d20radio.com

I have a question about a rule that appears to be hidden: namely, the "no facing in combat" rule. The only thing I can find is the "Facing and Firing Arcs" sidebar on page 168 in the Vehicles chapter. It says "Just as in character combat, vehicle facing and fire arcs are not used."

The problem is, I can't seem to find anything in the main combat chapter that talks about there being no facing. Did the devs just assume we would be familiar with the d20 system already and thus fail to explicitly mention it in the book anywhere? Or am I just missing it?

On that note, did the devs ever actually state that the "text trumps table" rule applies to SWSE, or is that also something we've all just been assuming?

_________________
Rainbow Dash is proud to be a Kiwi. Are you?

On the facing, it's just assumed that since it's never mentioned in the personal combat section, players and GMs won't use it. I think the mention of the lack of facing/firing arcs was more a nod to those of us that came to SWSE from prior SWRPGs, all of which made use of facing and firing arcs for starship combat.

The "text trumps table" has been said by Rodney and Gary Sarli at various times throughout SWSE's life, mostly on the WotC boards and on D20 Radio's flagship podcast, Order 66.

_________________
"If you've never seen an elephant ski, then you've never been on acid."
- Eddie Izzard

Contributing Author of the GSA
Dono's Gaming & Etc Blog
Follow me on Twitter at @donovan421

OK, so to a certain extent, the rules were written with the assumption that the reader was already familiar with the way the d20 system works (at least with regards to facing and how to resolve an un-errata'd contradition in the rules).

_________________
Rainbow Dash is proud to be a Kiwi. Are you?

I'm actually comfortable with the "no facing" rules in combat. Characters are very maneuverable and can turn easily, and keeping track of firing arcs would be more hassle than it's worth (except maybe for capital ship combat, but that tends to be complicated enough).

The thing that bothers me is facing in regard to Stealth. You need either cover or concealment to make a stealth check to hide (which is a hidden rule in itself). If you just want to sneak around a room when someone is searching for you, it works fine. But if you want to sneak up on someone to attack them, it get's problematic. You can make a ranged attack from cover or concealment just fine. But if you want to sneak up on a guard to make a melee attack, like to stab them in the back, you can't really do it. Once the character moves out of cover or concealment, he is not allowed to sneak anymore, so the guard automatically notices him as a reaction (ok technically it's a DC 5, but big deal).

I think there should be some sort of way to sneak up on a character with their back turned. This is compatible with the Stealth rules, you could rule that you have concealment granted by the back of the target's head. But it's the facing rules that kill this idea. Technically, a character can't have his back turned, because all characters are assumed to be facing every way simultaneously.

The "no facing" rule only really applies during combat, when everyone effectively has 360 degree vision. Outside of combat, you can have facing. So the GM could rule that the guard is only looking in a certain direction, allowing your PC to continue to sneak up behind him even after he's left cover or concealment.

There's also the Infiltrator's Creeping Approach talent ...

_________________
Rainbow Dash is proud to be a Kiwi. Are you?

So you're suggesting that there should be two sets of line of sight rules, one that only applies in combat, and the other that applies out of combat? Isn't that more complicated than just adjusting the existing line of sight rules to allow facing?




I just don't think it should take a Prestige class talent to be able to do something that any character trained in Stealth has a reasonable chance of attempting. We see characters sneaking up to make melee attacks all the time in movies and games, and it certainly happens in real life. Not every character is going to be able to fit levels of infiltrator into their build, and even if they can, they can't do it until level 8.

It's not my suggestion. That's just how d20 games have always worked. I don't see why it should be any different in SWSE. I can't recall if there's any such thing in the SWSE book, but I know that there's a comment or two in the D&D 3.5 rulebooks at least to the same effect as what I said before (something along the lines of "the GM may determine that the guard's back is turned, allowing you to sneak up on him outside of combat even without any cover or concealment").

_________________
Rainbow Dash is proud to be a Kiwi. Are you?

I suppose the GM could do that. I just think it would be better if there were rules to cover that sort of thing.

Not to mention that GM authority only covers NPCs. I can just imagine this conversation:

GM: Ok, you guys make a perception roll as a reaction.
Player: I got a 12
GM: Alright, you don't notice as the assassin plunges his vibroblade into you. Since you're flatfooted, he beats your reflex defense, and you take Sneak Attack damage.
Player: Wait what? Why don't I get to notice him?
GM: Because his Stealth check beat your perception check.
Player: Huh? How can he sneak up on me, we're in an open plaza, there's no concealment here.
GM: Yeah, but he came from behind.
Player: How? I thought you said there were no facing rules in this game.
GM: I just decided that your back happened to be turned.
Player: You don't decide that. I can be facing whatever way I want.
GM: Fine. Do you seriously want me to stop you every 5 seconds to ask you what way you're facing?
Player: If it means no one can sneak up on me, then sure.
GM: Ok fine. What direction were you facing?
Player: Whatever way the assassin was coming from.
GM: *facepalm* How would you know that?
Player: Because I have 360 degree vision.
GM: *rages, and throws core book at player's face*

*Shrug* It's never been a problem in all my years of playing d20.

