3.0 facing vs 3.5 facing

[Pants]

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

Exactly my point.

 

[Ranger REG]

AFAIC, there is no facing. You have as much leeway to hit somebody behind you just by turning around and still benefit from full AC protection, including your shield.

Although abstract, it is reasonable from the real-world perspective. I mean honestly, in combat, you're going to face one direction for the entire six seconds of real-time? It is the same for long creatures, including a wild horse.

 

[shadow]

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.

The problem is long creatures. I suppose, it makes sense for a snake to be coiled up, but what about a giant centapede? Another problem with 3.5e facings, is that they assume that creatures wheel around so much in combat that the area occupied is essentially reduced to a square. This isn't a major problem with most creatures, but I have a hard time imagining that the same giant centipede occupies a 10' square with his bite attack.

 

[Dinkeldog]

While I can see some people's issues with the long thing things like giant centipedes, I'm much happier with 3.5's facings. It's just much easier for me to have a square facing than to try to figure out what happens when the thing wants to change the direction it's facing. Does it step on PCs? Does that mean that the creature is occupying the same space as PCs and takes penalties? Can a creature move for free by essentially pivoting around on the rectangular facing (similar to the illegal move in basketball)?

Life is just easier for me with all square facings.