If I've read the rules correctly, there's a huge flaw in the d20 COMBAT FACING VARIANT RULE.
From which book did this rule book was this rule taken?
Here's the problem: Consider a fighter and a hobgoblin locked into melee. Both are facing each other in square-to-square positions. The Fighter has initiative. He uses his Five Foot step to move diagonally to the hobby's right, then uses his Free Action Facing turn to face the hobby's flank. Then, he attacks with a +2 flank bonus.
Unless I skipped something, that's what the rule allows you to do.
And, the hobby, on his turn, can do the same thing, move into the Fighter's flank using his Five Foot step, then using the Free Action to change facing, then attack with the +2 flank attack.
I think that's a hole in that rule.
If I've not read it incorrectly, I can think of two easy fixes.
1. Diagonal movement is normally counted a 1 for the first square and 2 for the second, 1 for the third, and 2 for the fourth.
If you simply reverse this counting, making it 2 for the first, 1 for the second, 2 for the third, and 1 for the second, and so on, you will prevent a character from moving diagonally next to you using only a Five Foot step. Your opponent would have to use regular movement to move into the first diagonal square, and thus you would get an Attack of Opportunity on him as he moves into your flank.
2. But, if you don't like the implications of the first diagonal square counting as 2 move points instead of 1, there's another way to combat the problem with the facing rule.
Keep tactical diagonal movement as it is. Don't change it.
The rules say that a character can move diagonally past a foe. The rule change would be that if a character does move diagonally past a foe, this is considered entering the foe's space for a moment, and thus, the moving character would draw an Attack of Opportunity.
Either method would allow a character into his opponent's flank at the expense of an Attack of Opportunity against him from his enemy.
From which book did this rule book was this rule taken?
Here's the problem: Consider a fighter and a hobgoblin locked into melee. Both are facing each other in square-to-square positions. The Fighter has initiative. He uses his Five Foot step to move diagonally to the hobby's right, then uses his Free Action Facing turn to face the hobby's flank. Then, he attacks with a +2 flank bonus.
Unless I skipped something, that's what the rule allows you to do.
And, the hobby, on his turn, can do the same thing, move into the Fighter's flank using his Five Foot step, then using the Free Action to change facing, then attack with the +2 flank attack.
I think that's a hole in that rule.
If I've not read it incorrectly, I can think of two easy fixes.
1. Diagonal movement is normally counted a 1 for the first square and 2 for the second, 1 for the third, and 2 for the fourth.
If you simply reverse this counting, making it 2 for the first, 1 for the second, 2 for the third, and 1 for the second, and so on, you will prevent a character from moving diagonally next to you using only a Five Foot step. Your opponent would have to use regular movement to move into the first diagonal square, and thus you would get an Attack of Opportunity on him as he moves into your flank.
2. But, if you don't like the implications of the first diagonal square counting as 2 move points instead of 1, there's another way to combat the problem with the facing rule.
Keep tactical diagonal movement as it is. Don't change it.
The rules say that a character can move diagonally past a foe. The rule change would be that if a character does move diagonally past a foe, this is considered entering the foe's space for a moment, and thus, the moving character would draw an Attack of Opportunity.
Either method would allow a character into his opponent's flank at the expense of an Attack of Opportunity against him from his enemy.
