Facing Rules? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Facing Rules?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
necrosnoop110
Dec 27, 2008 11:51:47 Anyone have some solid house rules for character facing? Such as giving characters a front and back which offer different advantages and disadvantages?

Thanks,
Necro
#2
Crimson_Concerto
Dec 27, 2008 12:35:38 What is it you want them to accomplish?
Because usually, all facing rules do is basically give out a whole bunch of penalties to everybody...
#3
Krusk
Dec 27, 2008 14:26:14 If you want some, here is how I would do it. (note I probably would not)

-All creatures have a front, back, left and right side.
-Shields provide double their normal benefits, but also only protect two adjascent sides of the PCs choice. IE left and front, or back and right, but not front and back or left and front.
[INDENT]-This is designated when a shield is donned and continues until the player spends a minor action to shift it one set, (IE From left front to front right, or from front right to right back) or a standard action to shift it however they please. (IE redonning the shield.)[/INDENT]
[INDENT]-This can be cut down to a free and minor action (respectivly) if the player has the quick draw feat.[/INDENT]
-Flanking has been redefined. Either
[INDENT]A- Player 1 stands on the left side, and Player 2 stands on the right.[/INDENT][INDENT]B- A single player stands on the back face.[/INDENT]
-Spinning your position can be done either as a minor action, or as part of any movement. (be it a 5 ft step or a run)
- Diagnals, on a grid characters will have four squares that are not covered by any of the four faces. These are called the diagnals.

If X is the PC 1,3,6,8 are its diagnals. 1 and 3 count as both the front and left/right sides. 6 and 8 count as back and left/right. These squares are treated as both sides at the same time.
[INDENT][INDENT]123
4X5
678[/INDENT][/INDENT]
-----------------
Notes
This adds an additional level of tactical thinking to the game, which some people enjoy. Some people think this is simply extra tedium.
This also powers up classes that have features like sneak attack (additional method for CA).
#4
Neutronium_Dragon
Dec 27, 2008 21:57:54 What the above essentially results in is each combatant taking a Shift to move to the opponent's right side every turn so they can bypass their target's shield (or equivalent).
#5
nonstandard
Dec 28, 2008 0:51:11 Which, I note, is a valid tactic in a realistic combat. Position is a key part of combat. Personally, if I was going to use facing rules, I would adopt a hex-map for combat, rather than a grid. Then, each player has three front faces, two flank faces, and one back face. characters can turn as mentioned above. Shield apply to front facing only.

However, in 3.0 facing was removed for a logical reason; each turn is not representing a single action (or three actions) but rather, the sum effect of your characters activity over a short period of time (i.e. you may feint, strike, or parry a number of times, but only one mechanical attack is made, to represent the numeric results of those efforts). In light of this, a character is assumed to be constantly adjusting, including checking his rear, and thus preparing to meet oncoming attacks (like with his shield). Thus the flanking rules, which represent one character forcing the enemy to focus on them, and leave his flank exposed.
#6
Crimson_Concerto
Dec 28, 2008 4:59:08
think this is simply extra tedium.

This. Now, I really want to ask again what the topic creator is hoping to get out of this, because I somehow doubt it's worth the tedium and the balance-tampering...
#7
Neutronium_Dragon
Dec 28, 2008 6:30:14 > Which, I note, is a valid tactic in a realistic combat.

In a realistic combat, someone isn't going to stand stock still while you walk a quarter circle around them to bypass their shield. It certainly won't consist of two people repeatedly taking turns doing this to one another - but that's what happens when you put this sort of facing in D&D.
#8
anubis_reynard
Dec 28, 2008 10:04:14 Heres's my rule.

When you are flanked, you can choose not to grant combat advantage to one of your flankers. (any other means of aining combat advantage still works)
IF you do, the other flanker (the one on the opposite side- no bonus for ********ing) is treated as Hidden and gains all benifits of attacking from Hidden.

You are basically choosing to ignore one foe, and let it become "hidden" from you, so that you are no longer knowingly flanked by the other. This comes with it's own drawbacks, however.
#9
Krusk
Dec 28, 2008 11:00:41
> Which, I note, is a valid tactic in a realistic combat.

