3.0 facing vs 3.5 facing

[Nifft]

I like squares because... the only time a Dragon would allow itself to be lined by attackers, it's already dead.

As to "Realistic" space occupied -- what about the Dragon's wings? They make it significantly squarer, or perhaps "+"-shaped.

-- N

PS: I play on hexes anyway, so the whole "square" thing is moot for me.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I like the squares. With the exception of low, slow creatures (like the centipede), any creature whirling, ducking, weaving, twirling, and dodging in combat ends up controlling a circular area, regardless of the shape of the actual monster. Of course, a circular space and circular threatoned area don't work on battlemats, so they arranged the simpler "squares."

BTW, the reason Purple Worms get to have a square when they're like 100' long is the obviously convtrived "They form into a coil for combat" bit.

 

[Wombat]

I am one of the Chosen Few freed from this example of miniaturesitis!

 

[MerakSpielman]

I remember one of the things that really got people upset when the square-facing idea was released.

The "cavalry argument."

Given an equal amount of space, you can now have only half the number of knights participating in a cavalry charge, since, when arranged side-by-side, their horses now take up twice as much room. Essentially, the rule made cavalry charges exactly 1/2 as effective as before.

Frankly, I don't run army-size battles, so I could care less.

 

[Nifft]

The "cavalry argument."

I'd much rather have special rules for mass battles (including cavalry, phalanxes, etc.) than force disorganized melee (the default D&D battle type) rules to account for those special cases.

-- N

 

[Davelozzi]

I voted "neither" but a more accurate answer would have been "either". When using minis or counters it just depends on the base/size of the one at hand. When not using minis, it's never come up.

 

[CRGreathouse]

If the face was just the space occupied, I'd make humans take up 2.5 x 1.25 feet instead of 5 feet...

It's the fighting area controlled. That's why I prefer the 3.5 facings.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Fighting space != creature area.

I prefer 3.5 facing, since it simplifies things like 5' steps and creature movement (tactical movement with a 5x10 creature is just a pain if the creature has to rotate and there are other creatures near). I use the squeezing rules to handle things like cavalry charges, smaller areas, and such.

Both methods are just abstractions, though, and more-or-less equally valid.

 

[Kichwas]

I use 3.5, even though I think 3.0 was superior by not being square.

 

[Psion]

Does it's head move through the squares between D and B, or does it just automatically 'attack' B with no noticeable movement.

The latter.

Counters are already oversized, and the base represents a snapshot. There is no reason to assume that the creature protrudes from the counter. It might momentarily for imagery purposes, but for game purposes, this is ignorable.