3.0 facing vs 3.5 facing

[Pants]

Question: For those who aren't using the new facing in favor of the old facing, why are you?
Follow up Question: For those who are using the old facing, how would you do the following scenario?
A creature with a facing of 10 by 30/15 is surrounded on all sides by attackers.

A = Attackers
C = Critter

AAAAAABA
DCCCCCCA
ACCCCCCA
AAAAAAAA

It is currently attacking D with a Bite attack and for whatever reason, wants to attack B. How would you handle this situation? Does it's head move through the squares between D and B, or does it just automatically 'attack' B with no noticeable movement.

 

[Taren Seeker]

does it just automatically 'attack' B with no noticeable movement.

Yup.

Played last weekend with new facing...bugs me to no end.

 

[BigFreekinGoblinoid]

dubble yup

 

[Silveras]

The problem is largely in the term 'facing'. It is a 'fighting area', *not* the actual space the creature takes up.

There has been no actual 'facing' in 3rd edition all along; but the designers implied it by using rectangular 'areas' and calling it "Face" in the stats.

I am not passionate about it, but I do understand and appreciate what they are getting at. I have been aware of this since 1st Edition, in the original T1: Village of Hommlett module. I had to explain to the guy wielding a 2-handed sword (6 feet long) that he needed about a 10-foot width of space to swing it properly: 5 feet to his left and 5 feet to his right; and, of course, about 5 feet ahead of him, too. Oh, wait, that's pretty much a square if there IS no front and back.

So, I have no problem with square areas, but I do understand why some people, especially long-term players, do. It is hard to make yourself "forget" the diagrams of bonuses you got from being at the rear or on the flanks when those actually represented positions on the grid.

WotC's new focus on minis actually makes their case better. Maybe that will be one of the variants in Unearthed Arcana. True "facing" would be a good option for the tactically-minded.

 

[Pants]

So, I have no problem with square areas, but I do understand why some people, especially long-term players, do. It is hard to make yourself "forget" the diagrams of bonuses you got from being at the rear or on the flanks when those actually represented positions on the grid.

Whenever I ran a 2e (back in the day), I'd always forget about which direction a character was facing when combat came along. So in a sense, we never had facing.
3e comes along with the rectangular shaped creatures and I totally agreed with it. It made sense, some creatures take up different size areas.
Now I hear that 3.5 is doing all square facing and I oppose it, mainly because the rectangular facing made sense. However, someone (can't remember who) pointed out that while the 3.5 method may be slightly abstract and illogical, the 3.0 method was just as bad. Essentially, it brings into question 'Called Shots' and 'Creature Facing,' two rules that I either ignored or hated.

Just my perspective on it.

 

[shadow]

Ughh...I HATE the 3.5 facing rules. It's absurd to assume that every creature occupies a square area. How does a giant centepede or meglapede occupy a square area? The 3.0 rules made much more sense!

 

[Cbas10]

I agree that some sort of rules on facing would be handy and more realistic. However, as things stand (read: I have a wife and a job; therefore, I refuse to spend time rewriting aspects of a game when they technically work just fine), I do like the new facing rules over the last set in 3.0 rules. When dealing with situations like moving through threatened areas, large creatures in a smaller hallway, and other things, the rules in 3.5 are just easier to use. Granted, I do realize that if you have (as in your example) a long creature (such as a dragon) attacking a character at Point B, it is very difficult to have the dragon move around to attack Point D. During those cases, I just ad-hoc something like making it a move-equivalent action or provoke an attack of opportunity or something. Common Sense will rule the day, but I think the 3.5 version is much easier to start and modify from. It is not too difficult to add in entries for Armor Class (like in 2nd edition days) for "rear" and "shieldless" AC. Incidentally, who of you that would use a facing system would change the way that Rogues' Sneak Attack ability works? I know I certainly would.

 

[Norfleet]

Question: For those who aren't using the new facing in favor of the old facing, why are you?
Follow up Question: For those who are using the old facing, how would you do the following scenario?
A creature with a facing of 10 by 30/15 is surrounded on all sides by attackers.

A = Attackers
C = Critter

AAAAAABA
DCCCCCCA
ACCCCCCA
AAAAAAAA

It is currently attacking D with a Bite attack and for whatever reason, wants to attack B. How would you handle this situation? Does it's head move through the squares between D and B, or does it just automatically 'attack' B with no noticeable movement.

I'd say its head would have to move through squares between D and B. If, for some reason, such an act were completely impossible, then I would rule that the dragon could not make such an attack. The most noteable case of this would be the classic partially buried monster with tail attacks that it, realistically, couldn't use while partially buried.

I agree that some sort of rules on facing would be handy and more realistic. However, as things stand (read: I have a wife and a job; therefore, I refuse to spend time rewriting aspects of a game when they technically work just fine), I do like the new facing rules over the last set in 3.0 rules. When dealing with situations like moving through threatened areas, large creatures in a smaller hallway, and other things, the rules in 3.5 are just easier to use. Granted, I do realize that if you have (as in your example) a long creature (such as a dragon) attacking a character at Point B, it is very difficult to have the dragon move around to attack Point D. During those cases, I just ad-hoc something like making it a move-equivalent action or provoke an attack of opportunity or something. Common Sense will rule the day, but I think the 3.5 version is much easier to start and modify from. It is not too difficult to add in entries for Armor Class (like in 2nd edition days) for "rear" and "shieldless" AC. Incidentally, who of you that would use a facing system would change the way that Rogues' Sneak Attack ability works? I know I certainly would.

I have something like that: It's basically a add-on rule for a creature that is unable or unwilling to engage in the free-rotation that 3E assumes a combatant can perform in combat. If a creature chooses to, and is able to, rotate freely, then he operates as before. If a creature cannot or will not, then he is flanked only when two creatures simultaneously occupy his flank spaces, and may have blind spaces behind him, where creatures that occupy those spaces are effectively invisible to him. Rogues, therefore, may be able to freely sneak attack from those blind spaces, even without someone in front, but conversely, will not be able to sneak attack while occupying a front space, even if somebody else occupies a rear space of the target creature.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I use 3.0 facing, because I like to use the creatures space to represent the actual space a creature occupies, to give players (and me) a rough idea of proportions. As far as the diagram, I'd just have the creature attack. The PH states that PCs are assumed to be dodging and weaving and circling their opponents during combat, even though their "position" on the grid never changes. Why should larger creatures be any different?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm one of the "neither" votes. I avoid using miniatures/counters/battlegrids like the plague, so I don't use any facing at all.