In a realistic combat, someone isn't going to stand stock still while you walk a quarter circle around them to bypass their shield. It certainly won't consist of two people repeatedly taking turns doing this to one another - but that's what happens when you put this sort of facing in D&D.

No they won't, just like in that system. You shift left begining that circle pattern. They either opt to shift their shield to cover you on their turn, or they leave the shield where it is and cover the other enemies.

Eventually in this manner you can either circle someone with a shield and get behind it, if they choose to block you, or draw them into poor standing with their shield.

1-2
-X-
---

You are 1 your ally is 2, enemy with shield is X, his shield is facing front left.
You slide to his left side, close to behind his shield. Does he adjust to keep you gaurded? or does he leave the shield in place to fight your ally?

--2
1X-
---

What if there about 6 guys near where 2 is? you, a rogue, run past him hoping to gain sneak attack, he knows this. Does he opt to spin his shield to attempt to prevent you, or does he leave the shield vs the larger ammount of foes so as not to be overwhelmed?

Like I said, another level of tactics.
#10
yrogerg
Dec 28, 2008 13:54:37
Heres's my rule.

When you are flanked, you can choose not to grant combat advantage to one of your flankers. (any other means of aining combat advantage still works)
IF you do, the other flanker (the one on the opposite side- no bonus for ********ing) is treated as Hidden and gains all benifits of attacking from Hidden.

You are basically choosing to ignore one foe, and let it become "hidden" from you, so that you are no longer knowingly flanked by the other. This comes with it's own drawbacks, however.

This is pretty much the houserule that my group used with flanking in 3.5, actually; it became relevant in one campaign in particular, because there was one massively underpowered character (a monk, no less) that favored a Deck of Illusions as his main combat abiliity. This houserule was introduced to provide that it provided a minor bonus, but that illusions weren't an auto-flanker in this situation.
#11
necrosnoop110
Dec 28, 2008 15:44:55 Personally I am against facing rules as I think they overcomplicate things unnecessarily.

However, the rest of my group HATES the idea of characters having "360 degree vision" during combat and think that not having facing is highly unrealistic. They all voted to houserule a facing system. I am looking for a simple, i.e. simple as possible, set of rules to appease them.

Cheers,
Necro
#12
anubis_reynard
Dec 28, 2008 19:47:12 Attempting to clean up the rule I posted above...

When you are engaging more than one foe, you may choose to treat one foe as hidden. If you do, it does not grant flanking CA against you.
#13
Neutronium_Dragon
Dec 28, 2008 20:12:33 That sort of idea came up in 3E too, and it causes one immediate problem: The rogue is almost never going to get to sneak attack, because every time he gets into a flanking position, the target is going to ignore the other guy and deny him his flanking/combat advantage.
#14
kuonji
Dec 28, 2008 21:11:42
Personally I am against facing rules as I think they overcomplicate things unnecessarily.

However, the rest of my group HATES the idea of characters having "360 degree vision" during combat and think that not having facing is highly unrealistic. They all voted to houserule a facing system. I am looking for a simple, i.e. simple as possible, set of rules to appease them.

Cheers,
Necro

I would think they would find it more unrealistic to assume that everyone is standing around waiting to take turns hitting each other and while standing around facing one direction being unable to turn around until it's your turn.

Given that you say everyone else is pro-facing, tell them to start drawing up the rules, since they are the ones who want them and will have to use them. Just make sure to look them over and ensure that they are designed to give the PCs big advantages while crippling opponents. For further feedback you could even post them here.
#15
anubis_reynard
Dec 28, 2008 21:42:24
That sort of idea came up in 3E too, and it causes one immediate problem: The rogue is almost never going to get to sneak attack, because every time he gets into a flanking position, the target is going to ignore the other guy and deny him his flanking/combat advantage.

Well, I already play with the "fumbles grant combat advantage" rule...
#16
Thought
Dec 28, 2008 22:10:21 As a warning, any facing rules that you might devise will favor the baddies more than the PCs for the simple reason that the PCs will generally be outnumbered. Consider minions, for example; they exist almost entirely to pump up the meat that the PCs need to cleve through. Any additional facing rules will make puny minions more of a challenge.
#17
eldiran
Dec 28, 2008 22:32:09
Anyone have some solid house rules for character facing? Such as giving characters a front and back which offer different advantages and disadvantages?

