Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xeadin Apr 23, 2009 19:47:22	There were many obligations about having no Facing Rules, so here's one: Facing Rule- Whichever direction the miniature (or character) is facing is solely dependent on how the character reacts. This is to add more realism to the battle(s). If an enemy were to run past you and you were not focused on the enemy but focused on who was in front of you, you cannot make an attack of opportunity because the enemy behind you is not in your line of sight. Only enemies that pass by in front of you do you make an attack of opportunity. A character's perhipreal vision is close to a 180 degree view horizontally. A character can only see what's in front of him, not behind him. It is variable (likely or not likely) to see an opponent on either side, but generally you can see in front of you all of the time. Example: O- Spaces in perhipreal vision X- Spaces behind you A- Variable spaces #- Character OOO A#A XXX Exceptions: Creatures with Blindsight rely on other senses to notice nearby enemies, so they can be facing in any direction. If prey comes too close, it can make an immediate attack of opportunity, regardless of where the creature is facing. Same goes with creatures that have Tremorsense. Example: O: Space within range #: Creature OOOOO OOOOO OO#OO OOOOO OOOOO If a creature crosses within a character's perhipreal vision close enough, you can make an attack of opportunity; if a creature crosses behind the character, you cannot make an attack of opportunity (exception: if you and the creature were the only ones present); if a creature crosses next to you on the side, then it depends on how the creature crosses you. Examples: O: Space in Perhipreal vision X: Space behind A: Variable space #: Character C: Creature's path OOC A#C Attack of Opportunity: YES XXX OOO A#C Attack of Opportunity: NO XXC So, if the creature runs from behind you into your perhipreal vision, then you have an attack of opportunity against the creature; however, if the creature runs past you out of your perhipreal vision if it starts in your variable area, then you do not have an attack of opportunity against the creature because you couldn't see the creature in time. Looking Diagonally: The same rules aplly to looking diagonally. Examples: O: Space within perihreal vision X: Space behind A: Variable space #: Character C: Creature's path AOO X#O XXA AOO X#C Attack of Opportunity: YES XXC AOO X#O Attack of Opportunity: NO XCC ------------------ This rule is to add depth and to make gameplay more realistic. You don't have to add this rule to your campaign, but it is important that you need to know about this, because it doesn't really make sense (in real life) to look in all directions at the same time. On the gameboard, it doesn't seem to matter all that much, but it is important to know how real characters fight. If you warn a character that an opponent is sneaking up on them from behind, that can really add to the RPG and D&D experience!
#2 nightwalker450 Apr 24, 2009 9:14:43	FFF S#S RRR I'd recommend something like this. You have Front, Side, and Rear. You can make Opportunity attacks, but if they are on the side, then -2 to attack (Partial Concealment). If they are at the rear -5 to attack (Total Concealment). I'm not saying they are concealed, I'm just using the modifiers of these for consistancy to figure the penalty.
#3 mellored Apr 24, 2009 11:05:12	Just make sure anything that applies to players applies to creatures as well.
#4 Stuntman Apr 24, 2009 12:11:47	Do these facing rules only apply to Opportunity Attacks? Are you still using the standard rules for OA's where for movement, you still only get an OA if an enemy leaves and adjacent square?
#5 Xeadin Apr 25, 2009 22:27:40	Do these facing rules only apply to Opportunity Attacks? Yes and No. These rules apply to Attacks of Opportunity, but the perhipreal vision from your character is continuous (all of the time).
#6 Xeadin Apr 25, 2009 22:29:08	Just make sure anything that applies to players applies to creatures as well. Don't worry- it does. It's just that blind creatures don't have this perhipreal vision. They have either Blindvision, or Tremorsense.
#7 Xeadin Apr 25, 2009 22:45:13	FFF S#S RRR I'd recommend something like this. You have Front, Side, and Rear. You can make Opportunity attacks, but if they are on the side, then -2 to attack (Partial Concealment). If they are at the rear -5 to attack (Total Concealment). I'm not saying they are concealed, I'm just using the modifiers of these for consistancy to figure the penalty. Yeah, something like that. Even though you can't see what's behind you, you can still hear and feel what's behind you.
