Spacing - 3.0 vs. 3.5 versions

[Quasqueton]

Now that we've had a year to play with it. . .

What does everyone think of the 3.5 square (and enlarged) spacing?

Some people disliked the idea from the start and refused to adopt the new spacing dimensions. I accepted it on faith that the revision designers had found a better way. I've been using the 3.5 spacing, but I've now come to the conclusion that this is not an improvement.

Functionally, the concept is not bad. But when you put a mini on the battlegrid, it doesn't look right. Horses get awkward when they take up spacing that is twice as wide as it looks like it should be.

My major problem with the 3.5 spacing is the increased size. Large creatures, like ogres, used to have 5' spacing with 10' reach. That *looks* right on the battlegrid. But with the new 10' spacing, 10' reach looks much too big. It gets difficult to judge movement through a battle at a glance when the creature represented (accurately, by scale) by the mini doesn't *look* to have the ability to reach all the way out 10' past its 10' space. Most Large-size (by scale) creatures look dwarfed by their 10' spacing. 10' reach looks far beyond their physical ability.

[I hope I'm getting across what I'm thinking. Hard to describe this without showing it on a battlemat.]

For me, this discrepancy especially comes into focus when two Large-size creatures are in melee. Judging the 10' spacing and 10' reach for each mini is difficult. Are they within reach of each other? Sometimes it looks like they are 15' apart, but that's because the Large (10' tall by scale) mini doesn't fill up enough of the 10' spacing.

I think I'm going to go back to the 3.0 spacing and reach rules -- Large = 5' space, 10' reach; Huge = 10' space, 15' reach; Long creatures can have rectangular spacing. . .

When an ogre is standing inside a 5' space, it *looks* like it could reach 10' away. This makes it easier to judge by eyeball where AoOs can fall, and where melee can begin.

What do you think of the 3.5 spacing rules? Has it worked better for you? Or are you having the same difficulty I am?

Quasqueton

 

[Vaxalon]

I think you're confusing "taking up" space with "using" it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

The new space rules were a much needed improvement at our table.

Rotating rectangular creatures was never really spelled out well. 5' steps plus a rotate was usually greater than 5'.

 

[wocky]

Mmmm... I don't have problems with minis as I usually use tiles for Large and larger creatures. Even with minis, I don't think it's reason enough to change, since the miniature would be in fault and not the ruleset.

Other than that, I really like square spaces... rectangular ones make no sense with no facing. (Mental note: Though flying creatures DO have facing and that's a problem in my book...)

 

[S'mon]

I use whatever facings my minis take up - some ogres are 5', the big ones are 10' bases. Works great.

 

[MerricB]

Much, much, much prefer the 3.5E version.

Conceptually, the 3E version made no sense to me at all. "So, you're saying that this horse is facing that way... but can attack and move in any direction? Huh?"

Cheers!

 

[the Jester]

If you don't have facing, rectangular spaces make no sense to me.

I much prefer the 3.5 version of the space/face rules.

 

[diaglo]

i prefer the spacing in Chainmail (1969) by Perren and Gygax

 

[Quasqueton]

My biggest problem is with the enlarged space size (for tall creatures) -- Large is 10' spacing (was 5'), Huge is 15' spacing (was 10'), etc.

A Large ogre (for instance) does not look like it should have 10' spacing when you see the mini on the battlegrid. And if definitely doesn't look like it should have 10' reach beyond its 10' "foot print".

Quasqueton

 

[smetzger]

I thought I would hate having Ogre's with 10 ft spacing but it has worked out. For most creatures it isn't a problem.

However, I don't like 40ft long Behir's taking up a 15ft square. Long creatures shouldn't have to be coiled all the time. I didn't have alot of problems with rectangular spacing and no-facing rules in 3.0. For some creatures the 'one square fits all' isn't very plausable.

*:> Scott

 

[jodyjohnson]

The expensive solution would be to buy some bigger ogres. The DDM Harbinger Ogre fills up the space nicely.

I have some old ogres that are a bit small, but then sometimes we have to use our imaginations.

