Facing

[Crow_Nightfeath]

So the number one thing I've learned is that "facing" isn't a thing in D&D or Pathfinder (my group plays both).
My main question is why isn't it?

And if my group were to try implementing it, does anyone have suggestions for possible rules?

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's an official variant for that in Unearthed Arcana. Also here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm

[Unavenger]

Largely, the problem is that it doesn't make much sense. The turn-based system is an abstraction, the idea being that your characters are actually all fundamentally acting at around the same time as each other. The UA solution of having a character able to rotate as much as they like on their own turn, but then not able to turn to face threats (or, in the optional rule's optional rule, even move their shield into the way, which anyone proficient in shields should be able to do) for the whole of the rest of the round breaks that idea into pieces.

The only time you can't turn to face each individual threats is when there are multiple threats, which is good for a +2 bonus on attack rolls and additional perks if you're a rogue.

[Thurbane]

I've played in a game using facing rules from UA/SRD and I found it painful as a player. YMMV.

[NotASpiderSwarm]

Beyond everything else mentioned, it's added complexity in combat that really doesn't need the added work. The battlemat is important enough already, don't add more to it.

[SquidFighter]

It does kind of screw with gaze attacks though.

I remember a couple of encounters where we were simply playing the rules, even though it implied that the creature was looking in every and all directions every round, which completely ruined immersion.

Sneak also becomes somewhat conveluted with the whole ''In plain sight'' thing, since everyone is apparently facing every possible direction at every given time.

That said, I understand why you also don't want to fiddle with facing all the time. It's honestly a tough design challenge and I can't blame anyone who keeps it simple.

[Falontani]

I think that if you were to use facing rules you need to implement better systems than the ones presented.
The following is completely off the top of my head with no actual balance implemented!

On your turn you must choose a way to face, and may change your facing at any point during your turn; anything within 180 degrees of your front side is considered your front arc. Anything within 90 degrees directly behind you is within your back arc, and is flanking, even if you have no other targets present. You suffer a -1 penalty to spot within the two 45 degree sections adjacent to your front arc, and a -4 penalty to spot in your back arc.

You may spend a swift action at the end of your turn to allow you to change your facing at any point until the end of your next turn (even when it is not your action).
You may spend an immediate action at any point to change your facing immediately.

If you are holding a shield then you may spend a move action to add 2 to your shield's AC bonus against anything within your front arc until the beginning of your next turn.

When using a tower shield to provide yourself cover, it only grants you total cover against your front arc.

Gaze attacks target creatures as appropriate only within your front arc, and a creature whose front arc is pointing towards you may still attempt to avoid your gaze via temporarily blinding themselves (closing their eyes). A creature who directs their back arc towards you is immune to your gaze attack within reason (reflective surfaces, not needing to meet your gaze, etc).

Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge allow you to treat all squares within their reach as their front arc when it benefits them, however past their reach still follow normal facing rules.


I think I got the important stuff?

[Psyren]

I remember a couple of encounters where we were simply playing the rules, even though it implied that the creature was looking in every and all directions every round, which completely ruined immersion.

Why wouldn't it look at the things it's fighting? If anything, ruling that it is staring at a fixed point regardless of what the enemy is up to is what would ruin the immersion. The "avert/cover eyes" rules are enough to help your players avoid it.



Sneak also becomes somewhat conveluted with the whole ''In plain sight'' thing, since everyone is apparently facing every possible direction at every given time.

If people are on the lookout then that's exactly what they're doing. If they aren't, then they are likely distracted by something else - which either applies a penalty, or is so consuming of their attention that a roll isn't necessary at all.

[SquidFighter]

Why wouldn't it look at the things it's fighting? If anything, ruling that it is staring at a fixed point regardless of what the enemy is up to is what would ruin the immersion. The "avert/cover eyes" rules are enough to help your players avoid it.

I think it works fine in low numbers. Say the creature is fighting one, two or three opponents, then it's fine, locking eyes with three individuals in 6 seconds is reasonable. The problem is it doesn't have an upper limit : so it's true for one, and for any number of foes you can cram within perceptible range.

It also has no bearing on sneak, so even if the creature is unaware of your presence, you're affected. How you can lock eyes with someone (or 12 people) you can't see is beyond me.