Say the character had a chance to flank attack, but could only double move that turn to get to his target, who was then next in initiative order
The target did have the PC to his side, but wants to just turn and strike.
Does that cost a move action to turn or do you just do it and roll for the strike?
|
Does that cost a move action to turn or do you just do it and roll for the strike?
Turning within your square is a free action because there are no facing rules in PF. Technically, there is no front, or behind, or either side. All that matters is that the opponent is in a square you threaten.
-Skeld
There is no facing in Pathfinder, so it's a non-action to turn around and attack.
The question is, would implementing the facing rules (from 3.5) impact Pathfinder in any negative way? I only ask because our group really does like the facing rules.
I can't see why it would affect PFRPG myself, but I am not sure if I am missing something, like it impacting a feat, or an odd rule, etc.
The question is, would implementing the facing rules (from 3.5) impact Pathfinder in any negative way? I only ask because our group really does like the facing rules.
I can't see why it would affect PFRPG myself, but I am not sure if I am missing something, like it impacting a feat, or an odd rule, etc.
There was facing rules in 3.5? o.O
The question is, would implementing the facing rules (from 3.5) impact Pathfinder in any negative way? I only ask because our group really does like the facing rules.
I can't see why it would affect PFRPG myself, but I am not sure if I am missing something, like it impacting a feat, or an odd rule, etc.
3.X didn't have facing either, except for very specific instances (shield spell and tower shield) The entire system of flanking rules is based on not having facing, and it would make it much easier for sneaky characters to gank people "facing the wrong way".
3.X didn't have facing either, except for very specific instances (shield spell and tower shield) The entire system of flanking rules is based on not having facing, and it would make it much easier for sneaky characters to gank people "facing the wrong way".The question is, would implementing the facing rules (from 3.5) impact Pathfinder in any negative way? I only ask because our group really does like the facing rules.
I can't see why it would affect PFRPG myself, but I am not sure if I am missing something, like it impacting a feat, or an odd rule, etc.
I’m talking about the optional facing rules that I believe was first seen in the Unearthed Arcana. I know the base rules did not have facing for 3.5 (or 3.0 for that matter).
But yes, there were facing rules, they were just optional. And we had used them. I am just curious if they can be used as easily with Pathfinder, or would there be an abstract or odd rule I am missing, or a feat (or feats) that wouldn’t work well with it.
There was facing rules in 3.5? o.OThe question is, would implementing the facing rules (from 3.5) impact Pathfinder in any negative way? I only ask because our group really does like the facing rules.
I can't see why it would affect PFRPG myself, but I am not sure if I am missing something, like it impacting a feat, or an odd rule, etc.
It's in Unearthed Arcana And also here (most of that book was open content)
|
3.X didn't have facing either, except for very specific instances (shield spell and tower shield) The entire system of flanking rules is based on not having facing, and it would make it much easier for sneaky characters to gank people "facing the wrong way".The question is, would implementing the facing rules (from 3.5) impact Pathfinder in any negative way? I only ask because our group really does like the facing rules.
I can't see why it would affect PFRPG myself, but I am not sure if I am missing something, like it impacting a feat, or an odd rule, etc.
I’m talking about the optional facing rules that I believe was first seen in the Unearthed Arcana. I know the base rules did not have facing for 3.5 (or 3.0 for that matter).
But yes, there were facing rules, they were just optional. And we had used them. I am just curious if they can be used as easily with Pathfinder, or would there be an abstract or odd rule I am missing, or a feat (or feats) that wouldn’t work well with it.
PRPG is designed to be fully compatible with 3.5, so there should* not be issues with adding 3.5 optional rules.
*'should' by no means translates as 'will'.
And to my reading, changing facing is a Free action, but you can only do it once per round, making it more of a swift action in PRPG terms.
I’m talking about the optional facing rules that I believe was first seen in the Unearthed Arcana. I know the base rules did not have facing for 3.5 (or 3.0 for that matter).
But yes, there were facing rules, they were just optional. And we had used them. I am just curious if they can be used as easily with Pathfinder, or would there be an abstract or odd rule I am missing, or a feat (or feats) that wouldn’t work well with it.
I like that quote from the designers of UA about UA:
[...]think before using options that may radically imbalance the game
I don't think that facing rules from a 3.5 Supplement will break Pathfinder more than they would break 3.5, after all those years people keeps being flanked in the same way.
If you have already tested those optional rules for 3.5, try'em for pathfinder and tell us :D
PRPG is designed to be fully compatible with 3.5, so there should* not be issues with adding 3.5 optional rules.
*'should' by no means translates as 'will'.