Thanks,
Necro

How about attacks from the front give the target a +2 to defense, and attacking from the back grants combat advantage? That seems like a simple solution, and it's what I would go with if I had to implement facing rules. (Which I would never do.)

Either that or you could take the most complex system you can find here, and use that until your players beg to be rid of the facing rules :P.

Note that you'll have to be careful about using minions or enemies that get extra damage with CA when using facing, though.
#18
nightwalker450
Dec 29, 2008 12:14:51 The problem with facing is when are you allowed to turn. Not being able to turn when its not your turn is quite problematic. Characters like rangers or rogues are able to shift with their attacks (possibly more than one square) and will be able to get CA all of the time. Kobolds shift as a minor action, they will be able to get CA all of the time.

At one time I had something set up for facing (different system), that allowed you to change your focus as a free action once per turn (or as soon as your focus was killed). And you would always automatically turn to keep your focus in your front. On hex you had 3 front squares, and you could keep him on the edge of your front squares pretty easily.

The shield only covering certain squares, I would take out completely. Thats adding complexity on top of complexity. Just apply penalties for flank and rear, and keep the shield as always present. If you have a shield you are better able to watch your rear because the shield helps cover you as you look behind you. So if they question it just use that explanation, that its easier to devote more time to your rear if the shield can cover you long enough to look.

