Facing in 3E, 3.5E and other

What sort of facing would you prefer for D&D?

  • 3.5E facing: Abstract squares.

    Votes: 69 52.7%
  • 3E facing: Abstract rectangles.

    Votes: 15 11.5%
  • Strict facing: Directional rectangles.

    Votes: 20 15.3%
  • I'm not bothered.

    Votes: 27 20.6%

Battletech anyone?

I am used to the game Battletech in which facing is very important and used with a hex map.

For D&D, I keep the facing rules but allow characters to turn as a free action. So if you have a bunch of tumbling thieves in the party they won't be able to backstab every round just because they tumbled to an enemies backside. I consider an opponent who is aware of the tumbler to automatically put their back in the least vulnerable position, and the rules still makes flanking work. It also gives rogues the chance to backstab if they sneak up on somebody (as usual) and no complicated facing rules needed to be written down as it became clear how it worked once a fight was conducted.

What you really have to worry about is where your back is, not so much which way you are facing towards, as only the 1 side with your back to it is ever vulnerable and is the only direction you cannot attack.

Also with 3E and AoOs, someone can move into or out of the threatened 5' square directly behind the subject without provoking an AoO. It works, makes some sort of sense with a fight in reality, it's not complicated, and it's not overpowered.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Re: Battletech anyone?

MarauderX said:
...I keep the facing rules but allow characters to turn as a free action. So if you have a bunch of tumbling thieves in the party they won't be able to backstab every round just because they tumbled to an enemies backside.....

This doesn't work because you can't take free actions on someone else's turn.
 

Re: Re: Battletech anyone?

Vaxalon said:
This doesn't work because you can't take free actions on someone else's turn.
Not mention that "backstab" doesn't exist anymore. ;)

--going for the assist Corinth
 
Last edited:



Re: Re: Re: Re: Battletech anyone?

Vaxalon said:


I think it's clear he's trying to recreate it.

I sure am. But I think it's a discussion for the house rules.

As far as free actions and the rules, speaking is a free action; do you have to wait until your turn to say something?

~ M "slowly hi-jacking the thread" X
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Battletech anyone?

MarauderX said:
As far as free actions and the rules, speaking is a free action; do you have to wait until your turn to say something?

Yes, that's quite clear. Not only does it follow the rules, but it keeps the game table quiet and orderly during combats.

Is this a problem?
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Battletech anyone?

Vaxalon said:


Yes, that's quite clear. Not only does it follow the rules, but it keeps the game table quiet and orderly during combats.

Is this a problem?

Quiet tables are boring. I like my players to shout insults at the enemies after which the enemies retort. Makes my game more fun.
 

Yes, but doesn't a hurled insult have just a little more bite when it's followed up by a sword blow?

I don't allow whole conversations in a 6-second turn.
 

Vaxalon said:
Yes, but doesn't a hurled insult have just a little more bite when it's followed up by a sword blow?

I don't allow whole conversations in a 6-second turn.


No in-depth conversations usually happen as I try to keep the combats moving quickly. But I do allow the cleric (usually last on the initiative) to shout "don't throw the torch!!" right before the rogue is about to lob the torch into a pile of oil-soaked books. Then again, a save may be required by the rogue to hear/understand/follow those instructions in a split second, depending on the situation.
 

Remove ads

Top