To face or not to face...

[GaimMastr]

Prior agreement

So do you implement the mechanic but not tell your players (which sounds complicated) or do you like the concept and would want to implement it, but don't?
As I said before, if it works for you and your players, awesome. If not for everyone, I'd advise not including it.
My personal thoughts on Facing is it's a neat idea, but I don't need any more complexity to my combat than we already have, so I'd not be into it. I agree it is more realistic, but I prefer only a mild amount of realism in my D&D. Each person can flavor to taste.

I do let my players know in advance that I reserve the right to use UA to assist in adjudicating if the core books do not have suitable means of determining a rules quandary.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I do let my players know in advance that I reserve the right to use UA to assist in adjudicating if the core books do not have suitable means of determining a rules quandary.

Gotcha, makes sense to me.

 

[Scorpio616]

I Like the CONCEPT of facing, but NOT in an system like 3Era D&D. Anytime you have facing in a system where you take a full round of actions, then the next person takes a full round of actions while using facing, you'll see characters playing 'leapfrog' to get to a foes' back, then their next foe goes to their back. In a system where time distinctions are MUCH more granular, { move X' per second, attacking takes Y seconds) facing can work since by the time a foe moves to you back, you'll have had time to react and turn to face your incoming foe. Also facing can work in a system where the Characters declare actions, GM resolves the Round style rules systems.

5E hackmaster might be worth a look for you [MENTION=78167]GaimMastr[/MENTION]. http://www.kenzerco.com/product_info.php?cPath=25_94&products_id=862

 

[Jackinthegreen]

I'm not really a fan of facing when it comes to typical 3.5 D&D. It adds to much complexity in a game that already tends to be quite complex to play and run, although there are ways of simplifying it.

I view the facing rules as neither heretical or prophetic. They're simply variant rules that might be useful depending on how the players and DM want to play the game.

 

[GaimMastr]

UGH, Hackmaster?

I Like the CONCEPT of facing, but NOT in an system like 3Era D&D. Anytime you have facing in a system where you take a full round of actions, then the next person takes a full round of actions while using facing, you'll see characters playing 'leapfrog' to get to a foes' back, then their next foe goes to their back. In a system where time distinctions are MUCH more granular, { move X' per second, attacking takes Y seconds) facing can work since by the time a foe moves to you back, you'll have had time to react and turn to face your incoming foe. Also facing can work in a system where the Characters declare actions, GM resolves the Round style rules systems.

5E hackmaster might be worth a look for you @GaimMastr. http://www.kenzerco.com/product_info.php?cPath=25_94&products_id=862

Hackmaster SUCKED!

"Anytime you have facing in a system where you take a full round of actions, then the next person takes a full round of actions while using facing, you'll see characters playing 'leapfrog' to get to a foes' back, then their next foe goes to their back."

YEAH, BABY, YEAH! That's what a battle is about. That's jut the realism I'm looking for without having to use another system.

 

[monboesen]

But thats not realistic at all.

We tried using the facing rules for a short stint and had the same experience. People continually alternate moving behind their direct opponent.

Which in real life combat situations is almost impossible, as it takes far less time and effort to turn yourself than run around someone.

It also makes shields suck even harder than they already did. Since they apply to far less attacks.

So IME facing rules does not work well with D&D.

 

[GaimMastr]

But thats not realistic at all.

We tried using the facing rules for a short stint and had the same experience. People continually alternate moving behind their direct opponent.

Which in real life combat situations is almost impossible, as it takes far less time and effort to turn yourself than run around someone.

It also makes shields suck even harder than they already did. Since they apply to far less attacks.

So IME facing rules does not work well with D&D.

Having a shield cover the backside of you is equally unrealistic. That's why I made some clear delineation in my house rules for facing.

"-Old and new flanking rules are used in tandem. (i.e. There is a flanking condition amongst 2+ and there is a flank area.)"
" Facing (Unearthed Arcana)
As a free action once per round during your turn you may re-face your character (s). Additionally you may choose to remain facing in a static direction or "lock" onto an enemy and as a free action maintain facing with that enemy if they move.

In Hexes a shield covers 2 sides. In a square it covers 3."

I found that amongst my tables people found that circling around was an inefficient use of movement especially given the way AOO's work with regards to probabilities and possibilities of multiple provocations from moving around without the tumble skill at high enough ranks.

 

[monboesen]

OK then. So when you asked whether or not we liked the UA facing rules it was largely irrelevant as you yourself have had to remedy them in order to make it work.

Your houserules will make facing work better.

But you still shaft shield users big time. Shields usually gives a +2 AC bonus vs. attacks from 8 squares, and isn't even a strong option under those rules. If you now rule it only protects vs. attacks from 3 squares, the AC bonus needs to be increased significantly, if the shield is supposed to be a reasonable option.


One of the real issues that cropped up in our game was rogues with spring attack and high movement. Even fighting 1 on 1 they easily attacked from the rear and sneak attacked every round.

 

[GaimMastr]

Balance or OP, perspective.

OK then. So when you asked whether or not we liked the UA facing rules it was largely irrelevant as you yourself have had to remedy them in order to make it work.

Your houserules will make facing work better.

But you still shaft shield users big time. Shields usually gives a +2 AC bonus vs. attacks from 8 squares, and isn't even a strong option under those rules. If you now rule it only protects vs. attacks from 3 squares, the AC bonus needs to be increased significantly, if the shield is supposed to be a reasonable option.


One of the real issues that cropped up in our game was rogues with spring attack and high movement. Even fighting 1 on 1 they easily attacked from the rear and sneak attacked every round.

I had a player whine about the same problem once. The whole point of the house rule was to counterbalance the over-effectiveness of a shield. The assumption that it nerfs them is based upon the old mechanic. It was an adjustment about realism not balance.

As for Rouges and spring attack, well then I guess you just have to make sure you adjust your facing to follow them as an immediate action. This prevents that whole problem. Besides, the rule applies to rogues as well. They too have a flanked position, condition and rear area as well. Turnabout my friend, is fair play.

 

[monboesen]

I had a player whine about the same problem once. The whole point of the house rule was to counterbalance the over-effectiveness of a shield. The assumption that it nerfs them is based upon the old mechanic. It was an adjustment about realism not balance.

As for Rouges and spring attack, well then I guess you just have to make sure you adjust your facing to follow them as an immediate action. This prevents that whole problem. Besides, the rule applies to rogues as well. They too have a flanked position, condition and rear area as well. Turnabout my friend, is fair play.

You see Shields as effective? IME they are far surpassed by two-handed weapon and power attack ortwo weapon fighting and crit fishing.


As for the spring attacking rogue, it is not just a fair turnabout. A fighter gains a +2 bonus to attacks when attacking from the rear. The rogue gains the same bonus and a hefty damage bonus. Since the rogue and fighter now only get to make one attack each round due to moving, the rogue will now often defeat the fighter in single combat. Thats not turnabout, but rolereversal.