#8 bone_naga Apr 26, 2009 10:07:45	Have you considered how this affects Combat Advantage? My own facing rules are as follows: Front spaces (F): Enemies in these spaces do not have CA (unless granted by another effect), and you may make opportunity attacks to these spaces Flank spaces (f): Enemies in these spaces do not have CA (unless granted by another effect), and you may not make opportunity attacks to these spaces Rear spaces (R): Enemies in these spaces have CA against you (unless negated by another effect), and you may not make opportunity attacks to these spaces RRR f#f FFF This replaces the normal rules for flanking. However, I do kind of like Nightwalker's suggestion as it still gives the players incentive to mind their facing while not punishing them as harshly for enemies that get behind them. I might use that in place of my current rules for OAs. Each player gets 1 free facing change per turn, each additional facing change costs 1 square of movement. Facing changes can only occur on your turn or when you take an immediate action or opportunity attack. You cannot change your facing if you cannot move.
#9 Xeadin Apr 26, 2009 16:04:32	Have you considered how this affects Combat Advantage? My own facing rules are as follows: Front spaces (F): Enemies in these spaces do not have CA (unless granted by another effect), and you may make opportunity attacks to these spaces Flank spaces (f): Enemies in these spaces do not have CA (unless granted by another effect), and you may not make opportunity attacks to these spaces Rear spaces (R): Enemies in these spaces have CA against you (unless negated by another effect), and you may not make opportunity attacks to these spaces RRR f#f FFF This replaces the normal rules for flanking. However, I do kind of like Nightwalker's suggestion as it still gives the players incentive to mind their facing while not punishing them as harshly for enemies that get behind them. I might use that in place of my current rules for OAs. Each player gets 1 free facing change per turn, each additional facing change costs 1 square of movement. Facing changes can only occur on your turn or when you take an immediate action or opportunity attack. You cannot change your facing if you cannot move. Hmm... I think I like where you're going with this. Combat Advantage, however, depends on what the creature is and what it's doing, not where it is in terms of how close it is to you. It could be a fair distance away from you and still have Combat Advantage (Stereotypically speaking), although I could be wrong.
#10 bone_naga Apr 26, 2009 17:52:27	Hmm... I think I like where you're going with this. Combat Advantage, however, depends on what the creature is and what it's doing, not where it is in terms of how close it is to you. It could be a fair distance away from you and still have Combat Advantage (Stereotypically speaking), although I could be wrong. True, I failed to mention that. A creature 20 squares behind you is still behind you. Also, to gain CA against a creature due to facing, it must be to your front (so if you and an enemy are back to back for whatever reason, you don't grant CA to each other). Also, some things like gelatinous cubes just don't have facing.
#11 bartleby42 Apr 27, 2009 0:46:31	This rule is to add depth and to make gameplay more realistic. You don't have to add this rule to your campaign, but it is important that you need to know about this, because it doesn't really make sense (in real life) to look in all directions at the same time. I think here is where your logic and rules really break down. In real life you don't wait for your initiative turn to come up before you move. In real life you don't stand exactly in the same spot while other people move around you. Remember, the square that your character takes up is 5'x5'. That's a lot of room to move about, and look at your surroundings. If D&D had a combat system that took into account what each character was doing each second (i.e. Second 1-- Player A begins to draw his sword and starts to glance to the left Second 2-- Player B Takes a step forward, Player A is halfway through drawing his sword and is now looking to the left) then facing would make sense. As it is now, I know I can look around me every 6 seconds without much difficulty. The rule does not promote realism, it promotes complexity.