Well, no offense to Paizo, but however much it is stated PFPRG is fully compatible to 3.5, there are obvious differences where things don't mesh as well.
But your ‘should’ is why I am asking the question, I am trying to get rid of the ‘should’ and get clarification that it is compatible. I don’t ‘think’ there would be a problem, but I am not as familiar with the ruleset as most of the rest of you.
|
Well, no offense to Paizo, but however much it is stated PFPRG is fully compatible to 3.5, there are obvious differences where things don't mesh as well.But your ‘should’ is why I am asking the question, I am trying to get rid of the ‘should’ and get clarification that it is compatible. I don’t ‘think’ there would be a problem, but I am not as familiar with the ruleset as most of the rest of you.
So ... you say that you are not familiar with the ruleset BUT you know that things don't mesh well. WTF ?
|
|
PRPG is designed to be fully compatible with 3.5, so there should* not be issues with adding 3.5 optional rules.
*'should' by no means translates as 'will'.
Well, no offense to Paizo, but however much it is stated PFPRG is fully compatible to 3.5, there are obvious differences where things don't mesh as well.
But your ‘should’ is why I am asking the question, I am trying to get rid of the ‘should’ and get clarification that it is compatible. I don’t ‘think’ there would be a problem, but I am not as familiar with the ruleset as most of the rest of you.
But the rest of us generally aren't familiar with the facing optional rules. Hell, most of us don't even know they exist, and few have actually used them.
|
|
Paizo never stated that their rules set is "fully compatible" especialy with splats. The highest level of compatibility is with thier older modules then the CORE rules and everything else on a descending level. The only way to be "fully compatible" was to have done nothing other than reprint the SRD Mongoose style and slap a new cover on it.
Well, no offense to Paizo, but however much it is stated PFPRG is fully compatible to 3.5, there are obvious differences where things don't mesh as well.
Ok, so 'fully compatible' is my bad. It's designed to be 'Mostly Compatible'. Still don't see any reason this option wouldn't work.
|
Well, no offense to Paizo, but however much it is stated PFPRG is fully compatible to 3.5, there are obvious differences where things don't mesh as well.PRPG is designed to be fully compatible with 3.5, so there should* not be issues with adding 3.5 optional rules.
*'should' by no means translates as 'will'.
Try it and find out. As far as I can tell there isn't a lot of differences that would make pathfinder more or less facing friendly than 3.5.
I don't think many people used those rules under 3.5 so you aren't likely to find a lot of people familiar with using it with pathfinder.
So ... you say that you are not familiar with the ruleset BUT you know that things don't mesh well. WTF ?
Well, no offense to Paizo, but however much it is stated PFPRG is fully compatible to 3.5, there are obvious differences where things don't mesh as well.But your ‘should’ is why I am asking the question, I am trying to get rid of the ‘should’ and get clarification that it is compatible. I don’t ‘think’ there would be a problem, but I am not as familiar with the ruleset as most of the rest of you.
You don’t need to be 100% familiar with the ruleset to know that some things do not mesh well. And I am not saying this to be critical of Paizo, from what I have seen and played of Pathfinder, I love the system. I just have never agreed with the statement of fully compatible with 3.5.
I don't think many people used those rules under 3.5 so you aren't likely to find a lot of people familiar with using it with pathfinder.
I was not aware that little here played with the optional facing rules. Thanks for everyone’s input.
|
|
In answer to the original question which btw has nothing to do with the facing rules. The target can turn and strike but has to do it on it's own turn. Just like all other actions. The only exception is the immediate action which can be done as reactive interrupt but most combat actions including movement and attacks don't fall into interrupts.
The exception would be if the player's movement had provoked an attack of opportunity. I don't recall the facing rules to see if they impact the standard AOO mechanics.
It actually has a lot to do with the facing rules, since they specifically deal with turning. Without the facing rule turning is a non-action, you can effectivly face as many directions in a round as you have too.
But the rest of us generally aren't familiar with the facing optional rules. Hell, most of us don't even know they exist, and few have actually used them.They appeared in the very short-lived Rules Compendium as an optional set of rules. A quick run through of them reminded me why facing became optional.
Prior to the Rules Compendium they were in the UA, so somebody thought they were worth reprinting.
[Prior to the Rules Compendium they were in the UA, so somebody thought they were worth reprinting.Someone also thought the Complete Psionic was worth printing too. :)
Not sure what your issues are with facing, but we have been using them since inception and it has worked very well for us. I feel it makes more sense as you aren't always going to be facing the right direction when making an attack or defending against someone, and if you try to attack someone behind you or to the side, it is going to be more difficult unless you face their actual direction. Same applies when attacking someone from behind, it’s going to be a lot easier to do so.
