Unearthed Arcana facing variant rules - anyone use?

[GlassJaw]

I've been thinking about creating a more "realistic" set of d20 rules and one thing I've been looking at is facing. I reread the rules in UA and was wondering if anyone has any experience with them.

My first thought was that they would slow down combat even more although I would be applying these rules to a very low-magic campaign so spells and magic items wouldn't really be a factor.

I like the fact that being in a flank or rear position offers different modifiers. I also like the concept of a definitive back and front - which really lends itself well to a campaign in which stealth is extremely important.

So I'm just looking for some general comments on the facing rules as a whole and how they work in actual play. Thanks!

 

[Ryltar]

I'm planning to use them in an upcoming homebrew CS. I've done a few test runs, and IMO it's really a thing that comes down to your group's style of playing. If they like tactical movement and stuff, they will love the facing rules, just because it creates a lot more options than the original rules. On the other hand, if your group's tactics consist of "Charge the enemy!", then you'd best leave this untouched.

It doesn't really slow down combat any, once you've gotten used to it. I was almost tempted to introduce hex grids, too, just because it provides me with more facing options ...

 

[GlassJaw]

If they like tactical movement and stuff, they will love the facing rules, just because it creates a lot more options than the original rules.

More options is good but I just don't want combat to be any slower. The campaign I envision will be extremely light on magic so the extra combat options might be nice.

Do you find that sneak attack becomes more powerful or weaker?

I was almost tempted to introduce hex grids, too, just because it provides me with more facing options

I agree. I've always been intrigued by hexes. I wouldn't have much use for my Tact-Tiles anymore though so I doubt I'll go that route. I actually think facing is easier with a square grid.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

the genral modifiers and such for facing in the UA work fine but the facing examples for diagonal and head on are off. Some creatures are at an advantage if they are facing diagonally or vice versa, not noticing that and adjusting for it might make combat a little twonky.

 

[Snapdragyn]

When UA came out, I rather liked the idea (as I do a lot of the variant rules). I'm now in a campaign that actually uses facing, & I HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT!!!!!

Facing basically kills sneak attack when you're against anything with even a modicum of intelligence. Tumble around to the rear (the only area from which you can sneak attack), get a standard attack... & your opponent simply rotates to place you in the flank or front. You will never get a full attack action using sneak attack against an intelligent foe. Never. With the standard rules, a foe with brains can certainly try to move out of flanking, but a) they may not be able to do so because of other factors (terrain, your allies blocking squares) & b) either they 5' & then you can do the same to get back into flanking position, or they draw an AoO to move further. With facing, they simply rotate -- no AoO, & they can force you to take a move action EVERY time.

I quit playing my rogue in that campaign because of this, & now find that even my barbarian is handicapped by the facing rules (though not as severely). Kill a foe... yay, Cleave! Oh wait, the second target is in my flank, so I'm making that attack at a penalty because I can't rotate since I already moved this round. Well, at least it isn't a target behind me because then the penalty would be even more severe! If you think Cleave (& Great Cleave) are broken, then I guess it's a good thing, but if you thought they were balanced in the basic rules consider how this is going to nerf them.

Movement past foes becomes more of a pain for non-Tumblers. Do I go past at full speed & take an AoO in my flank, or do I move past sideways to avoid giving them that bonus but then I can only move at half speed? :/

Finally, I find that facing does not work well with 3.5 square spacing rules. The whole concept of square space for all creatures is based on the idea that they are turning & moving during combat. Facing is based on the opposing idea that they are focusing in one direction & not turning around. Square spacing & lack of facing are logically necessary companion rules, & it just bugs me to see centaurs taking up a 10'x10' area but only facing one way (just as it would bug be to see them in a 10'x5' area with no facing).

Certainly my last point can be hand-waved if you're OK suspending a bit of logic, & the movement point can be viewed as part of the package. I would suggest that you think very carefully, however, about just how much power you want to take away from your rogues, & how many feats are being unintentionally nerfed by facing. I'm not going to bother with Great Cleave in that campaign unless we nix the facing (so far the vote is about even, but we bring it up almost every session), & I'd never again play a rogue with facing -- scout for skirmish, or forget the rogue archetype altogether.

 

[monboesen]

Tried them out too. Ditched the mafter a couple of sessions. The facing rules did not bring enough positive things to the game to be worth the hassle.

And the spring attacking rogue could do things that just seemed so stupid. Like standing 10 ft. from a guy and sudden run forward, past him and sneak attack him in the rear without the foe being able to prevent it.

As for sneaking and determing facing I now try to judge each instance case by case. If the groups main fighter is duking it out with some orcs I will assume that the orcs are facing him until other dangers present themselves and so on. In the example I would let the partys rogue sneak attack one of the orcs with her bow from her hiding place in the bushes.

The orcs would then be aware of the danger.

 

[Ryltar]

Do you find that sneak attack becomes more powerful or weaker?

In my opinion, it becomes what it's supposed to be: an extremely powerful attack, but one that cannot be made every turn. For an explanation, please see below .

Snapdragyn: I think the problem is not with the facing rules, but rather with a different understanding of what sneak attacks are supposed to be. For me, there is nothing, and I repeat: nothing more unrealistic than a rogue that is sneak attacking at every turn just because he's flanking. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that an enemy is now able to actually avoid being sneak attacked at every turn ... think about it. You get attacked by two guys. One does 10 damage to you every round, the other 30. Yet, because facing is abstract in the RAW, you cannot turn toward the one attacker that is obviously exploiting weaknesses in your armor or defense - you have to take his attacks, no matter what, the only option is killing one flanker before they kill you or moving away, thus drawing AoO. By the UA rules, you may now turn towards the enemy that - obviously! - is putting more hurtin' on you, and deny him that opportunity. I think that it doesn't invalidate sneak attacks, in fact, it makes them perfectly viable in the way I envision them. YMMV, of course .

and re: Glassjaw: By the definition I have put forth, sneak attacks become more difficult to employ, but not less powerful - they just don't happen as much. If your understanding of sneaking is different, of course, you might argue that it takes away some of the options the rogue class currently has. I say it's for the better, because the rogue now has to actually think about his movement instead of just doing the old "well, we'll flank him" thing. If you feel that it is too difficult to employ, or too harsh on the rogue, you might consider upping the sneak attack damage, maybe to 1d8 per "level".

I agree. I've always been intrigued by hexes. I wouldn't have much use for my Tact-Tiles anymore though so I doubt I'll go that route. I actually think facing is easier with a square grid.

Yep, same problem here. Also, hexes are so ... old-school