(I do prefer hex, so then you don't have to worry about the facing diagonally or ordinally)
#19
nonstandard
Dec 29, 2008 19:55:42 Consider that each turn is, say, 6 seconds long. Each attack represents, not a single blow, but the sum total effect of your efforts in that period. Characters then have an opportunity to adjust as necessary to incoming attacks. The only time facing becomes a problem in this case, is when two foes attack (or feint) simultaneously - thus the flanking rules. I not that the rest of combat is just as representative. Hope this point-of-view helps!
#20
legdiwena
Dec 30, 2008 13:13:52 Would the facing rules from Unearthed Arcana port well to 4E?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 necrosnoop110 Dec 27, 2008 11:51:47	Anyone have some solid house rules for character facing? Such as giving characters a front and back which offer different advantages and disadvantages? Thanks, Necro
#2 Crimson_Concerto Dec 27, 2008 12:35:38	What is it you want them to accomplish? Because usually, all facing rules do is basically give out a whole bunch of penalties to everybody...
#3 Krusk Dec 27, 2008 14:26:14	If you want some, here is how I would do it. (note I probably would not) -All creatures have a front, back, left and right side. -Shields provide double their normal benefits, but also only protect two adjascent sides of the PCs choice. IE left and front, or back and right, but not front and back or left and front. [INDENT]-This is designated when a shield is donned and continues until the player spends a minor action to shift it one set, (IE From left front to front right, or from front right to right back) or a standard action to shift it however they please. (IE redonning the shield.)[/INDENT] [INDENT]-This can be cut down to a free and minor action (respectivly) if the player has the quick draw feat.[/INDENT] -Flanking has been redefined. Either [INDENT]A- Player 1 stands on the left side, and Player 2 stands on the right.[/INDENT][INDENT]B- A single player stands on the back face.[/INDENT] -Spinning your position can be done either as a minor action, or as part of any movement. (be it a 5 ft step or a run) - Diagnals, on a grid characters will have four squares that are not covered by any of the four faces. These are called the diagnals. If X is the PC 1,3,6,8 are its diagnals. 1 and 3 count as both the front and left/right sides. 6 and 8 count as back and left/right. These squares are treated as both sides at the same time. [INDENT][INDENT]123 4X5 678[/INDENT][/INDENT] ----------------- Notes This adds an additional level of tactical thinking to the game, which some people enjoy. Some people think this is simply extra tedium. This also powers up classes that have features like sneak attack (additional method for CA).
#4 Neutronium_Dragon Dec 27, 2008 21:57:54	What the above essentially results in is each combatant taking a Shift to move to the opponent's right side every turn so they can bypass their target's shield (or equivalent).
#5 nonstandard Dec 28, 2008 0:51:11	Which, I note, is a valid tactic in a realistic combat. Position is a key part of combat. Personally, if I was going to use facing rules, I would adopt a hex-map for combat, rather than a grid. Then, each player has three front faces, two flank faces, and one back face. characters can turn as mentioned above. Shield apply to front facing only. However, in 3.0 facing was removed for a logical reason; each turn is not representing a single action (or three actions) but rather, the sum effect of your characters activity over a short period of time (i.e. you may feint, strike, or parry a number of times, but only one mechanical attack is made, to represent the numeric results of those efforts). In light of this, a character is assumed to be constantly adjusting, including checking his rear, and thus preparing to meet oncoming attacks (like with his shield). Thus the flanking rules, which represent one character forcing the enemy to focus on them, and leave his flank exposed.
#6 Crimson_Concerto Dec 28, 2008 4:59:08	think this is simply extra tedium. This. Now, I really want to ask again what the topic creator is hoping to get out of this, because I somehow doubt it's worth the tedium and the balance-tampering...
#7 Neutronium_Dragon Dec 28, 2008 6:30:14	> Which, I note, is a valid tactic in a realistic combat. In a realistic combat, someone isn't going to stand stock still while you walk a quarter circle around them to bypass their shield. It certainly won't consist of two people repeatedly taking turns doing this to one another - but that's what happens when you put this sort of facing in D&D.
#8 anubis_reynard Dec 28, 2008 10:04:14	Heres's my rule. When you are flanked, you can choose not to grant combat advantage to one of your flankers. (any other means of aining combat advantage still works) IF you do, the other flanker (the one on the opposite side- no bonus for ********ing) is treated as Hidden and gains all benifits of attacking from Hidden. You are basically choosing to ignore one foe, and let it become "hidden" from you, so that you are no longer knowingly flanked by the other. This comes with it's own drawbacks, however.
#9 Krusk Dec 28, 2008 11:00:41	> Which, I note, is a valid tactic in a realistic combat. In a realistic combat, someone isn't going to stand stock still while you walk a quarter circle around them to bypass their shield. It certainly won't consist of two people repeatedly taking turns doing this to one another - but that's what happens when you put this sort of facing in D&D. No they won't, just like in that system. You shift left begining that circle pattern. They either opt to shift their shield to cover you on their turn, or they leave the shield where it is and cover the other enemies. Eventually in this manner you can either circle someone with a shield and get behind it, if they choose to block you, or draw them into poor standing with their shield. 1-2 -X- --- You are 1 your ally is 2, enemy with shield is X, his shield is facing front left. You slide to his left side, close to behind his shield. Does he adjust to keep you gaurded? or does he leave the shield in place to fight your ally? --2 1X- --- What if there about 6 guys near where 2 is? you, a rogue, run past him hoping to gain sneak attack, he knows this. Does he opt to spin his shield to attempt to prevent you, or does he leave the shield vs the larger ammount of foes so as not to be overwhelmed? Like I said, another level of tactics.