If a mini gives us problems because it's base is smaller than it's facing I don't hesitate to set a exact sized base cut from matte board under it. (We use matte board, double glued matte board, the occasional piece of Mastermaze, and 1/4" foam core for temporary bases.)

All my horses are mounted on 25mm by 50mm Warhammer bases and then tend to be the bigger problems. Most of the time we leave them as is since it doesn't tend to matter all the time. When it does matter they sit on 2" by 2" card as a reminder of their actual face. The narrow bases are nice sometimes when they would actually use the squeezing rules.

 

[Kalendraf]

I was skeptical when it was first proposed. But since using it and seeing how it works on the battlemap, I have to admit that I think it is definitely a change for the better.

If your minis are smaller than the proposed size, cut out some card stock that is the correct size and tack it to the bottom of the mini. If found that poster tack stuff works great for doing this. Feel free to colorize the card stock as you see fit.

 

[shadow]

I hate the new square spacing rules! Suddenly ogres and large creatures threaten a much larger area. Then when having to fight in a confined space, you have to use the "squeezing" rules. Also the new spacing rules assume that all long creatures fight coiled up.

 

[Quasqueton]

Well, the Large-size minis (ogre, hill giant, fire giant, etc.) I use measure to be 8-12 feet tall when laid down on the battlegrid and measured to scale. The only Large-size mini I have that actually does seem to fit the 10' facing stands a scaled 16 feet tall. According to the rules, Large = 8-16 feet tall.

It seems that minis that scale to the high end of the size rules better fit the spacing rules. Those at the low end of the scale don't fit.

The problem I have with this comes up when combatants (including myself as the DM) can't easily eyeball reach and spacing.

"I'll run around the giant this way."

"That provokes an attack of opportunity."

"Huh? He can reach way over here?"

"Yep."

"But I'm 15' away from him."

"No, it just looks like it on the battlegrid. This ogre is really stepping and turning in all four of these squares throughout the round."

"We need bigger minis."

"But this minis measures 15' tall to scale. A couple more feet and he'd be Huge, and have a 15' facing and reach."


And I'm not even talking about diagonals, here. I specifically use minis that (theoritically) match the creatures in the battles. But when the mini can easily sit in one half (or even one quarter) of its spacing on the battlegrid, it slows down game play (at my table). Eyeballing the battle and having an intuitive understanding of the creature's size and reach is difficult with the enlarged spacing.

But, apparently it is mostly just me.

Quasqueton

 

[Wombat]

i prefer the spacing in Chainmail (1969) by Perren and Gygax

I think I'm gonna have to go with Diaglo here

 

[S'mon]

I guess I prefer the Warhammer spacings - 25x50mm horses, 25x25mm orcs, 20x20mm humans etc; but after great resistance I've decided to give those 3.5 50x50mm square horses a go...

 

[Silveras]

I was thinking about this in light of the variant in Unearthed Arcana that returns facing to the game. The conclusion I reached is that, while facing was eliminated in order to make combats more abstract and simple, the counter-intuitive factor has undone that benefit.

Removing facing and squaring the areas made sense to represent the idea that the creature was constantly in motion during the fight. However, even ignoring the problem that miniatures *have* a facing inherently... people think in terms of faced movement. The flanking rules require 2 people to set up a flanking situation solely because there are no natural "flanks" to find, for example. You can never strike "from behind" because there is no "behind".

When you picture the actions of your character, you do not imagine him/her as a cylinder or sphere ... you picture a person, moving in a particular direction. True, s/he may look about in other directions, but generally you envision movement in terms of:

I advance - moving forward at normal speed
I back up - moving backward, slower and feeling your way because you are not looking where you are going
I sidestep - moving sideways, so as not to present your back or flanks to your foes

None of this is relevant with a lack of facing in combat.

I have no problem with the use of square areas (or, really, squares represnting circular areas), as I do think creatures move about and try to maneuver to keep their backs clear, etc. I do think removing facing created more "suspension of disbelief" issues than it helped simplify things, though.

 

[Someone]

I used the 3.5 facing before 3.5 appeared. And as you see in the pic, we don´t have problems finding large miniatures

 

[Pants]

3.5 > 3.0

That is all.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I prefer 3.5's more logical system.