#12 bone_naga Apr 27, 2009 15:11:55	I think here is where your logic and rules really break down. In real life you don't wait for your initiative turn to come up before you move. In real life you don't stand exactly in the same spot while other people move around you. Remember, the square that your character takes up is 5'x5'. That's a lot of room to move about, and look at your surroundings. If D&D had a combat system that took into account what each character was doing each second (i.e. Second 1-- Player A begins to draw his sword and starts to glance to the left Second 2-- Player B Takes a step forward, Player A is halfway through drawing his sword and is now looking to the left) then facing would make sense. As it is now, I know I can look around me every 6 seconds without much difficulty. The rule does not promote realism, it promotes complexity. I have to disagree here. I don't think facing rules are very complex at all. Also, I think the rules promote a sense of realism, without slavishly trying to recreate RW combat to the detriment of the game. You can add a little more detail without abandoning the idea of an abstract combat system. Also, people do tend to get focused on whats in front of them during a fight, so the idea of facing a specific direction for 6 seconds or so isn't that unrealistic. Even if you glance around once in a while, your attention is still going to be focused more in one direction than all the others.
#13 bartleby42 Apr 27, 2009 15:30:57	I have to disagree here. I don't think facing rules are very complex at all. Also, I think the rules promote a sense of realism, without slavishly trying to recreate RW combat to the detriment of the game. You can add a little more detail without abandoning the idea of an abstract combat system. Also, people do tend to get focused on whats in front of them during a fight, so the idea of facing a specific direction for 6 seconds or so isn't that unrealistic. Even if you glance around once in a while, your attention is still going to be focused more in one direction than all the others. Beyond be focused on whats in front of you, facing rules imply that you are standing still in your spot. If you feel it promotes realism for a combatant to be completely unmoving until their turn comes up, and not to move around in their square while fighting others, then you have a very different understanding of realism than I do. The other huge issue is the system implies that every creature is an idiot. Example: The party is fighting some orcs, half of the orcs say "let's loop around behind the party!". When the orcs that the PCs saw move behind the party, advance, the PCs have no AoO and are caught unaware. That's a bit extreme, but it illustrates the rules largest failing. Right now, the current stealth rules, while they are simpler, do provide a more realistic representation.
#14 bone_naga Apr 27, 2009 15:53:50	Beyond be focused on whats in front of you, facing rules imply that you are standing still in your spot. If you feel it promotes realism for a combatant to be completely unmoving until their turn comes up, and not to move around in their square while fighting others, then you have a very different understanding of realism than I do. Thats like saying the movement rules imply that you stand around while everyone else moves and attacks, take a few steps, then stop and wait again. Or saying that the HP system means that your character can really take 20 hits from a battle axe before dying. It's all an abstraction no matter how you cut it. Facing rules might not work for every group, but they're no more or less realistic than any other aspect of D&D.
#15 Stuntman Apr 27, 2009 17:19:56	Whether or not the addition of facing rules makes 4E combat more or less realistic is debatable and the debate probably belongs in another forum. As for the house rule that is proposed, it would definitely make it more difficult on characters who rely on OA's such as many defenders. Limiting OA's to only a 180-degree field of view would put defenders at a disadvantage. Defenders tend to rely on OA's the most, particularly the fighter who has some features based on OA's. Such facing rules would also make things easier on rogues and other characters who rely on flanking more. When targets have huge blind spots, rogues can avoid OA's more easily to get into flanking position. It also benefits melee characters facing opponents with Threatening Reach. Now it is possible to close into melee with such creatures without provoking an OA. If you have enough movement, simply move around to the back and then charge. I see this being a common tactic against enemies with Threatening Reach if you use this house rule. The other thing about this particular house rule is that it seems you are limiting the facing to only the 4 cardinal directions. I would suggest that you also make it possible to face in any diagonal direction as well. The reason is that it would allow characters better options when trying to face the enemy. Also, in many dungeons, there are diagonal walls. Being able to face diagonally, allows the character to put his back up against a diagonal wall and keep the entire battlefield in his field of view.