Not sure what your issues are with facing...My issues with facing are that it becomes another thing to keep track of, while simultaneously adding nothing useful to the game. It simply isn't worth the added bookkeeping, in my opinion.
-Skeld
*shrugs* To each their own. But it really isn’t that much added work, at least it has become second nature for us while playing and we are able to keep the combat moving quickly.
Before playing PFRPG or 3.5, people should go outside and mark off a 5 foot by 5 foot area. While it's not a large area for something like a room, it's still a fairly large area. This is what each of those squares means on those maps. When you see a miniature taking up the whole of the space, it can skew your mind into thinking the volume of the space is being filled by that person, but in actuality think of the number of people you can fit in an elevator (probably a little wider than five foot, but a close enough approximation.
It's not too difficult to think of a skilled fantastic fighter defending himself from uncoordinated attacks in an area that big from different directions. So, even if I'm facing forward and someone approaches from my left attacking, it's not too difficult to see someone dodging a bit to the right to avoid the attack. That's why there are things like Dex bonus to AC. Now, if two people come from either side, you can't dodge the opposite direction as easily because of the other combatant, thus flanking bonuses.
Some people will ask what about the person coming up from behind, well, if they're sneaking, than that means your flat-footed. If they're not sneaking, it's pretty quick to adjust your defense and turn around in a five foot square. I've never really found it all that useful to worry about facing in the game. After all, for the most part, these characters we're playing are the Neo's, Jackie Chans, Korben Dallas's, and Aragorn's.
If you want realism, go join the SCA.
Take it easy. I didn’t realize there was so much animosity towards facing.
Another factor is I just like the extra options facing gives with the additional modifiers involved in attacks. I can see your point, but again, I do feel facing makes more sense. Where D&D/Pathfinder is ‘not reality’ it is nice when you can inject as much realism in mechanics as possible so you can relate to it more.
Where, I agree, a skilled fighter can defend himself at all angles, it is of course not going to be as easy if someone is coming up to him from behind. Therefore, the +10 to hit for the attacker (when attacking from behind).
But won’t approach anything else on the subject as it is technically off-topic and if people are going to get snippety about it.
Take it easy. I didn’t realize there was so much animosity towards facing.
Another factor is I just like the extra options facing gives with the additional modifiers involved in attacks. I can see your point, but again, I do feel facing makes more sense. Where D&D/Pathfinder is ‘not reality’ it is nice when you can inject as much realism in mechanics as possible so you can relate to it more.
Where, I agree, a skilled fighter can defend himself at all angles, it is of course not going to be as easy if someone is coming up to him from behind. Therefore, the +10 to hit for the attacker (when attacking from behind).
But won’t approach anything else on the subject as it is technically off-topic and if people are going to get snippety about it.
Did not intend to be terse. My final comment was meant more as a funny than anything. I'm a big fan of doing what works best with the group of people you're playing with.
Take it easy. I didn’t realize there was so much animosity towards facing.
Another factor is I just like the extra options facing gives with the additional modifiers involved in attacks. I can see your point, but again, I do feel facing makes more sense. Where D&D/Pathfinder is ‘not reality’ it is nice when you can inject as much realism in mechanics as possible so you can relate to it more.
Where, I agree, a skilled fighter can defend himself at all angles, it is of course not going to be as easy if someone is coming up to him from behind. Therefore, the +10 to hit for the attacker (when attacking from behind).
But won’t approach anything else on the subject as it is technically off-topic and if people are going to get snippety about it.
You're just lucky you didn't ask about hide in plain sight.
|
|
Not sure what your issues are with facing, but we have been using them since inception and it has worked very well for us. I feel it makes more sense as you aren't always going to be facing the right direction when making an attack or defending against someone, and if you try to attack someone behind you or to the side, it is going to be more difficult unless you face their actual direction. Same applies when attacking someone from behind, it’s going to be a lot easier to do so.[Prior to the Rules Compendium they were in the UA, so somebody thought they were worth reprinting.Someone also thought the Complete Psionic was worth printing too. :)I find them counter-intuitive ever since a couple of watchings of "Gladiator". The facing rules treat figures in combat that much more like immobile chess pieces. You don't stand around in combat, especially if it's in a mixed mash of foes, you're constantly moving and spinning around to meet (and threathen) your various threats.
Also in a practical sense, when I've got a fixed time of four hours to complete a module at a convention the last thing I want is more complications in handling combat, when there is nothing that adding such does for the game.
Conventions? I thought we were talking about optional/houserules for someones home game.
Yep, no mention of conventions or making the rules standard.
Seriously...