To Face or not to Face, that is the question

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I want to play a Rogue in Gaiden's campaign...

 

[DreamChaser]

I strongly prefer no facing. I also strongly prefer the squaring of all monsters. Having rectangular monsters flew directly in the face of the idea of no facing (which was, IIRC, the justification for making the change). With a horse, for example, there was always an obvious front or back but it didn't matter which was which. So a horse could either run backwards as easily as forwards or they could turn in a space narrower than they are long. Neither makes sense. Thus, everything square.

DC

 

[Chorn]

I hate to be the naysayer, but I can't stand the current lack of facing rules. It is completely unrealistic.

Unrealistic would be assuming a combatant only pays attention to one direction when he's fighting. If he does that, then you might as well treat him as helpless to anyone attacking his flank. As it is right now, each opponent would get a flanking bonus to represent the fact that he has to divide his attention between his attackers to make sure he doesn't get killed. You need to remember that part of the hitpoint mechanic is active defense.

Spot checks are penalized similarly (another thing that makes a lot of sense).

Not from where I'm standing. The entire point of Spot is that you're looking around, trying to be aware of your surroundings. This means you'll be looking around in all directions making sure you don't miss anything.

 

[Kyrail]

The one reason I can think of for facing is Spot checks and Darkvision. With the current rules, you can't hide within 60 feet of someone with darkvision. So you can't sneak past dwarves (and every other monster in the game) now?

You can role-play past this, but if you do it with NPCs a player *will* call you on it. Specially if they end up getting stabbed in the back... this and shadow negating sneak attacks are some of the reasons rogues just don't work as well as they should in certain situations in 3.5.

 

[dcollins]

With a horse, for example, there was always an obvious front or back but it didn't matter which was which. So a horse could either run backwards as easily as forwards or they could turn in a space narrower than they are long. Neither makes sense. Thus, everything square.

I have a hard time seeing how taking a problem, and then exacerbating the problem, results in a satisfying result.

 

[Menexenus]

There are facing rules in 3rd edition! (Disclaimer: I am still playing 3.0, so if this has been fixed in 3.5, I'd be interested to learn about it.)

Take a look at page 77 of the 3.0 DMG. Under the description for "Gaze Attacks" (2nd column, 3rd bullet, first sentence) the rule reads as follows: "An opponent can shut his eyes, turn his back on the creature, or wear a blindfold." If the rules specify that a character can turn his back on a creature, then there must be facing, right?

P.S. I'm being facetious here. I realize that the official word is that there is no facing in 3.x D&D. But because my party has a character with Eyes of Petrification, this line of text has always stuck out as odd to me.

 

[Henrix]

Keeping track of which direction you are facing when the round is six seconds long is ridiculous. Anyone who has trained anything like a martial art has probably practiced turning around in fractions of a second.

 

[Staffan]

The one reason I can think of for facing is Spot checks and Darkvision. With the current rules, you can't hide within 60 feet of someone with darkvision. So you can't sneak past dwarves (and every other monster in the game) now?

You can if you have cover.

Personally, I rule that "no facing" only applies in combat situations or similar, where you're making as sure as possible that your back is free (and if it's not, you turn around). In a non-combat situation, creatures do face certain ways.

 

[hong]

I like No Face.

 

[irdeggman]

Yes facing adds a whole lot of IMO unnecessary complexity to combat.

And the no facing rule really only pertains to combat situations not to others. Facing does matter when charging - that is once you move start you have to continue in that direction (i.e., the direction you are facing). IMO the same logic applies gaze type attacks, etc.

IMO Spot is not only referring to seeing things but it also includes hearing and all of those other things that make up sensing something. So despite the way the RAW leans towards sight based Spot check it makes a whole more sense to expand it to a processing of subliminal information which is why it is Wisdom based vice Int based (Search), at least IMO.

Also Spot can be reflexive and not active unlike Search.