Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Uder" data-source="post: 999853" data-attributes="member: 11949">You bring up good points... not against ever using rectangular facing, but as to why it's a PITA to include anything but square facing rules in the core rules.Anything that involves the worm occupying squares it wasn't previously occupying is a move. Yes, the worm would have to bull rush or overrun to occupy a square that an enemy was in, but I'd rule that it wouldn't have to bull rush just to turn if none of its squares ended up occupying enemy spaces... it's a worm! This last part, however, becomes an ad hoc ruling that relies on a fair DM with a good sense of balance and the rules. As for AoOs, that's a little easier. It would draw AoOs when it left a threatened square. Here's the ad hoc part again... if none of its squares moved more than 5', I'd call it a 5' step and ignore the AoOs.It would be cumbersome to come up with individual rulings like that for each different possible facing and monster anatomy. I can certainly see why they changed to square facings... it's easier than dealing with the can of worms (heh) questions like that bring up. Nobody wants to read an entire column of Sage Advice titled "How the Worm Turns". If you are the sort who cares about SoD in combat, get a DM who can handle making those sorts of decisions. If it doesn't break your SoD, use the new facings.I had to create house rules for facing in 3.0, it comes as no surprise to me that I'll still be using them for 3.5.</blockquote>

Verification