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

[Thanee]

“Sorry mr. halfling you cannot just move through that gap, it is merely 2 ft. 4 in. wide and you need a 5 ft. square, so you can only squeeze through 2 ft. 6 in. wide gaps. Give me an Escape Artist roll, please, to see if you can wiggle yourself through that narrow gap.”

It's an abstraction, not the foundation of the game world physics.

Bye
Thanee

 

[UngeheuerLich]

“Sorry mr. halfling you cannot just move through that gap, it is merely 2 ft. 4 in. wide and you need a 5 ft. square, so you can only squeeze through 2 ft. 6 in. wide gaps. Give me an Escape Artist roll, please, to see if you can wiggle yourself through that narrow gap.”

It's an abstraction, not the foundation of the game world physics.

Bye
Thanee

the square doesn´t represent how much space you need to get through a gap etc. It represents the space you need in combat without proper training (a.k.a. Phalnanx).

without armor and weapons even a human can easily squeeze through a 2ft wide gap, when there is no preasure.
During battle or a chase, its a quite diferent problem

facing is best handled by giving invisibility to creatures you can´t see. (i.e.: someone sneaks up to you from behind and doesn´t notice you) I expect you to grant an invisible enemy combat advantage.

 

[Plane Sailing]

In traditional tabletop 'ancients' wargames, the basing of figures represents the way in which they are used. Specifically my Psiloi skirmishes are on much bigger bases than my heavy infantry. This reflects the open order with which they fight (and which is why they can move through rough terrain and, uh, skirmish well).

D&D basing of figures reflects the fact that the vast majority of encounters are effectively skirmish encounters rather than massed ranks of closely packed soldiers or mass cavalry charges.

I consider the basing of figures to be irrelevant outside of combat, and decisions about movement etc. are made purely on the dimensions of the creature.

10ft x 10ft is the "fighting space" of the creature, not its resting dimensions!

nb it might be interesting to say that for some weapons (such as spears or other thrusting weapons such as shortswords) there is no attack penalty for fighting when 'squeezed' and large shields mean that there is no defence penalty for fighting when 'squeezed'. This would let you create a phalanx of legionaries armed with large shield and shortsword packed 4 men to a 5ft square who could still fight effectively because their equipment (and training?) supports it. Could have similar things to allow for cavalry charges, probably.

Cheers

 

[Klaus]

In traditional tabletop 'ancients' wargames, the basing of figures represents the way in which they are used. Specifically my Psiloi skirmishes are on much bigger bases than my heavy infantry. This reflects the open order with which they fight (and which is why they can move through rough terrain and, uh, skirmish well).

D&D basing of figures reflects the fact that the vast majority of encounters are effectively skirmish encounters rather than massed ranks of closely packed soldiers or mass cavalry charges.

I consider the basing of figures to be irrelevant outside of combat, and decisions about movement etc. are made purely on the dimensions of the creature.

10ft x 10ft is the "fighting space" of the creature, not its resting dimensions!

nb it might be interesting to say that for some weapons (such as spears or other thrusting weapons such as shortswords) there is no attack penalty for fighting when 'squeezed' and large shields mean that there is no defence penalty for fighting when 'squeezed'. This would let you create a phalanx of legionaries armed with large shield and shortsword packed 4 men to a 5ft square who could still fight effectively because their equipment (and training?) supports it. Could have similar things to allow for cavalry charges, probably.

Cheers

I allow piercing weapons and unarmed strikes to be used without penalty in squeezing conditions (and crossbows can be used without penalty while kneeling or prone).

 

[the Jester]

Well, given that you can fit a LOT more than 20 humans in a 100 foot line, too, much less more than 10 horses, it's not too much of a problem. I'd think some sort of mob rules a la DMG2, or some kind of "phalanx" rules, would be a good thing, but if we're talking about normal circumstances, room to move and whirl about,etc. the 10 foot bases don't bug me much.

This is brilliant. I'll have to stat up a "mob of charging horsemen" and see what it looks like.

 

[Derren]

This is brilliant. I'll have to stat up a "mob of charging horsemen" and see what it looks like.

Considering how bad the mob rules are (break the normal D&D combat mechanic) I rather have several "fat" horsemen than a horseman ooze.

 

[Thanee]

the square doesn´t represent how much space you need to get through a gap etc. It represents the space you need in combat without proper training (a.k.a. Phalnanx).

I actually know that.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

There's no problem with 10x10 ft. horses because you have to remember that creatures in the battle grid are not standing there waiting motionless for their turn to attack; they are dodging, turning arround, swinging and feinting all the time. They sort of need that area to do all this things. This, my man, IS more realistic.

 

[Festivus]

I'd imagine they're still 10x10.
The nightmare and warhorse miniatures in Desert of Desolation were, and I believe they're all intended to be "compatible" with 4e.

Personally, I see facing rules as a hassle that's out of character with the direction the game has been headed. I believe there was a thread a while back on handling massive creatures like the purple worm as more complex encounters than impeding blocks on a battlemat though, which might be preferable when it comes to beasties like that.

They won't be 10x10, they will be 2x2. Remember, everything is squares in 4E now. For me, I don't mind not having facing in the game... it would likely end up with arguments anyhow. Leave em square I say.

 

[frankthedm]

Err... the reason backstabbing doesn't work like it used to is *because* they got rid of facing. The moment you put it back in, then you have to worry about a bunch more modifiers.

Rectangular bases can still be used without adding in full facing rules.

When a horse moves, can it...
-> move any direction

I'd say it auto rotates as part of movement after the first square so the horse leads the direction last moved

-> need it turn? How much does it cost?

Costs as many squares as it gains.

-> Does turning provoke AoO?

Only as much as leaving any theatened square.

-> go backwards, or only forward?

Move in any direction at no extra cost is fine.

If the group can handle the complexity, Allow the rider not to have the mount auto rotate in the direction being moved but charge extra movement. [discourages the beardy tactic of moving the mount ass/rider end first to take better advantage of lances one handed reach]

If a group likes the horse taking up four squares on the battlemat, good for them, but to me cavalry based feel infinity better for mounts.