Facing in 3E, 3.5E and other

[MerricB]

One of the more controversial changes in 3.5E is the change of all monster facings (spaces) to squares.

Personally, I think of all the systems, 3E's is the stupidest. You have a horse in a 5' x 10' space... implying facing of one way or the other, but why can it attack to the sides?

Either go with 5' x 10' with actual facing (arcs, etc.), or with 10' x 10' with no facing - the horse can attack any side.

Any odd cases (fitting down passages) for the 3.5E rules can be dealt with either in out-of-combat scenarios quite easily by the DM, or by combat rules that sacrifice a little realism for playability.

Anyway, this is a poll.

How would you prefer the facing rules to work?

Either as 3.5E does it - a quite abstract system.
As 3E does it - a system that is quasi-abstract
Or as previous editions - a system that is exact about facing.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Exact Facing

Pros:
- represents facing exactly.
- clearly defined back
- clearly defined flanks

Cons:
- need rules for turning to face approaching enemies
- what happens when someone approaches from behind?
- shield rules must be exact (you can't abstract them so easily).

Anything else?

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Incidentally, I'm interested in why you might believe one method or another is superior - as I'm sure others do.

So post your reasons for preferring one style (or not preferring another!)

Cheers!

 

[Kirowan]

I like 3.5's version better than 3.0's, but I would prefer exact facing. Sure, that would introduce its own subsystems, but the facing rules as they are do as well, so what's the difference?

Nick

 

[MerricB]

I quite agree - whatever system you use, there'll be various issues to solve.

You know, I actually think it's easier running combat without miniatures with 3.5E or 3E compared to 1E or 2E - because I don't have to worry about how many opponents the shield works against and where they stand.

It's still interesting looking at the issues that arise from each system. (There's nothing "perfect" about any system. )

Cheers!

 

[FireLance]

Me, I see the potential for three different levels of abstraction and complexity, along the lines of MerricB's three options, based on the situation and how complicated you want to make things:

1. Open combat - everything square, no facing. For use in combat in fairly open spaces when creatures can be expected to turn around a lot and be alert to danger from all directions. This can be the default level for people who don't want to make things too complicated.

2. Alert vs Unaware - "Alert" creatures are square with no facing for the reasons above. "Unaware" creatures are rectangular with facing (reactangles include squares). Once an "Unaware" creatures become "Alert", it becomes square. A snake might coil itself, a lion paces around within its space, etc.

3. Exact location - everything rectangular with facing. Most exact but complicated system.

I personally prefer (1), but might use (2) in certain situations, e.g. a PC is sneaking around a group of sleeping, fairly motionless creatures. (3) is too much of a headache for me.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Favourite facing rules of mine were simple enough. 2e Combat and Tactics. Three squares to your rear gave people +2 to hit you (and allowed backstab or sneak attack these days), two flanking squares allowed them a +1 and the three front squares were the ones you threatened (there were primitive attacks of op in the rules too).

This could be implemented with little difficulty today I feel. Uncanny dodge - no flanking would simply reduce all the penalties by one or sth.

 

[Belphanior]

3.5 works best for me. I'm sure it's possible to come up with a good system that accurately deals with facing, but it would take too much time to be worth it, IMO.

Systems like C&T don't work for me, because they just slap facing on you. Like a trained fighter is actually going to be facing the same way for 6 seconds (1 round) while some rogue carves his back open. It just doesn't work out in turn-based games.


No, I'll stick with abstract. I view combats as highly cinematic anyway, so it has all the pros and no cons.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I've used all of them, and unless you're really into wargaming, eliminating facing is a big plus.

As to the space/size issue -- it's really a toss-up between the 3.5 and 3.0 systems. Both have advantages and disadvantages. I'm using 3.5 since I'm using everything else 3.5, but the 3.0 system is fine, too.

 

[ScyldSceafing]

Facings

I love the idea of abstract facings, and although the 'all-square' idea seemed dumb to me at first, I'm warming to it. As MerricB pointed out, it is weird to have a 5x10 horse that can attack out the long sides of the rectangle. And so on.

I have no interest in trying to track facings during a fight, and getting into all the arguments that it provokes.

"I'm behind him!"

"Well, you're quartered with respect to his shield, and, err, ..."

Blech! I'll take abstract, please. I always think of the combat as radio theatre. Describe it some and leave space for everyone to conjure their own images.

The problem I have is that some of my players have a hard time with the idea of abstract facing. They're always wanting to say "I'm facing this direction," and I alternate between smiling-and-nodding and actually explaining that the facings are fluid and are ignored, that the PC's position on the table is a bare reference of his actual position, etc. Anyone else find this to be the case?