Facing

[gothmaugCC]

Should the new edition have facing?

NO

With the new battle format of having hordes of minions on the board, as a dm, Im gonna have enough to do moving 10 mooks, 5 brutes and a boss monster, let alone having to worry about everybody's facing.

They removed facing from 3rd edition with the printing of 3.5, I don't see them bringing it back.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Facing please. Some sort of facing rules accuratley reflect how melee combat actually works. You do have a front and a back. Mobs of fighters develop a momentum and move forward not in giant circles. folks that can think in circles sometimes win the battles. Look at historical write-ups of ancient and premodern warfare...forces do in fact line up and move forward towards each other. UA has totally adequate and useable facing rules.

 

[Celebrim]

Facing please. Some sort of facing rules accuratley reflect how melee combat actually works.

Yes, it does. But as I previously noted, 'turn based' does not accurately reflect how melee combat actually works. Since you are dealing with an abstraction on how people move with respect to time, sometimes it is necessary to abstract other areas of the rules dealing with spatiality to gain back some versimilitude. The flanking rules better reflect the advantages of encircling a foe in a turn based simulation than absolute facing rules would.

First edition generally avoid the unrealism of facing in a turn based situation, by having the DM rule on who faced what abstractly. As position became more important to the game, the facing rules became more and more flawed.

That isn't to say that current flanking rules are perfect, but returning to absolute facing in context (without significantly changing that context) isn't a solution even if you don't mind achieving 'realism' at the expense of rules complexity.

An example of significantly changing the context so that facing might make sense, would be to break down the turn such that you resolved all movement, then resolved all facings, then resolved all attacks. Rethinking the game in this way could be done, but it would involve all sorts of additional complexities.

 

[JDJblatherings]

An example of significantly changing the context so that facing might make sense, would be to break down the turn such that you resolved all movement, then resolved all facings, then resolved all attacks. Rethinking the game in this way could be done, but it would involve all sorts of additional complexities.

The facing rules in unearthed arcana do it all fairly well in 2 pages or so.

I've seen many hundreds of fights lost because one side came up behind another or snuck up on a flank quickly, darned few ( likley none) where they were surrounded 3.x flanking style.

 

[Celebrim]

The facing rules in unearthed arcana do it all fairly well in 2 pages or so.

That is not the testimony of the majority of people who have playtested them.

I've seen many hundreds of fights lost because one side came up behind another or snuck up on a flank quickly, darned few ( likley none) where they were surrounded 3.x flanking style.

'Many hundreds'? May I ask what it is that you do that exposes you to so many melee combats under battlefield conditions?

One of the problems with your counter-example, is that there are benifits to a flanking manuever which do not have to do with the advantage 3.X calls 'flanking'. How can you separate out so clearly in your mind the advantages of 'flanking' from the advantages of concentration of force and of surprise involved with a flank attack? Doesn't 3.X already have mechanics which simulate concentration of force and surprise?

 

[JDJblatherings]

I got started in martial arts about 25 years ago, about 2 years after that I got into recreation fightign and a couple years after that LARPS. I've ref'd, judged and marshalled at many dozens of events and been a participant or spectator at hundreds of fights ranging from 1 on 1 combats up to battles with hundreds of combatants on a side.
Front and back, matter.

One of the problems with your counter-example, is that there are benifits to a flanking manuever which do not have to do with the advantage 3.X calls 'flanking'. How can you separate out so clearly in your mind the advantages of 'flanking' from the advantages of concentration of force and of surprise involved with a flank attack? Doesn't 3.X already have mechanics which simulate concentration of force and surprise?

Diminshed ability to percieve and react into flank and rear spaces is one way to reflect realities of flanking and the capabilities of observation. 3e doesn't really have any good mechanics for concetration of force (some other d20 games do).

 

[qstor]

I don't love it, and think it fails in both terms of play (gamist), and being realistic (simulationist).

You could do it, using a lesser action (swift or imediate) to change it so it is not to onerous, but still not a fantastic adition to the game.

I highly doubt that 4e will have facing. Not in the sense like GURPS does for instance.

Mike

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Facing please. Some sort of facing rules accuratley reflect how melee combat actually works. You do have a front and a back. Mobs of fighters develop a momentum and move forward not in giant circles. folks that can think in circles sometimes win the battles. Look at historical write-ups of ancient and premodern warfare...forces do in fact line up and move forward towards each other.

Sure, but at the same time, I don't think you will find many actual examples of melee combat where one person approaches an opponent, then stands there and allows the opponent to walk around behind him and strike him in the back.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I got started in martial arts about 25 years ago, about 2 years after that I got into recreation fightign and a couple years after that LARPS. I've ref'd, judged and marshalled at many dozens of events and been a participant or spectator at hundreds of fights ranging from 1 on 1 combats up to battles with hundreds of combatants on a side.
Front and back, matter.

Ah, the age-old "martial arts expert on a roleplaying board insists his opinion is the right one".

Unfortunately, D&D is a complete abstraction of combat.