so using an arguement base on dm arbitration, which was once a good argument, isn't such a good one with this fairly impressive (if not detail-oriented) system. There is no reason to believe that WotC condemns DM arbitration. The rules are just a guideline for how the game should run, not the :censored::censored::censored::censored: ing Bible. 4. It makes a lot of sense for you to be able to sneak up behind some one, (this isn't an effort to discredit anyones arguement over the example of the ogre) which was not something you would be able to do in the previous system because you need something to hide behind. You can sneak up on people during combat with the original rules as long as you can normally hide. The assumption that an intelligent creature won't watch its back during a fight is ridiculous. I guess I have to think it feels more logical than confusing, and having tested it from the dm's perspective, found it to be remarkably workable and forward system. The system isn't confusing, its just not necessary. No one has ever claimed that the variant is confusing. Further, the system is unfairly biased against Rogues. It takes out the best method for ensuring Sneak Attacks, flanking, and replaces it with the "back" space, which is a lot easier to protect.