Facing rules

[Boci]

One of my players has been making references about enemies not being able to see him because they are looking the other way for quite some time (not persistent enough to be annoying, but enough to show me they are bothered by a lack of rules covering such an issue). Does anyone have some homebrew rules for which direction a creature is facing? Also, what are your opinions on such rules? Personally I wouldn't mind including them, but I doubt it would be possible without more effort than it is worth.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Here you go (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm)

[Boci]

Here you go (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm)

Just as I feared. Easy enough to memorize given time, but a lot of effort to enforce. Do you have any expirience with these variant rules?

[Dusk Eclipse]

TBH I haven't really used them; I just knew they existed in a 1st party source. I guess if your players have some Wargaming experience it won't be that difficult to get used to them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think I'll use those facing rules in my campaign, I always wanted to see how they worked, didn't know they had official 1st party rules for it in 3.5.

[Firechanter]

I strongly advocate against Facing rules. For one thing, a combat round lasts 6 seconds. That is a bloody long time. Imagine (or get up from your chair and try out) how often you can wheel around 90 or 180° in six seconds. The sheer idea that someone could walk up to me from behind and start hitting me and I wasn't able to turn and face him for a _tenth of a minute_ is downright ridiculous and blows Suspension of Disbelief to a fine red mist.

Ignoring Facing is one of the things that 3.X does right. Don't change what isn't broken, is my suggestion.

[Zeikstraal]

Everything what Firechanter said and: When you are in combat, it doesn't matter if your wielding a Sword or if you are Boxing or shooting with a Kakashnikov. You are standing in a fighting position. And it all looks like a traditional boxing stance. So you are balanced, you have a well devensible pose, and you can look 360 degrees with only a slight twist of your body. So you can see everyone, also the one stands behind you.

[Morph Bark]

TBH I haven't really used them; I just knew they existed in a 1st party source. I guess if your players have some Wargaming experience it won't be that difficult to get used to them.

Unless they are only familiar with LotR wargaming, since that doesn't have any facing rules.

[Curmudgeon]

As someone who plays Rogues a lot I don't like these rules. You lose the ability to sneak attack someone you're flanking, just so they'll have a "behind" direction in which you're able to sneak attack them. But your careful approach from their blind side can be for naught if they simply rotate a little bit. Basically sneak attack goes from predictable (with a flanking partner) to random chance. And someone with excellent perception (Spot skill) goes from high situational awareness to completely clueless (or mostly clueless with that Combat Awareness "feat tax" which the facing rules impose) if you just pick the right approach direction.

[Greenish]

Imagine (or get up from your chair and try out) how often you can wheel around 90 or 180° in six seconds.I can probably do it more often whilst sitting in my chair. Whee!

[Jack Zander]

I can probably do it more often whilst sitting in my chair. Whee!

I was frantically trying to find the "like" button for this quote, then I realized I'm not on Facebook.

[Divide by Zero]

Isn't "happened to be facing in the right direction at the time" part of the point of a Spot check?

[Telonius]

I think that facing rules did exist as a normal rule in 3.0 (and probably older editions as well - some of the grognards could clarify). I'm under the impression they were ditched in 3.5 because they were a massive pain in the rear to adjudicate.

If you were going to do a fully "realistic"* approach to what can hit what, imagine how much of a headache it would be to run a Dragon. One area of attack for each set of claws and wings, one for the bite, one for the tail. You'd rarely get a full attack in.

* - that's even leaving aside Firechanter's excellent point.

[Curmudgeon]

I think that facing rules did exist as a normal rule in 3.0
I don't recall any such thing for 3.0, and a search in the 3.0 SRD came up with Gust of Wind, Locate Creature, and similar instances using the word "facing". Certainly the rules for sneak attack, which vary greatly when facing are introduced, are the same as for 3.5.

[Cyrion]

GURPS has also has facing rules that might be of interest to you, but like others have already said, I think you're better off not worrying about it. For your player, I'd let him do quick contests of his Hide or Move Silently vs. a Spot or Listen any time you think he'd reasonably be sneaking up on someone. Give him bonuses or penalties to the roll as appropriate and also come up with some good consequences (both for excellent success and excellent failure).

[Telonius]

I don't recall any such thing for 3.0, and a search in the 3.0 SRD came up with Gust of Wind, Locate Creature, and similar instances using the word "facing". Certainly the rules for sneak attack, which vary greatly when facing are introduced, are the same as for 3.5.

Just looked it up in the SRD - I was thinking of "Face/Reach." (It's been a long time...) The term "Face" there didn't actually mean which direction the critter is facing. It was more like "Space" in 3.5, except it could often be rectangular rather than square.

[Aricandor]

Well, consider this. How often have you, in real life, had situations where you stroll about, hearing and seeing nobody around, only to as if by instinct turn your head right towards someone who was standing around without you noticing at first? :smallsmile:

My group tried the facing rules and found them cumbersome and too much effort.
As a sort of houserule I go with loose facing out of combat ("That guard is standing with his back to that wall so you can if you Move Silently just wander across the path behind the porticulis he's guarding without making Hide rolls" and so on), but as soon as initiative is called it's probably best to just go with the game's default assumption that combatants are aware and smart enough to at least glance around when opportunity arises to make sure they're not getting blindsided. If the player then wants to sneak up on that guard from their position to stab it, they get a +2 circumstance bonus to the Hide roll.

You could also extend it to quick warning calls from allies to make the "all-round awareness" justification cover even more ground.

[ffone]

Isn't "happened to be facing in the right direction at the time" part of the point of a Spot check?

This.

DnD facing rules are flanking and flat-footedness. The target is presumed to wheel around as needed unless unaware, unable, or sufficiently distracted.

Final Fantasy Tactics had facing, everyone got damage bonuses for backstabs, and it had a move + standard attack system kinda like dnd (and no full attacks)...so a duel consisted of two guys taking turns standing still while the other runs behind (no AoOs) and backstabs. Looked silly and wasted time. AND flanking buddies had NEGATIVE synergy...,since only one guy can fit behind the foe.

[Dsurion]

Final Fantasy Tactics had facing, everyone got damage bonuses for backstabs, and it had a move + standard attack system kinda like dnd (and no full attacks)...so a duel consisted of two guys taking turns standing still while the other runs behind (no AoOs) and backstabs. Looked silly and wasted time. AND flanking buddies had NEGATIVE synergy...,since only one guy can fit behind the foe.I know not this "facing", only Blade Grasp! :smalltongue: I always thought Thieves should've had some sort of innate backstabbery in that game because of their crappy melee weapons and low attack power, especially since it was a facing-based game.

On topic, though...

I'm going to agree with the needless complexity party, and I usually like facing rules. The system as presented just seems incredibly cumbersome. I've never played with these rules, but it just seems like an extra time sink with attacks of opportunity and a lot of "I move one space forward, face this way, move one space forward, face that way," etc. for just one move action.

Too much added on with no real benefit.