#10 yrogerg Dec 28, 2008 13:54:37	Heres's my rule. When you are flanked, you can choose not to grant combat advantage to one of your flankers. (any other means of aining combat advantage still works) IF you do, the other flanker (the one on the opposite side- no bonus for ********ing) is treated as Hidden and gains all benifits of attacking from Hidden. You are basically choosing to ignore one foe, and let it become "hidden" from you, so that you are no longer knowingly flanked by the other. This comes with it's own drawbacks, however. This is pretty much the houserule that my group used with flanking in 3.5, actually; it became relevant in one campaign in particular, because there was one massively underpowered character (a monk, no less) that favored a Deck of Illusions as his main combat abiliity. This houserule was introduced to provide that it provided a minor bonus, but that illusions weren't an auto-flanker in this situation.
#11 necrosnoop110 Dec 28, 2008 15:44:55	Personally I am against facing rules as I think they overcomplicate things unnecessarily. However, the rest of my group HATES the idea of characters having "360 degree vision" during combat and think that not having facing is highly unrealistic. They all voted to houserule a facing system. I am looking for a simple, i.e. simple as possible, set of rules to appease them. Cheers, Necro
#12 anubis_reynard Dec 28, 2008 19:47:12	Attempting to clean up the rule I posted above... When you are engaging more than one foe, you may choose to treat one foe as hidden. If you do, it does not grant flanking CA against you.
#13 Neutronium_Dragon Dec 28, 2008 20:12:33	That sort of idea came up in 3E too, and it causes one immediate problem: The rogue is almost never going to get to sneak attack, because every time he gets into a flanking position, the target is going to ignore the other guy and deny him his flanking/combat advantage.
#14 kuonji Dec 28, 2008 21:11:42	Personally I am against facing rules as I think they overcomplicate things unnecessarily. However, the rest of my group HATES the idea of characters having "360 degree vision" during combat and think that not having facing is highly unrealistic. They all voted to houserule a facing system. I am looking for a simple, i.e. simple as possible, set of rules to appease them. Cheers, Necro I would think they would find it more unrealistic to assume that everyone is standing around waiting to take turns hitting each other and while standing around facing one direction being unable to turn around until it's your turn. Given that you say everyone else is pro-facing, tell them to start drawing up the rules, since they are the ones who want them and will have to use them. Just make sure to look them over and ensure that they are designed to give the PCs big advantages while crippling opponents. For further feedback you could even post them here.
#15 anubis_reynard Dec 28, 2008 21:42:24	That sort of idea came up in 3E too, and it causes one immediate problem: The rogue is almost never going to get to sneak attack, because every time he gets into a flanking position, the target is going to ignore the other guy and deny him his flanking/combat advantage. Well, I already play with the "fumbles grant combat advantage" rule...
#16 Thought Dec 28, 2008 22:10:21	As a warning, any facing rules that you might devise will favor the baddies more than the PCs for the simple reason that the PCs will generally be outnumbered. Consider minions, for example; they exist almost entirely to pump up the meat that the PCs need to cleve through. Any additional facing rules will make puny minions more of a challenge.
#17 eldiran Dec 28, 2008 22:32:09	Anyone have some solid house rules for character facing? Such as giving characters a front and back which offer different advantages and disadvantages? Thanks, Necro How about attacks from the front give the target a +2 to defense, and attacking from the back grants combat advantage? That seems like a simple solution, and it's what I would go with if I had to implement facing rules. (Which I would never do.) Either that or you could take the most complex system you can find here, and use that until your players beg to be rid of the facing rules :P. Note that you'll have to be careful about using minions or enemies that get extra damage with CA when using facing, though.
#18 nightwalker450 Dec 29, 2008 12:14:51	The problem with facing is when are you allowed to turn. Not being able to turn when its not your turn is quite problematic. Characters like rangers or rogues are able to shift with their attacks (possibly more than one square) and will be able to get CA all of the time. Kobolds shift as a minor action, they will be able to get CA all of the time. At one time I had something set up for facing (different system), that allowed you to change your focus as a free action once per turn (or as soon as your focus was killed). And you would always automatically turn to keep your focus in your front. On hex you had 3 front squares, and you could keep him on the edge of your front squares pretty easily. The shield only covering certain squares, I would take out completely. Thats adding complexity on top of complexity. Just apply penalties for flank and rear, and keep the shield as always present. If you have a shield you are better able to watch your rear because the shield helps cover you as you look behind you. So if they question it just use that explanation, that its easier to devote more time to your rear if the shield can cover you long enough to look. (I do prefer hex, so then you don't have to worry about the facing diagonally or ordinally)
#19 nonstandard Dec 29, 2008 19:55:42	Consider that each turn is, say, 6 seconds long. Each attack represents, not a single blow, but the sum total effect of your efforts in that period. Characters then have an opportunity to adjust as necessary to incoming attacks. The only time facing becomes a problem in this case, is when two foes attack (or feint) simultaneously - thus the flanking rules. I not that the rest of combat is just as representative. Hope this point-of-view helps!
#20 legdiwena Dec 30, 2008 13:13:52	Would the facing rules from Unearthed Arcana port well to 4E?