Facing in 3E, 3.5E and other

[Psion]

The square facings change is the single stupidest change in 3.5 AFAIAC (with Pokemounts being a close second). Since there is no hit location in D&D, claims that orientation implies facing are unfounded.

Abstracting everything to a square is conceptually problematic on multiple levels. All the sudden unless you use a "second system" for size, horses can't go into a 5' wide gateway, and horses pulling a chariot can attack 10' to either side.

If you have a creature who is bloated to 10'x10', all of a sudden for purposes of line of sight, charge reach, etc., it really does appear much bigger that it used to be.

The claim that part of the counter is abstract fighting space seem dubious to me, as counters ALREADY had abstract fighting space built in... why do we need MORE abstract fighting space?

 

[Dinkeldog]

And to counter Psion, rectangular facings put turning restrictions on creatures that don't exist for "square" creatures. I DM'd Bastion and you had to fight a dragon (no spoiler 'cause he's on the cover ). Are you telling me the dragon doesn't get to turn because the PCs went next to him? Or does the dragon get to trample everyone around him? Does turning cost him his 5' movement when it doesn't cost a "square" creature?

As for the horse going through a 5' wide tunnel, you just use the squeezing rule, or you Rule0 that outside of combat he can go full speed through a narrow space (I'd probably require a ride check for that, though).

The only real issue I have is that the creatures that used to be Large 5x5 could probably have remained 5x5. I appreciate the efforts at standardization, but perhaps it didn't need to be perfectly uniform.

 

[Belphanior]

I really don't want to unleash a flamewar or anything, but I'd like to respond to psion for a moment...

Since there is no hit location in D&D, claims that orientation implies facing are unfounded.

If a horse is 5x10, then clearly you can see which side of him has to be one of his flanks (the 10' side) and which side has to be the head (the 5' side that moves forward all the time).
And that is exactly the problem. The system claims that there is no facing, but a rectangular space directly contradicts this.

All the sudden unless you use a "second system" for size, horses can't go into a 5' wide gateway

The squeezing rule. It exists and works very good. Makes sense too.

and horses pulling a chariot can attack 10' to either side.

I don't think a horse busy pulling a charriot will be doing any attack to be honest.

If you have a creature who is bloated to 10'x10', all of a sudden for purposes of line of sight, charge reach, etc., it really does appear much bigger that it used to be.

And this is bad how?
Take a look at the picture in the PHB with all the creatures of different sizes. You tell me that ogre looks like it can comfortably fit in a 5' square in the middle of combat.

The claim that part of the counter is abstract fighting space seem dubious to me, as counters ALREADY had abstract fighting space built in... why do we need MORE abstract fighting space?

Because half-abstract is just silly.

 

[Vaxalon]

The problem with a facing system is that once you've worked out the absurdities (like running around behind someone to attack his back while he stands there like an idiot) it has gotten too complicated to be quickly workable.

3.5 system works fine for me.

 

[Arnwyn]

I prefer the "exact facing" concept - as another poster noted, much like those presented in 2e Combat & Tactics.

 

[Nifft]

I voted "Abstract Squares", but what I acutally use are hexes. So "Abstract Hexes, Triangles and Circles".

-- Nifft

 

[Psion]

If a horse is 5x10, then clearly you can see which side of him has to be one of his flanks (the 10' side) and which side has to be the head (the 5' side that moves forward all the time).
And that is exactly the problem. The system claims that there is no facing, but a rectangular space directly contradicts this.

No it doesn't. Since there are zero rules to "hit" a "head" or a "flank" or to restrict where you can attack, there is no facing.

The squeezing rule. It exists and works very good. Makes sense too.

So you need special modifying rules to what claims to be a simple system? This is my problem with WoD, too.

I don't think a horse busy pulling a charriot will be doing any attack to be honest.

So chariots can't trample now?

And this is bad how?

I thought that was self evident, but let me amplify. You get a creature that is NOT ten feet wide that all the sudden cannot get full cover behind a 5' pillar because some "fighting space" arbritrarily assigned to him forces him to be exposed on one side or the other.

Take a look at the picture in the PHB with all the creatures of different sizes. You tell me that ogre looks like it can comfortably fit in a 5' square in the middle of combat.

You do realize that normal humans are much less than 5' across right? Use a tape measure if you don't beleive me.

What I don't beleive is that ogre is going to be swiping at creatures over 30' apart.

Because half-abstract is just silly.

No, excessive abstraction and re-abstracting cases that are already abstract (like adding a fighting zone to creatures that already have fighting space) is just silly.

 

[TiQuinn]

It sounds like everyone wants a system for all scenarios, and that just isn't going to happen whether it's exact facing, facing a la 3.0, or 3.5. I think at some point the rules need to allow the DM to adjucate and this sounds like a perfect place to start.

 

[Psion]

It sounds like everyone wants a system for all scenarios, and that just isn't going to happen whether it's exact facing, facing a la 3.0, or 3.5. I think at some point the rules need to allow the DM to adjucate and this sounds like a perfect place to start.

Of course. But I think conforming to the natural shapes of creatures lends itself to much more naturally visualizing the battlefield and making sensible calls without a bunch of special rulings like the "squeeze rule" to remember.

 

[Belphanior]

Since there are zero rules to "hit" a "head" or a "flank" or to restrict where you can attack, there is no facing.

You seem to link facing to hit locations. May I ask why? All facing means (to me at least) is the direction you look at. Or rather, the direction your entire body "points" at.
By giving a horse a 5x10 space, one can flank it in such a manner that it could not logically attack you.
But it does. Somehow. Even though I'm sure its legs can not bend that way.

By giving it a 10x10 space, one assumes that it has enough room to turn any way it pleases in order to attack. We eliminate the half-abstraction, and gain simplicity and common sense in return.

So you need special modifying rules to what claims to be a simple system? This is my problem with WoD, too.

What are you talking about? A major gripe of mine was that big creatures, somehow, could not squeeze themselves into smaller spaces. It should be darn obvious that they can.
All the squeezing rule does is tell us how that works. I see no reason to hold the system at fault for telling us how stuff works.

So chariots can't trample now?

You are putting words into my mouth now. Don't.
I mean that I have trouble imagining a horse racing with a chariot behind it, and then rearing up to kick some orc in the face. The weight of the chariot dragging behind should prevent it from fighting efficiently, IMO.

You get a creature that is NOT ten feet wide that all the sudden cannot get full cover behind a 5' pillar because some "fighting space" arbritrarily assigned to him forces him to be exposed on one side or the other.

How much cover do you think humans should get behind a 2.5' pillar? If you stand the right way, even a 1' pillar should suffice for most people to get full cover.
This is impossible even in 3.0 however.

If a horse stands behind a 5' pillar you need only take a step to the side (not a 5' step, you can stay in the same square) to see its rear. Half cover. Just like the rules say.

If an ogre stands behind a 5' pillar it gets even easier (look at the picture in the PHB to see why).