Why Did 3E Eliminate Facing?

[Stormonu]

If I recall, you could move up to 1/2 speed and still attack in 2e.

There was also some silliness in that a 2e round was a minute or so in length, so facing presumed that for the entire minute you had your back turned. Third edition tried to streamline things down and also presumed that you occupied all points of the square at all times. That assumption sort of necessitated acknowledging that you weren't facing any one direction. Since it also streamlined play, I find it a net positive design.

I agree with this; in 1E/2E, I seem to recall that if you were not priorly engaged with another opponent, you could turn to face the attacker, and I seem to recall rules where approaching the opponent, you had to fill up the front, then side ranks before you could get a shot at their back.

Still, there are instances I miss in 3E of being able to "sneak up" on foes or players who are "otherwise" engaged (I'm not talking flanking, I'm talking outright catching an otherwise engaged target in the back).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

adwyn has nailed the answer to the thread. Flanking rules were used to simplify and represent facing. However I think facing is a valid concept to re-introduce into the ruleset.

Like a lot of people on the boards, I am developing my own "Ideal D&D" ruleset and I see facing as an important part of the combat mechanics. Imagine if you will, that a character may perform a number of actions in a round (a major, a minor, and several "swift" actions that can typically be used to react to different things). Whenever a character uses any action, they may adjust their facing as a part of that action.

For example if a character is attacked from behind, they may react to this by spending a swift action to gain a shield bonus to AC as well as adjusting their facing (so they do not receive a penalty to AC from being attacked from behind).

Unlike most people here, I am looking to add a layer of compexity to the rules rather than simplify; but each to their own.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Beginning of the End]

The thread title asks the question. In AD&D, facing was a concern, though a minor one most of the time. 3E went to some lengths to eliminate it--such as replacing backstab with sneak attack, and introducing flanking--and it has just occurred to me to wonder why.

Facing had been eliminated in AD&D2, too. Backstab might have required you to "surprise them from behind", but there were no facing mechanics for determining that.

The "facing" mechanics in the DMG were completely abstracted: The first 3 guys fighting you were "in front"; the next 2 were "on your flanks"; and then the last guy would be to your "rear". That 6th guy would get bonuses to his attack roll.

Just like the 3E system, the AD&D2 system explicitly assumed that combatants were always working to prevent people from getting to their rear. And just like the 3E system, the only way to take advantage of that was to either surprise them or to get allies involved.