Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MarkAHart" data-source="post: 1618710" data-attributes="member: 20415">I would argue that 3.5 uses an abstraction, while 1st edition is being concrete.  3.5 does not include facing on the assumption an opponent is not going to knowingly permit an enemy to come at him from the rear.  If a creature is aware of an incoming foe, it will adjust its facing to meet the new threat.  A reasonable assumption.  Someone aware of an attacker would realistically adjust his facing if he had the option.This ruleset avoids bogging combat with specifics of what direction everyone is facing at any moment.  In combat, participants move, shift, dodge, etc.  This is similar to the abstraction used (in both editions) with what square a target occupies.  Opponents do not remain in the same 5-ft. square in a fight; they move around and change positions.  Rather than pin this down, the rules assume it happens without players worrying about positioning.If a creature engaged in melee combat suddenly faces enemies on opposing flanks, both attackers receive a +2 attack bonus.  If one of those attackers is a rogue, he can make a sneak attack each round he is one of the flankers.  In 1st ed., a thief had to attack from the rear or rear flanks to backstab.  In 3rd edition, the thief only needs to catch his enemy unawares from any side -- rear or not.This abstraction has the effect of offering characters more options in 3rd edition compared to 1st, even though the latter specifies facing of combatants.  Characters no longer need attack from one side; they can gain advantage through teamwork and come at the most advantageous side.  If a rogue attacks with surprise (e.g., hide), the exact directon of attack is immaterial -- he can make a sneak attack (flatfooted opponent) and the opponent loses his AC DEX bonus.  Indeed, any time a combatant is caught flat-footed, he loses his AC DEX bonus, regardless of the angle of attack.The point about the shield in combat, however, is well taken.  In 1st edition, as was pointed out, an opponent caught from behind lost the benefit of the shield's AC bonus.  This is not true in 3rd edition.  If there are any rules regarding this, I have not see them.</blockquote>

Verification