Is a Horse Still a 10 by 10 creature?/Should there be facing?

[BradfordFerguson]

OK... but the spearmen who accept the charge of the cavalry will be packed tightly as well. 2 spearmen per 5x5 square... So this time realism is the same as gamism, just twice as wide of a space. As far as turning, facing, etc. *yawn*

Joe, I luckily played in one of your campaigns. What I loved about it was that it was fast and loose with the rules (and you're awesome at describing things and portraying NPCs).

You must be itching for something like WFRP?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Attacking from behind. Sneaking past someone while his/her back is turned. Noticing stuff that's going on behind you.

Personally, I think the bookkeeping involved in facing is minimal and the realism gain is worth it. However, WotC has pretty well committed itself to the no-facing approach (they'd have to totally re-work sneak attack if they wanted to put facing back in), so I'm resigned to facing not being in 4E.

Except when all my players complain that they didn't want their character to stare in one direction for a full 6 seconds in the middle of combat without ever turning their head or turning around(and not being able to see others in the combat react to the person walking around behind you, not being able to hear footsteps and armor noises coming up behind you, etc).

No one who has ever been in a battle before should ever be able to be snuck up on in the middle of fighting without dying very early in their career. Just using your peripheral vision properly allows you to see about 180 degrees without even a slight turn of the head or shift of the feet. The kind of combat we are trying to simulate is the kind you see in adventure movies where swarms of ninjas attack the hero and he attacks one to the front, one behind him, one to the left, then one to the right all within a couple of seconds and easily within one combat round. None of them were able to sneak up behind him.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

On supporting the logic of using using time required to turn around, I suppose that it's not so much the time to actually turn as whether or not you can respond to threats in all directions.

I'll give you that a horse can turn around in 6 seconds. I think he's open to attack while he's doing it though. A man on the other hand could conceivably defend against threats from all directions in a 6 second round because he can turn around in maybe half a second.

Size matters. I don't think a man on horseback fighting with a lance is going to be able to turn that thing around and attack or defend against someone who's to his rear at the start of a round.

My experience with Shadow of the Colossus is probably informing my opinion. Those big turkeys were fast, but they were so huge that once you got behind most of them they couldn't defend. That's actually how you had to beat them.

 

[rkanodia]

My experience with Shadow of the Colossus is probably informing my opinion. Those big turkeys were fast, but they were so huge that once you got behind most of them they couldn't defend. That's actually how you had to beat them.

Shadow of the Colossus was a lot of fun, but I think that facing rules are the wrong way to create the same feel. For one, SotC being an action game gave it the opportunity to use time pressure as a way to make maneuvering a challenge. If you give slow, clumsy facing/rules to a giant monster in a turn-based game, it's trivial for a player to exploit those rules fully on every turn.

On the other hand, your mention of Shadow of the Colossus makes me think about having a set of rules for climbing Gargantuan+ monsters. Some kind of mash-up of the Grappling and Climbing rules. 3E had rules that let a monster grapple you without them being considered grappled. Maybe some kind of rule where the monster doesn't see itself as grappling you, OR being grappled by you?

 

[Dausuul]

On the other hand, your mention of Shadow of the Colossus makes me think about having a set of rules for climbing Gargantuan+ monsters. Some kind of mash-up of the Grappling and Climbing rules. 3E had rules that let a monster grapple you without them being considered grappled. Maybe some kind of rule where the monster doesn't see itself as grappling you, OR being grappled by you?

That would actually be incredibly useful. One of the things players always want to do with big monsters is grab hold and climb. This is especially true when melee specialist PCs encounter flying monsters.

I like to encourage PCs to do cool stuff, and it always makes for an exciting combat when the party fighter is up on the dragon's back trying to hang on and hack its limbs off at the same time, so I throw together some crude house-ruled hack of a system and run with it... but it sure would be nice to have some well-defined rules built into the PHB.

Maybe the new grapple mechanics will incorporate this. Here's hoping.

 

[Kraydak]

Is there any historical evidence for stirrup-to-stirrup cavalry charges in combat (as opposed to drill on even terrain)? I can't see any way for it to not end in tears for the cavalry.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

That would actually be incredibly useful.

And unbelievably COOL!

 

[IanB]

Is there any historical evidence for stirrup-to-stirrup cavalry charges in combat (as opposed to drill on even terrain)? I can't see any way for it to not end in tears for the cavalry.

It was the primary shock tactic for a few hundred years of European warfare, yes. Even as late as 1683 at the Siege of Vienna.

 

[Kraydak]

It was the primary shock tactic for a few hundred years of European warfare, yes. Even as late as 1683 at the Siege of Vienna.

Cavalry charges, sure. But is there any evidence that they actually charged *stirrup to stirrup*?

 

[IanB]

Cavalry charges, sure. But is there any evidence that they actually charged *stirrup to stirrup*?

I'm not sure two cavarlymen in a 10' wide space necessarily means stirrup to stirrup, though they're fairly close. A horse is a fair amount less than 5' wide, even with the rider's legs added in.

Certainly you wouldn't want your cavalry to be too far apart, or instead of breaking lines of infantry, you're going to end up with a bunch of surrounded cavalrymen!