Facing: Cool or Lame?

[Stormonu]

I'd replace the word "where" with "if" and then I'd agree with you.

Yes, sorry, "if" is a much better fit. I've used miniatures many times to prevent arguments over whose fighting what where. At the same time, I have a player in my current game who gets all out of whack if a miniature or feature doesn't exactly conform to a single square. It's the latter sort of thing that bothers me from time to time.

 

[JediSoth]

I didn't mind playing with facing, but most of the time, the players would forget about it when it was convenient and only remember when it was advantageous.

I see the appeal in the rule (like weapon speeds in 2E), but think it's OK to remove it and make combat a little more abstract.

It's one of those thing I think can add to a more realistic campaigns, yet is easily excluded for more cinematic action. After all, Qui Xu Super-Awesome Pirate Kung-Fu Ninja can kick your butt even if you're right behind him!

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is important to be able to flank, or to situationally attack from the rear, but facing should only be a consideration when necessary.

IMHO, of course.


RC

 

[the Jester]

It's interesting- I expected this to be more evenly split. I seem to recall a few hissies thrown back on Eric Noah's site about the removal of facing when 3e came out, but apparently either it was a vocal minority or else people have revised their opinions over time.

 

[TerraDave]

Players Options: Combat & Tactics, published in 1994, officially introduced Attacks of Opertunity and the grid-o'-5 foot squares into (A)D&D. (though the first had some precedent, and the second was already being used in at least some D&D groups).

It of course had facing, along with knock downs, detailed critical hit tables, proto-feats, dualing rules...

Way too much. Facing is actually pretty easy with minis. And you can always give someone one free turn or something like that, but you retain the dilema of who to face if attacked from multiple sides.

In any case, when 3E removed it, I didn't miss it much.

 

[Guest 85555]

I prefer facing in most games. But it really does depend on the system. Granted all combat systems are artificial and can't replicate reality accurately (especially because of the turn based nature of RPGs), but I really like having the tactical option of getting someone in the back or the side.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It's interesting- I expected this to be more evenly split. I seem to recall a few hissies thrown back on Eric Noah's site about the removal of facing when 3e came out, but apparently either it was a vocal minority or else people have revised their opinions over time.

I seem to remember the major objections being about square spaces (necessitated by the removal of facing) rather than about facing itself. I think gradually people have come to accept that the 10-foot square a horse (for example) occupies is the combat area it controls, not its actual size, and objections mostly died.

In fact, I honestly don't remember ... did 3E even have facing, other than what was implied by creatures' rectangular spaces?

 

[Nifft]

In fact, I honestly don't remember ... did 3E even have facing, other than what was implied by creatures' rectangular spaces?

I believe it was functionally replaced by Flanking.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Woas]

No. I don't think my ideal RPG would even have rules in the first place, let alone ones for facing.