Anybody else hate facing?

[Malin Genie]

One of the great advances IMHO of 3E DnD was the removal of facing, along with a sensible flanking rule. However facing was then 'sort-of' reintroduced for the 'special cases' of Tower Shield and Shield spell. In such a way that a Tower Shield can provide perfect cover in a small arc, 50% in a broader arc, but you can't move the shield outside of your turn, even to react if an enemy 5ft steps to one side and hits you without cover (whereas in any other situation you are 'facing' the opponent just as much after he steps as before.)

Does anybody else think this was a mistake? Has anybody got any suggestions for how to deal with the inconsistency?

 

[Shadow64]

Hmm...i haven't had to deal with facing in this way, but if it bothers you think of the Tower Sheild and Sheild spells as a temporary wall. No books in front of me, so i don't recall everything about them, but they seem to act just like a wall or something else would act for cover, ac bonus, etc. So - just like someone crouching behind a wall for cover - if an enemy rounds the corner of a wall to attack them they don't get the cover ac bonus from the wall. *shrug* just my quick take on it, hope it helps somewhat.

 

[the Jester]

You can only act on your turn, even if you're just taking a free action. Otherwise you have to ready an action or delay. If you wanna spend your round wrestling that massive tower shield around, ready an action to do so.

 

[Marshall]

One of the great advances IMHO of 3E DnD was the removal of facing, along with a sensible flanking rule. However facing was then 'sort-of' reintroduced for the 'special cases' of Tower Shield and Shield spell.

Here's a simple answer,

Facing wasn't removed, they just removed all the rules to govern it. The new system is decent for 5x5 vs. 5x5 encounters, but falls completely apart when you get to 5x10 or 10x30 or any of the larger sizes. I'm still trying to justify how a 200' long Purple Worm can take a bite AoO against someone moving up to their tail and still bite attack their 'other end' in the same round.

But back to your point, the Tower shield is so screwed up. If its that easy to dodge around it, Why does its bonus count against my attacks? The shield spell is easier to justify "Its Magic"

 

[Plane Sailing]

I have a solution which I use for the shield spell.

It doesn't have facing, but the wizard can specify a particular *opponent* which it will defend against. It then keeps itself interposed between the two, giving its AC bonus against that all attacks made by that attacker. The opponent can be changed each round as a free action.

This makes the spell very useful if fighting single opponents, but of far less use against multiple foes. It also eliminates bookkeeping and the need to use figures of some kind.

I dare say a similar approach could be used for tower shields (although I simply eliminated them from my game)

Cheers

 

[shilsen]

I have a solution which I use for the shield spell.

It doesn't have facing, but the wizard can specify a particular *opponent* which it will defend against. It then keeps itself interposed between the two, giving its AC bonus against that all attacks made by that attacker. The opponent can be changed each round as a free action.

This makes the spell very useful if fighting single opponents, but of far less use against multiple foes. It also eliminates bookkeeping and the need to use figures of some kind.

I dare say a similar approach could be used for tower shields (although I simply eliminated them from my game)

Cheers

Sounds like a good solution. I took a slightly different approach, letting Shield work against all opponents (like an animated shield) but give a +4 cover bonus to AC instead of a +7. And I dropped tower shields too.

 

[Vaxalon]

I used to fight in the SCA, and I've used a "barn door" as we called this kind of shield.

It IS hard to keep it between you and a single opponent. They are best used when your buddy on either side have tower shields, too.... yes, they're hard to fight around, but they're great in a line.

In DnD terms, they're best when advancing against archers.

 

[Pielorinho]

Re: Re: Anybody else hate facing?

I'm still trying to justify how a 200' long Purple Worm can take a bite AoO against someone moving up to their tail and still bite attack their 'other end' in the same round.

I had something similar come up in a game a year or two ago, when the PCs were fighting those giant 12-legged lightning-breathing beasties whose name I can't recall. They were fighting one in a narrow area, and the rogue was on one side of it. When it came the creature's turn, I ruled it could only attack with half of its claw attacks vs. one opponent: it wasn't gonna be doing the hokey-pokey around the rogue.

Generally, I think that DMs and players oughtta agree to wing it with facing rules for big critters. Otherwise, it gets silly. You cuold also "place" each natural weapon on big creatures in a 5' square, and allow the creature to attack anything within its reach of that square with that weapon. But that gets complicated.

Finally, it annoys me (although I understand the reasons for it) that creatures have the same reach on all their natural weapons. I can see a troll clawing at someone 10' away from them, but biting them? Do their jaws shoot out on a proboscis, a la Alien?

Daniel

 

[Malin Genie]

I will probably *yoink* the Shield fix for my home campaign.....thanks for the idea PlaneSailing!

Shadow64 - perhaps the problem I have is the interaction of the turn system and the 'facing' system. You can reposition your 'wall' every 6 seconds but then opponents get to run around it as if it (and you) were stationary. However if I move my character a double move north (presumably facing north during the movement) and someone attacks from the South, I am able to react to it (they don't get to 'back attack' me.)

Marshall - I agree with your Purple Worm point. Certainly creatures who aren't square *do* have facing (at least front/back vs flanks.) Maybe all creatures should be made square for combat purposes? A horse *in combat* 'occupies' a 10ft by 10ft square as it wheels around trying to defend itself and trample enemies on different sides?

Pielorinho - LOL re the troll - I had thought of that problem myself although I usually picture the troll leaning over and biting at the head. Behir BTW.

Thanks for all your replies.

 

[Stalker0]

As just a general shield, tower shield are not that great for individual fighters, just as it was in real combat. In real combat, tower shields were used in line formations, were moving the shield wasn't necessary. They are very effective in moving up against archers and in tight corridors, but out in the open field by yourself they are particularly weak.