UA Facing?

[Saeviomagy]

Scenario: Lone rogue vs melee combatant.

rnd 1:
Combatant moves and attacks

Rogue spring attacks, moves behind his opponent, sneak attacks, continues moving out of reach.

rnd 2:
Combatant moves and attacks

...

This is far superior to the old routine where the rogue wouldn't get sneak attacks without something more than just moving about a bit.

Worse still is using ranged attacks - the rogue just needs to tumble to a rear arc out of reach and then SA every round. No feat investment required.

This is a really awful variant. Complex, unbalanced, unrealistic and not very fun.

 

[JEL]

Am I the only one who thought it weird that the varient used facing along with the square spaces. The non-square, 3.0 spaces would make a lot more sense if using facing.

 

[Silveras]

Scenario: Lone rogue vs melee combatant.

rnd 1:
Combatant moves and attacks

Rogue spring attacks, moves behind his opponent, sneak attacks, continues moving out of reach.

rnd 2:
Combatant moves and attacks

...

This is far superior to the old routine where the rogue wouldn't get sneak attacks without something more than just moving about a bit.

Worse still is using ranged attacks - the rogue just needs to tumble to a rear arc out of reach and then SA every round. No feat investment required.

This is a really awful variant. Complex, unbalanced, unrealistic and not very fun.

1) the variant does not allow ranged sneak attacks.

A rogue can strike for sneak attack damage whenever her foe is flat-footed or whenever she's attacking with a melee weapon from the foe's rear area.

2) I always find examples like these useless; they are almost always highly contrived, and highlight a specific tactic. The Rogue, in this case, is showcased as clever enough to combine Spring Attack with Sneak Attack. The defender, on the other hand, is shown as being stupid enough to let the Rogue lead him around. If we tried, I am sure we could come up with 6 or 7 equally one-sided fights using the standard rules.

Yes, Spring Attack and Sneak Attack can be a powerful combination. So can others. This variant changes which are more effective, opening up the game for people who like to apply more tactics and less abstraction. That involves changing your thinking a bit.

Let me be clear: I have not yet tried this variant. However, this variant is pretty much how I learned to play AD&D in 1st and 2nd Edition. In that sense, it is "standard" for me. Maybe that means I am biased toward it; I prefer to think I am just willing to wait and see how it works before condemning it.

 

[Silveras]

Am I the only one who thought it weird that the varient used facing along with the square spaces. The non-square, 3.0 spaces would make a lot more sense if using facing.

But the non-square, 3.0 spaces are no longer "standard", and would require that Unearthed Arcana list every monster's space as part of the variant, or at least rules for determining the space for various creature types.

 

[Umbran]

Scenario: Lone rogue vs melee combatant.

Actually, it's more like "Scenario: Somewhat optimized long rogue vs non-optimized melee combatant". You specifically grant the rogue two feats, but don't grant the melee combatant any. That's not an even comparison.

 

[TracerBullet42]

Scenario: Lone rogue vs melee combatant.

rnd 1:
Combatant moves and attacks

Rogue spring attacks, moves behind his opponent, sneak attacks, continues moving out of reach.

rnd 2:
Combatant moves and attacks

...

This is far superior to the old routine where the rogue wouldn't get sneak attacks without something more than just moving about a bit.

Worse still is using ranged attacks - the rogue just needs to tumble to a rear arc out of reach and then SA every round. No feat investment required.

This is a really awful variant. Complex, unbalanced, unrealistic and not very fun.

Not very fun? So you've made up your mind then already, eh? Remember that a rogue gets no bonus feats...so spring attacks aren't quite as easy for him as you make it sound. Assume a human rogue and you'll still need at least 6 levels to get spring attack.

And ranged attacks from the rear don't gain SA damage...only melee weapons. Ranged attacks require the target be denied its DEX.

 

[Newbie]

oops