Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nem z" data-source="post: 4053676" data-attributes="member: 51847">Ainatan - Wouldn't the fighter actually need to be one diagonal step closer to the monster to keep the scale consistent?&nbsp; In both cases it's then possible for him to reach the mage in just 7 steps if you aim for the nearest point.I think you're absolutely correct otherwise.[TANGENT]Getting rid of square block does pretty much require using facing rules, I admit, but it still isn't that tricky.Can a horse turn around/stand sideways in 5' corridors?&nbsp; Sure, if it squeezes.&nbsp; Can it go backwards?&nbsp; I don't see why not.Can the snake go backwards?&nbsp; They can't do that too well due to their physical construction, which would probably call for a special movement restriction in the stat block.what are the allowable configurations?&nbsp; Anything with three adjacent squares (or maybe just two when stretched out on a diagonal, depending on which rule set is in place).&nbsp; Rotate any of these in 45 degree increments to your heart's content:[][][][][][][][]....[]&nbsp; (periods for spacing)how quickly can it change shape?&nbsp; That would be a move action.how do you rule flanking?&nbsp; Well, if we're using facing rules anyway I would generally argue that flanking would be better replaced by a back-attack bonus or some such.&nbsp; If flanking were still the rule, however, I'd say that if two (or more) people can get across from any part of the snake they can flank it; head to tail, side to side, you name it.&nbsp; Tough luck for the snake, but I guess that's why the rest of us stuck with the concept of legs, eh?[/TANGENT]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nem z, post: 4053676, member: 51847"] Ainatan - Wouldn't the fighter actually need to be one diagonal step closer to the monster to keep the scale consistent? In both cases it's then possible for him to reach the mage in just 7 steps if you aim for the nearest point. I think you're absolutely correct otherwise. [COLOR=Green][TANGENT][/COLOR] Getting rid of square block does pretty much require using facing rules, I admit, but it still isn't that tricky. [I]Can a horse turn around/stand sideways in 5' corridors?[/I] Sure, if it squeezes. [I]Can it go backwards?[/I] I don't see why not. [I]Can the snake go backwards?[/I] They can't do that too well due to their physical construction, which would probably call for a special movement restriction in the stat block. [I]what are the allowable configurations?[/I] Anything with three adjacent squares (or maybe just two when stretched out on a diagonal, depending on which rule set is in place). Rotate any of these in 45 degree increments to your heart's content: [][][] [][] [] [][] ....[] (periods for spacing) [I]how quickly can it change shape?[/I] That would be a move action. [I]how do you rule flanking?[/I] Well, if we're using facing rules anyway I would generally argue that flanking would be better replaced by a back-attack bonus or some such. If flanking were still the rule, however, I'd say that if two (or more) people can get across from any part of the snake they can flank it; head to tail, side to side, you name it. Tough luck for the snake, but I guess that's why the rest of us stuck with the concept of legs, eh? [COLOR=Green][/TANGENT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification