|
This was a rule in 3.5, but for some reason I didn't find it in PF, so if you could direct me I'd be most appreciative.
You are standing directly in front of a dragon, in melee combat. The Dragon goes full attack and is attacking you with its claws, wings and bite.
Can this dragon hit you with its tail without penalty in addition to its other attacks?
Seems a little goofy if it can, as it is a rear facing attack.
It's not that goofy. So it's slashing away at you and turns a little to smack you with its tail. I've seen it all the time in games. Especially Monster Hunter.
Look at the cover of the core rulebook - a dragon is pretty flexible.
Also, notice that 'without penalty' isn't exactly true. The tail attack has a lower attack bonus than the bite or claws because it counts as a secondary attack.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's a really abstract game, really, so facing is not needed because it'd just complicate things for little benefit. I don't think there were rules about facing in 3.5 either...
As far as I know, Paizo hasn't published any PF monsters with "rear attacks" so far... I intend to change that, though. :D
@Gnasher
Do you mean this ability and rules :
Tail Sweep (Ex) This allows a Gargantuan or larger dragon to sweep with its tail as a standard action. The sweep affects a half-circle with a radius of 30 feet (or 40 feet for a Colossal dragon), extending from an intersection on the edge of the dragon's space in any direction. Creatures within the swept area are affected if they are four or more size categories smaller than the dragon.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Gnasher
Do you mean this ability and rules :Tail Sweep (Ex) This allows a Gargantuan or larger dragon to sweep with its tail as a standard action. The sweep affects a half-circle with a radius of 30 feet (or 40 feet for a Colossal dragon), extending from an intersection on the edge of the dragon's space in any direction. Creatures within the swept area are affected if they are four or more size categories smaller than the dragon.
But you can choose any intersection on the edge of the space, though, so it isn't really a rear attack, correct?
Correct. There are no rear attacks, facing etc. in PF but maybe misunderstood the threadstarter some rules like the tail sweep thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Correct. There are no rear attacks, facing etc. in PF but maybe misunderstood the threadstarter some rules like the tail sweep thing.
Yep, I think they got rid of such things already in 3.5. In 3.0, though, I think there were 5x10-foot horses, but I never played 3.0 so I don't know how it worked in practice.
|
Correct. There are no rear attacks, facing etc. in PF but maybe misunderstood the threadstarter some rules like the tail sweep thing.Yep, I think they got rid of such things already in 3.5. In 3.0, though, I think there were 5x10-foot horses, but I never played 3.0 so I don't know how it worked in practice.
Badly, which is why they changed it in 3.5.
3.0 had facing, IIRC. I believe turning counted against your move. Not sure on that, it's been a while.
|
|
3.0 had facing, IIRC. I believe turning counted against your move. Not sure on that, it's been a while.
I'm looking at the 3.0 PHB now. There is no 'facing'.
The closest they get it it is a concept called 'face', and we now know this as 'space'.
Since 3.5 'space' has been a square: 5-foot square for medium creatures, 10-foot for large, 15-foot for huge, etc.
In 3.0 creatures larger than medium had a square face if they were 'tall' (bipedal), so large (tall) had a 'face' of 5ft x 5ft, huge (tall) had 10ft x 10ft, etc (smaller by 5ft than the equivalent 'space' of 3.5 and PF).
'Long' creatures had a different 'face' than 'tall' creatures of the same size: large (long) had a 'face' of 5ft x 10ft, huge (long) had 10ft x 20ft, etc.
Despite these differences 'face' in 3.0 had the same function as 'space' does in 3.5 and PF. It is certainly not 'facing':-
...A face is essentially the border between the square or rectangular space that a creature occupies and the space next to it. These spaces are abstract, not 'front, back, left and right', because combatants are constantly moving and turning in battle. Unless a creature is immobile, it practically doesn't have a front or a left side--at least not one you can locate on the tabletop.
This is probably the half-remembered reference to 'facing', but it never was that.
I'm looking at the 3.0 PHB now. There is no 'facing'.
Weird. must have been a house rule or a DM that misunderstood something.
|
|
The standard d20 combat rules intentionally ignore the direction a creature faces. The rules assume that creatures are constantly moving and shifting within their spaces, looking in all directions during a fight. In this variant, facing—the direction your head and body are pointing—makes a big difference in how you move and fight.
This variant makes combat more complex, but it opens up new strategic options for PCs and monsters alike. It’s a good choice if your group relishes the tactical complexity of d20 combat and doesn’t mind spending a lot of time duking it out with the bad guys. It won’t change the power level of your game.
This variant supersedes the standard rules for flanking and creates new conditions for the rogue’s use of the sneak attack ability.
Yeah, so it's a variant rule from a book of variant rules.
I've got Unearthed Arcana. I bought it for two reasons: I bought nearly all of the 3.5 books, and I fondly remember the brilliant 1st ed book of the same name.
It was very disappointing. These optional facing rules had so little impact that I don't remember them. I must have seen them and dismissed them as rubbish so quickly that their existence didn't stay in the memory. I've been playing 3.5 (and 3.0 before that) since it came out, and I'm still playing it with the same group that's been playing D&D together since 2nd ed, nearly 20 years. I'm not the only one of us to have this book, and NONE of us has ever suggested using this rule. In fact, it has never been mentioned.
I seriously doubt that when 3.5 players read the PF CRB for the first time that, 'Where have the facing rules gone?' was a common reaction at all. The OP is in a vanishingly small minority.
Does the OP think the game is better without such a rule? Or does he wish that PF 2.0 should have a facing rule?