EDIT: Interestingly enough, I can't seem to find anything explicit about there being no facing in my D&D 3.5 books, either. The text I was thinking of earlier actually comes from D&D 4e. In the rules for the Stealth skill, it talks about how, outside of combat, the DM can rule that a particular enemy is distracted ("focused on something in a different direction"), allowing you to ignore the normal cover/concealment requirement so you can sneak up behind them.

I did find an example in the 3.5 books in which Lidda is able to sneak past an open door because none of the bugbears in the room beyond are looking in the direction of the door. So there's an implication that the DM can rule that there is facing outside of combat.

However, I would point out that in both rulesets, the character still has to make a check. It's just that outside of combat, the need for cover or concealment is not as necessary.

This is how my group has always run it. Outside of combat, if the GM rules that an NPC is looking away, you can make a Stealth check to sneak up behind them.

As for doing it to a PC, if the PC fails the Perception check, then the NPC clearly waited until the PC wasn't looking. If the PC's player has specifically stated that his character is looking down the corridor that the NPC would be sneaking up, then obviously the NPC wouldn't be able to sneak (but then neither would a PC if an NPC was looking down the corridor). It all depends on the circumstances.

But the point is: the reason there's no facing in combat is because it is assumed everyone is looking every which way. I think it would be silly to assume that everyone is always looking over their shoulder or turning this way and that outside of a combat situation, though. However, just because you're not looking in a particular direction doesn't mean you can't still hear someone sneaking up behind you, hence the requirement that a Stealth check still be made vs the target's Perception.

EDIT 2:

Read the talent again. It's not so much about letting you sneak without needing cover or concealment as it is about letting you sneak without even having to make a check because your target isn't allowed to make a Perception check to notice you. That's why it's a prestige class talent.

_________________
Rainbow Dash is proud to be a Kiwi. Are you?

One combat starts, it's assumed that everyone is on guard, looking around, etc. When out of combat, it's more wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey and the GM is going to be just declaring when an enemy is "alert" or "distracted". If he's staring off in one direction, that's going to count as distracted.

And really I don't think I'd want it any other way; facing in combat is unweildy, but when it's just up to the GM it's not such a big deal.

In the example you gave, the explanation to give to the player is that the lack of facing is a combat abstraction, not a law of physics, and rolling stealth versus perception is another abstraction, this time of the assassin's ability to avoid his notice while getting close enough to strike.

Regarding Stealth checks:

SECR page 158 says:

"Without cover, you usually need concealment to make a Stealth check".
-emphasis mine.

Therefore, you "usually" need concealment or cover to make a Stealth check, but it's not absolutely necessary. It is possible to sneak up on someone without cover or concealment. For ex, if someone is sitting down in a cantina, you can sneak up behind them without having cover or concealment.

_________________
Saga Edition RPG resource documents & reference tools:
Compiled files of all resource documents & reference tools- NPCs, character sheets, DoD, Saga Index to all feats, talents, species, weapons, etc, Star Wars web enhancements

Right. That's why we have a GM instead of a Game-o-tron 6000.

Ok. This came up in our huge session the other day (our poor GM had to GM 9 people!). We entered a turret room with the gravity knocked weird, so one round we would be on the floor, the next we'd be on the ceiling, then wall, etc. etc. etc. (like that one post)

While we were falling, I remembered reading a post or something about making an acrobatics check and a jump check (together) to avoid most of the falling damage. But I couldn't find where the rules allowed both a jump check and acrobatics check to avoid falling damage. Where is it?

_________________
Combustion is the best force power!!
Level 5! You get to choose your gender!

Falling damage errata, IIRC.

_________________
Rainbow Dash is proud to be a Kiwi. Are you?

Here's my thoughts on the matter, though it has yet to come up to be tested:
The throwing player chooses a square, and makes an attack roll (DC 10; range modifiers apply) to deliver the weapon. For every full 5 points by which the roll exceeds the DC, the catching player gains a +1 to his Dex check (DC 15) to catch the object. In case of a 'miss' by the thrower and/or catcher, all adjacent creatures can make a Dex check (DC 15) as a reaction to intercept the object. Anyone using a readied action to catch/intercept the object gains a +5 bonus on their roll, and can make a check regardless of the thrower/catcher's check result. Highest roll wins. (This expands on the spring-loaded mechanism rule described above.

I was just about to submit, and re-read your description above, and it looks like we were thinking along the same lines, though I think you should only be able to intercept with a readied action, or when the catcher fumbles.

_________________
Lightsaber: An elegant weapon from a more civilized age, dangerous Jedi paraphernalia, or the galaxy's best utility knife?
Regardless, it never listens to the Order 66 Podcast.