D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Facing+Spacing Rules

[TheAntiSummit]

I haven't bought 3.5 yet, don't even know if I will, but I have read Monte Cook's review of the revision and the first page of the debate going on here (I really dont have time to look at that many pages of posts) and it seems that most people disagree with him on his opinion of the new facing rules and how much space a character takes up or threatens. When I read the review I thought that that change made no sense at all and I was just wondering if someone could explain to me why they agreed with it. I figure that a 15 foot long snake shouldn't take up an area 15 feet by 15 because it doesn't realistically threaten that entire area. Could someone please enlighten me as to why this is a good change?

 

[nsruf]

The 15' long snake doesn't take up 15' in 3E either, since the area it occupies assumes a coiled snake.

But the real point is that there is no facing in the combat rules, so why should counters/minis have an area that implies facing (i.e. not square)? As the rules assume that any creature can freely turn in place, it should occupy the same space "in all directions". Note that the old rules do not prohibit a horse moving "sideways" at full speed, which looks rather silly...

I like the change.

 

[MThibault]

In d20 Modern they call it Fighting Space. This is the amount of space you control on the battlefield, it isn't necessarily the space that you are occupying at any given time.

I like it. We once had a Behir take a "five foot step" 35' back and 30 feet to the side by pivoting 90 degrees on his rear-most (relative to the PCs) square then shifting 5 feet back then pivoting 90 degrees on his foremost square. Perhaps we missed something, but we couldn't find a rule to prohibit this. Even if it didn't pivot the second time, it would have moved away 35 feet after a full attack and without facing could have attacked in any direction without penalty.

IMHO the added abstraction is just fine. Not absolutely necessary, but fine.

Cheers

 

[MadScientist]

In general I like the allways square facing concept. The one thing that does bother me though is that a mounted rider with a reach weapon will be able to threaten a huge area on the battlefeild (a 30' radius). Cleaving two opponents 30' sort of streches my suspension of disbelief a little bit. Also mounted warriors w/o reach weapons will be able to charge unmounted foes w/o subjecting their horse to an AoO. I liked that with the rider on the "back" of the horse the front of the horse would have to move through a threatened area.

On the other hand alot of weirdness will be eliminated for mounted warriors with the new rules. Like if the horse wheels in its space (supposedly a free action), the rider will have moved 5'. Does this movement provoke AoO's? Does it count as the riders 5' step? Etc.

 

[ZSutherland]

While the general idea makes sense to me in terms of melee, my confusion lies with area affect spells and attacks of opportunity. Let's say I have 2 trolls. In 3.0 there were both 5' x 5'/10' reach. Now, they command a 10' x 10' square. You can attack from any of the 12 squares around them, so how do they ever get attacks of opportunity due to their long reach? You can attack them from the edge of the area they threaten or are reach & space taken up still seperate issues? If so, I'm confused by MadScientist's assertions about a mounted combatant. On the matter of area spells, if those same two trolls both have a level fighter and pick up Huge longspears to give them a 15' reach, do they now occupy a 15' x 15' area? If so, let's say that on a grid their physical placements are at c-4 & c-12 so that there is a 10' wide space between their threat area's from c-8 to c-9. If I drop a fireball at c-9, are they both affected by it, though neither would be if they were disarmed? Note, I haven't seen these rules, just the bits & pieces on these boards.

Z

 

[MadScientist]

I'm assuming that a creature with a 10' reach will threaten 10' from the area they occupy all around. So troll will take up a 10'x10' space, but threaten a 30'x30' space. In short I'm assuming reach begins at the edge of your occupied space. I think this assumption is correct but I could be wrong.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I'm assuming that a creature with a 10' reach will threaten 10' from the area they occupy all around. So troll will take up a 10'x10' space, but threaten a 30'x30' space. In short I'm assuming reach begins at the edge of your occupied space. I think this assumption is correct but I could be wrong.

This is indeed the case. The DMG has nice diagrams which make it all clear.

 

[Staffan]

I'm assuming that a creature with a 10' reach will threaten 10' from the area they occupy all around. So troll will take up a 10'x10' space, but threaten a 30'x30' space. In short I'm assuming reach begins at the edge of your occupied space. I think this assumption is correct but I could be wrong.

And to continue with the longspear example: I think reach weapons are supposed to "move" your reach one increment. So instead of being able to attack at 5 ft and 10 ft away, the trolls would attack at 15 ft and 20 ft.

 

[mmu1]

I don't like the change either. In a game where most structures (dungeons, towns, castles) are designed on a human scale, it'll make for ridiculously cramped battlefields - the new Ogre, for example, ends up filling and threatening 1.5 times as much space as the old one. I'm really curious what they did with dragons...

 

[Painfully]

It seems that 3.5 facing gets worse as you go up in scale. I will try out the new rules and put them through their paces before I decide which rules I'll be using for certain.