#16 Stuntman Apr 27, 2009 17:23:20	Combat Advantage, however, depends on what the creature is and what it's doing, not where it is in terms of how close it is to you. It could be a fair distance away from you and still have Combat Advantage (Stereotypically speaking), although I could be wrong. Can you please, elaborate? What conditions using your facing rule would allow creatures to gain combat advantage?
#17 Xeadin Apr 29, 2009 17:09:20	The other thing about this particular house rule is that it seems you are limiting the facing to only the 4 cardinal directions. I would suggest that you also make it possible to face in any diagonal direction as well. The reason is that it would allow characters better options when trying to face the enemy. Also, in many dungeons, there are diagonal walls. Being able to face diagonally, allows the character to put his back up against a diagonal wall and keep the entire battlefield in his field of view. Yes- I'd have to agree with you here. There are some creatures that can fly up a certain distance, and looking in 4 cardinal directions just seems to make the character look more like a statue. 3D sight makes for some intense battles, and also makes them more realistic. I like where you're going with this.
#18 Xeadin Apr 29, 2009 17:15:38	Can you please, elaborate? What conditions using your facing rule would allow creatures to gain combat advantage? One: Specifically creatures that can see. Two: Creatures that are granted Combat Advantage are those that have a clear Line of Sight to you. Creatures that cannot see, like Destrachans, Oozes (Gelationous Cube, Ochre Jelly), Ballanoths, and the like, cannot see. However, they can have Combat Advantage by other senses as well. Blindsense allows the creature to touch or smell nearby prey. Tremorsense allows the creature to feel the ground or water, and then tell how close the prey is to the creature. I may be missing a couple of other senses for Blind Creatures, but this should clear people's thoughts for now.
#19 Electricbee Apr 30, 2009 15:27:23	One thing you have to address is when characters are allowed to change their facing. Combat is dynamic. Adding facing seems an attempt to add realism. Giving people the opportunity to turn around only once every six seconds seems contrary to that desire for realism.
#20 bone_naga Apr 30, 2009 15:43:18	One thing you have to address is when characters are allowed to change their facing. Combat is dynamic. Adding facing seems an attempt to add realism. Giving people the opportunity to turn around only once every six seconds seems contrary to that desire for realism. Only being able to move once every six seconds seems contrary to realism. Anyway, my system is on your turn, whenever you take an immediate action, or whenever you make an opportunity attack. EDIT: Also I should add that I don't see this as the character looks a certain direction and then freezes for 6 seconds. The way I view this is the character's facing is where his attention is mainly focused at. Otherwise, he would be completely helpless against rear attacks.
#21 Xeadin Apr 30, 2009 16:53:26	One thing you have to address is when characters are allowed to change their facing. Combat is dynamic. Adding facing seems an attempt to add realism. Giving people the opportunity to turn around only once every six seconds seems contrary to that desire for realism. I can disagree with your comment, though I like how you address problems. It doesn't take a certain amount of time to change the direction you face- that just doesn't apply to the real world. You never see someone look in one direction for 10 seconds and then look in a different direction for another 10 seconds, and go one with that pattern (that would be wierd and comedical at the same time). Everyone is always looking in different directions all of the time to analyze, to listen, to sense when things come too close, and more. In D&D, you should encourage your character to look in all directions before an encounter starts, to get a better understanding of the battlefield from your character's Point of View. During battle, it's not like your character can't feel anything. If a foe brushes up against your character, he's gonna want to turn and look to where that came from. If a foe tries to slash at your character and it ends up missing, put some analysis on how your character reacts and what he sees when the blade blazes right past him. The point is- don't limit your character's vision to just one static spot. Let your character look around freely, and incorporate the senses to your character before, during, and after battle- that's the point of Role- Playing. It's almost like Improv!
