Facing in 3E, 3.5E and other

[TiQuinn]

You seem to link facing to hit locations. May I ask why? All facing means (to me at least) is the direction you look at. Or rather, the direction your entire body "points" at.
By giving a horse a 5x10 space, one can flank it in such a manner that it could not logically attack you.
But it does. Somehow. Even though I'm sure its legs can not bend that way.

By giving it a 10x10 space, one assumes that it has enough room to turn any way it pleases in order to attack. We eliminate the half-abstraction, and gain simplicity and common sense in return.

I've decided that my next campaign is going to be filled with killer, mutant death horses. Dragons are NOTHING compared to these savage beasts! Who'da thunk Flicka was so deadly in combat?

I just don't see the issue here. A horse in a 5x10 space has to make a quarter turn to kick out to either side of it. Why does this need to be changed to 10x10?

On the other hand, why is so hard to justify the squeezing rule? Occupying space seems to be only for combat resolution, not cover or moving through a small gap, etc. I don't understand why this is such a leap of logic.

 

[Psion]

You seem to link facing to hit locations. May I ask why?

Because that would be the only concrete linkage between the orientation of the miniature and defacto facing of the creature.

All facing means (to me at least) is the direction you look at. Or rather, the direction your entire body "points" at.

I call that "orientation, and consider it a cosmetic effect.

By giving a horse a 5x10 space, one can flank it in such a manner that it could not logically attack you.

If you assume that it spends the entire round in the position pictured. 6 second rounds must be time abstracted, that does not also mean we have to accept shape abstraction as well. (Or at least, the degree the 3.5 rules seem to want.)

But it does. Somehow. Even though I'm sure its legs can not bend that way.

They don't have to. At some point during the round, the horse made a 44 degree cant and kicked you. Not difficult to picture at all.

By giving it a 10x10 space, one assumes that it has enough room to turn any way it pleases in order to attack.

But perhaps that is too much of an assumption. By virtue of the fact that a horse might spin in a circle, creatures flanking it are prohibited from approaching less than 10' of one another when doing so? No, that's ridiculous.

We eliminate the half-abstraction, and gain simplicity and common sense in return.

Au contraire. By creating "fighting space" that explicitly exclude creatures and allow them to be attacked/in line of sight, and requiring "squeeze rules" to allow a creature to pass through passages that it would normally be able to pass through, common sense and simplicity are harmed, not assisted.

What are you talking about? A major gripe of mine was that big creatures, somehow, could not squeeze themselves into smaller spaces. It should be darn obvious that they can.

Ah, but you need the squeeze rule now to tell allow you to pass through passages that a creature would easily be able to pass through according to its actual size, but not it's counter size. We aren't talking about taking extra effort to wriggle through somewhere here. We are talking being able to casually stride here, because the fighting space of some creatures is SO much bigger than their actual size.

You are putting words into my mouth now. Don't.

Not in the least bit. Trampling is pretty tpyically how a horse on a chariot attacks. Using the old rules, it is pretty easy to see where a horse might affect... a creature directly to one side of the other of where a horse really is. Which makes sense. But under the 3.5 rules, since they don't follow the natural shape of creatures, all of a sudden you have to make special rules for the "attack zone" of a horse to make sense.

And woe betide you if you want to make a chariot with a 4-horse-wide time...

How much cover do you think humans should get behind a 2.5' pillar? If you stand the right way, even a 1' pillar should suffice for most people to get full cover.
This is impossible even in 3.0 however.

Since 5' is the resotion of the grid, I am not seeing the bearing here.

If a horse stands behind a 5' pillar you need only take a step to the side (not a 5' step, you can stay in the same square) to see its rear. Half cover. Just like the rules say.

Who is talking about a horse here? I am talking about a creature that is less than 10' wide that all of a sudden, because of his 10'x10' wide "fighting space", is all of a sudden vulnerable to attack.

I could see a 10' horse's rear sticking out. That's not the issue.

 

[Gnarlo]

In a perfect world, I voted for exact facings w/ flankings and directional orientations, etc. Have played and enjoyed a lot of squad level wargames / miniatures games w/ facings, zones of fire, movement points to turn, stand, open doors, etc.

HOWEVER, given that a) it's not a perfect world, b) only one of my players was around back "in the day" and played wargames w/ facings and such, and c) D&D is very abstract in it's combat, I prefer the D&D system for D&D, easy to understand and easy to teach. And 3.5 is much more logical to me than 3.0. YMMV.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I preferred the 3.0 facing because then I know exactly how much space the creature took up which was more important to me for mapping purposes. Given the abstract nature of D&D combat, it was not hard for me to picture a creature in a fighting even if it seemed awkward from the perspective the exact space it took up while fighting.

I feel that always knowing exactly how much physical space it took up on the map was more important because you can easily design the space it would fight in larger. The spacings make it more difficult to determine movement especially factoring in charges and obstructions.

The 3.0 facing system was much easier to use and no less realistic given the abstract nature of D&D combat.

 

[coyote6]

I can accept both 3e and 3.5e's systems. However, I see the flaws (cf. Dinkledog & Psion's posts) in both approaches. Generally, I think I like 3.5e -- however, I think the squeezing rules are too harsh. The penalties are too high, IMO; halving movement seems overboard, and the combat penalties are the same as if you were prone.

(I think the "difficult terrain" movement penalties are too harsh in general, actually.)

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I prefer the "exact facing" concept - as another poster noted, much like those presented in 2e Combat & Tactics.

Ditto.
I'm using a similar system built from MEG's Fighter's Corner variant (expanded slightly to consider "shield side" and "weapon side"). I also ditched the square battle-map in favor of simply using a small tape measure (ala War Hammer).

 

[Vaxalon]

How do you deal with a quick character who can almost always run around behind someone on his turn?

Do you allow the target to turn in place to follow? If not, why not?

How many times can he do this?

If he can always turn to face an attack, then why bother with facing at all?

 

[Wombat]

I primarily use figures on a hex board -- I dropped square boards (except for chess and the like) back around 1969 when AH re-issued Gettysburg with a hex map.

Then again, I think there is generally too much of an emphasis on precise mechanics in combat -- go with the flow creates a game that is much more fun, at least for me and my group.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'm not sure if this was aimed at myself, or just anyone who said that they preferred exact facing - but I'll answer it anyways for how I use it.

How do you deal with a quick character who can almost always run around behind someone on his turn?

Do you allow the target to turn in place to follow? If not, why not?

Yes, I allow the target to turn in place.

How many times can he do this?

As many times as he wants.

If he can always turn to face an attack, then why bother with facing at all?

Because a character with Hide and/or Move Silently can sneak up behind him; or, he can be surrounded (the rear position is always the last one taken by opponents).

Exact facing works just fine with my group, and has done so for years - which is why I prefer it, and voted as such in the poll. I'm not suggesting others will like it.

 

[Vaxalon]

Mechanically, I find your solution to be nearly identical in effect, and mechanically overly complex, compared to the existing flanking rule.

The fact that it works for your group doesn't mean that the 3.0/3.5 flanking rule wouldn't work BETTER.