Adding facing to the game..

[DarkJester]

I really don't like the fact that it is assumed a character sees in a 360 degree area around them, as well as being able to defend his front as well as his flank.

Anyone have any house rules / suggestions for this?

 

[thullgrim]

Count a facing change as 2.5 feet or 5 feet of movement. Note, its always been my experience that face works better with a hex grid rather than a square one. Don't ask me why. On a hex you can use facing in alot more tactical manner. Do you plan on making the direction a character faces limit his tactical options, for instance he can only attack in the forward arc, is denied his dex bonus from attacks that come from anywhere beyond the forward arc? Things like that need to be considered.

Thullgrim

 

[Corlon]

You'd also have to think about what this would do to sneak attacks, if you can't see behind you, it makes rogues all the more deadly.

Another thing that would be really annoying if you weren't allowed to react to someone moving is that they would just tumble, walk, or whatever to get behind you and then they could attack you from "behind."

There are a lot of rules that don't make a lot of sense, but in the name of simplicity weren't added in.

But this still sounds like a neat idea, I hope this thread can turn up something.

 

[s/LaSH]

For some reason, I'm against having facing. It just seems to me that in 6 seconds someone can glance over their shoulder, and if they're hyped up on adrenaline they're going to be noticing and awful lot of their surroundings. It's not like a computer game where you march around with your nose always facing your toes.

That said, if you really want to use facing I'd advise using something like 5' of movement turns you 45 degrees, but only when you're running - it's otherwise a free action. Thus, you are facing in one direction when it's not your turn, which could make for some interesting scenarios with someone dashing across a corridor behind a raging melee with nobody noticing them. I'd still only give a stiff (-10?) penalty to Spot checks on targets out of your normal range of vision, because you're still moving around in combat.

But that's just me.

 

[SylverFlame]

If you're using minitures it's a lot easier.

During their turn a character may change facing for free, and it does not draw AoO's. When it is not their turn they may only face in the direction they were facing at the end of their turn.

If a character's back is attacked then they face in the direction of the attack. However, the attack is made as if the defender is flat-footed. A given attacker may only make one such attack per-turn unless some other circumstance applies (ie. they are invisible). The back postion is considered only the 120 degrees behind the character, the other 240 degrees is considered visible (this means, on a square grid, that the three squares behind a player are the "back").

This adds realism and the defender's don't get really ripped by multi-attacks. These rules basically mimic the system from FF6. It works okay for realism, and people will start using back-to-back tactic a lot more.

 

[Geoff Watson]

I suggest not using facing rules.

They would make it far too easy to get sneak attacks and other 'attack from behind' bonuses.

Geoff.

 

[MarauderX]

I used to play a lot of Battletech with the hex grids, and it really slowed down play when you had to worry about which way to 'face' your mech in order not to get shot in the back (where you were usually the weakest). Since D&D doesn't worry about where you get hit, you don't have to keep track of where the damage was taken.

For sneaking up on people that are facing constantly forward I just use 'move silently' vs. the target PC to hear them. No spot check unless they are in combat. If the target is already in melee with someone else, then there is a spot check AND a listen check as I rule battle is rather chaotic with combatants shifting back and forth constantly. For a ranged PC/NPC being stalked, only the listen check applies as long as attacker is approaching from the rear.

I also use bonuses and minuses freely and often to help/hinder events to reflect a more 'realistic' world.

 

[Drawmack]

My personal opinion is that facing rules add too much complexity to battle. It aleady gets slow at higher levels. Though if you want facing rules my suggestion would be to grab the mage knight dungeon rules from here and then adapt their facing rules. They are simple and extremely streamlined.

 

[MarauderX]

Thanks Drawmack, I will use that on occasion when characters are really concerned about which way they are facing when being sneak-attacked, and now I don't have to say I'm pulled everything outta thin air and Battletech.

 

[Drawmack]

my players decided they didn't want facing rules anymore when we got to the part about breaking away (opposed str or dex character's choice checks) and if you don't break away you're not running.

Player: I (rolls dice) do not run from the troll.