#22 bartleby42 May 01, 2009 18:55:47	I can disagree with your comment, though I like how you address problems. It doesn't take a certain amount of time to change the direction you face- that just doesn't apply to the real world. You never see someone look in one direction for 10 seconds and then look in a different direction for another 10 seconds, and go one with that pattern (that would be wierd and comedical at the same time). Everyone is always looking in different directions all of the time to analyze, to listen, to sense when things come too close, and more. In D&D, you should encourage your character to look in all directions before an encounter starts, to get a better understanding of the battlefield from your character's Point of View. During battle, it's not like your character can't feel anything. If a foe brushes up against your character, he's gonna want to turn and look to where that came from. If a foe tries to slash at your character and it ends up missing, put some analysis on how your character reacts and what he sees when the blade blazes right past him. The point is- don't limit your character's vision to just one static spot. Let your character look around freely, and incorporate the senses to your character before, during, and after battle- that's the point of Role- Playing. It's almost like Improv! I'm confused. It seems like you are making an argument against your own rule. Maybe we are on different pages, how I, and others, read your facing rule is that the characters have to be in a static position throughout their round. You just agreed that facing is not static. How do your reconcile that with your facing rules?
#23 Xeadin May 05, 2009 16:24:09	I'm confused. It seems like you are making an argument against your own rule. Maybe we are on different pages, how I, and others, read your facing rule is that the characters have to be in a static position throughout their round. You just agreed that facing is not static. How do your reconcile that with your facing rules? Earlier, I was talking stereotypically. I am now getting deeper into the rule, and getting out the specifics so that enough people can understand the general rule.
#24 karossii May 08, 2009 23:17:35	I didn't read every response so forgive me if this has been stated. There is a reason facing has been removed. A round is 6 seconds, and a 'square' is 25 square feet of space. That means that a human sized character is flitting about within a 5' by 5' (small room or jail cell) sized space, blocking passage and sight to his enemies (but allowing his allies through readily). There is no way for a human sized creature to stand in a 5' by 5' area and completely block access/passage to his enemies without moving A LOT. Try it some time. Find a parking lot or street and use some sidewalk chalk to mark off 4 or 9 5' by 5' squares in a grid, and have one person tand in one square and try to prevent others from moving through. Without turning sideways or backwards.
#25 bone_naga May 10, 2009 16:00:03	I didn't read every response so forgive me if this has been stated. There is a reason facing has been removed. A round is 6 seconds, and a 'square' is 25 square feet of space. That means that a human sized character is flitting about within a 5' by 5' (small room or jail cell) sized space, blocking passage and sight to his enemies (but allowing his allies through readily). There is no way for a human sized creature to stand in a 5' by 5' area and completely block access/passage to his enemies without moving A LOT. Try it some time. Find a parking lot or street and use some sidewalk chalk to mark off 4 or 9 5' by 5' squares in a grid, and have one person tand in one square and try to prevent others from moving through. Without turning sideways or backwards. I don't think it will be as difficult if I'm swinging a greatsword.
#26 karossii May 10, 2009 16:33:12	I don't think it will be as difficult if I'm swinging a greatsword. Perhaps, but have you ever held a greatsword, much less tried to block passage to someone trying to get past you using said greatsword? It is large but slow in the hands of most, and relatively easy to dodge past an opponent fighting with one. (And yes, I have wielded one in SCA fighting, as well as faced off against others wielding them, so I am speaking from experience.) And bear in mind that relatively few of the player characters and/or monsters have greatswords. It is equally applicable to a bare-handed fighter as well as to a dagger wielding rogue as well as to a wand wielding mage.
#27 Johnathan_Vagabond May 11, 2009 10:48:32	I think that, just like abstract hp is something other than physical wounds, that the character's position is something other than his mini in a square. Each attack takes into account the concept of swordplay (or spellplay) and taking opportunities. The character's position, similarily, takes into account their looking around and inter-square turning. That being said, if you want facing, then you want facing. Consider allowing the character to turn his head to look even without an action though, otherwise it's a little strange. I'd suggest, to allow leniency, this method.