|
A horse is large and uses 10 feet (2 squares) across. This is one situation where I prefer the 5x10 area type used in 3.0. On a battlemap, the horse looks great as a rectangular counter that fully occupies two squares, but the 10x10 counter or mini looks plain dumb. Am I the only one who see this?
It is super-convenient to use a magnetic counter base with a color pic of a horse beneath a mini, if the horse uses only two squares (rectangular) total, but making a square base and using 4 full squares seems like a gross use of space.
I walked into a 10x10 room recently and couldn't for the life of me imagine a single horse occupying that much space.
Does anyone do as I do (use the rectangular shape)? What rules might be affected if I choose to continue this way?
I am incidentally okay with 4x4 square occupancy by all of the other monsters that have a space listing of 10', but to me the horse just looks dumb this way?
Thoughts?
|
Absolutely the horse should 5x10.
I can't imagine any serious rules that will be ruined by the change. ANd I do that too.
Oddly I find my self going from metal figures to using cardboard ones moer often lately. Might be because I am broke.
We use metals for PCs most often now.
Anyway, back on topic, I think it makes perfect sense.
There are also inconsistancies such as reach. How could a medium creature sitting in the center of a 10' square strike a creature? But as much as a I don't like it, it makes sense for ease of play. Do you have a real solution? Maybe a rule for when to use 5'x10' and when to use 10'x10'? Everything I can think of would force facing rules which I also dislike.
|
|
In the midst of a battle, even facing rules "just for the horse" would be okay, that is, I think it would feel quite believable to my players.
Oftentimes, and this is true for newer players, or players who've avoided using "horse rules" in combat, players forget how skittish horses are during combat. Now my players quickly realize the ride checks to control, stay on, or quickly dismount are necessary. The point here, is that from a batttlemap perspective, a road is not "consumed" by the unnaturally large 10x10 size of the horse. It is with rare frequency that the players have their horse attack, say, a Xill for example. So this is working out great.
I started to feel a bit odd using the slim counters, but again, I stress how odd the 10x10 counters look, and just how much space they take up, especially after the PCs dismount.
Here is one possible solution for a horse that actually needs to attack, but I am open to suggestions... Perhaps the threat range for the 5x10 counter could still extend to the full threat space of the 10x10 counter.... (and I know, this would be an exception for sure to just about all the rules, but what I preserve, in trade, is verisimilitude). Thoughts?
I'm no minis expert but I'd go with 5x10 when it is a mount or an obstacle and 10x10 when it is an actual combatant. Same could be true for any big creature.
I was waiting for other peoples ideas but this is along my thinking. Essentially the 'long' creatures take up 5x10 when moving (and therefore it would be easy to determine 'front' and 'back') and 10x10 when stationary in combat.
Would this give the mounted knight any additional advantage in combat? I don't want a house rule that invites metagaming to ceate a munchkin'ed knight.
I say leave it be 10x10 during combat, as the game ignores facing.
There are also inconsistancies such as reach. How could a medium creature sitting in the center of a 10' square strike a creature? But as much as a I don't like it, it makes sense for ease of play. Do you have a real solution? Maybe a rule for when to use 5'x10' and when to use 10'x10'? Everything I can think of would force facing rules which I also dislike.
To begin, I feel like many others that houseruling a horse to fill a 5x10 space in combat rather than a 10x10 space will make little difference, especially if none of the PCs are actually using mounted combat.
That said, the above "problem" is actually non-existant. How does a medium creature sitting in the center of a 10-foot square strike a creature? Simple: it doesn't. The reason that a horse fills a 10x10 square, as per the RAW, is that at any given instant the horse may be cantering around at any spot within that 10x10 area. It's somewhat like an electron cloud theory: at any given time, there is a greater than 99% probability that the horse is essentially somewhere within those four squares. The horse is turning, moving, etc., and thus the general area of this "horse cloud" is 10 feet by 10 feet.
Thus, when one converts the mechanics into narrative, the rider maneuvers his mount (to the edge of the mount's space) and then attacks the enemy creature (in the adjacent space). Is such pin-point control of a living creature such as a horse somewhat realistic? Yes, but no more so than falling damage capping at 20d6 or the fact that a Colossal dragon can fly using their depicted wings.
As has been stated, though, the only time this proposed change is really going to make a difference is when someone is engaging in mounted combat. Then again, as rare as it may be, there is value in just running with the 10x10 rule (which is what I do, as neither I nor any of my players mind) in that, should an unusual circumstance arise and the horse suddenly and unexpectedly needs to be considered as a combatant, there aren't any changes to make or retroactive adjustments to consider.
My .02gp
Yeah, I'd have to point out that in combat, it really does seem that if horses are, say, five feet apart in an actual combat situation, there probably would be problems with running into one another, getting in the way of each other, etc.
Riding along a trail, yeah, the horses can easily "squeeze" next to each other, and doesn't cause any problems at all.
So, long story short, 10 x 10 works pretty well, especially for the level of abstraction that D&D uses in combat.
Having lived around horses (and ponies) my entire life, I find myself often at odds with D&D rules regarding them.
10x10 is actually not one of those rules. A horse in combat, whether its real, play fun between horses, or rodeo spectacle, is a constantly shifting 700lb mass of muscle and bone. Trying to get close to that is asking for at the least a hard bump, at the worst getting trampled.
Yes, its totally sensible for horses to be side by side while "passively walking" in a 10' square. Its also fairly sensible for people to be side by side when "passively walking" in a 10' square.
But regarding combat, the 10x10 is spot on.
Now, if only they could get the carry/drag weights right...
|
|
Ah, thanks.
All of this changes my mind about things... at least, it give me a better understanding.
One advantage to-date has been the use of a 5x10 horse picture that easily allows the players to place their PC mini on top of it, then show the dismounts and when folks are near the horses. It also hasn't cluttered the table grid.
The 10x10 warhorse mini could be used as well... and to an earlier point, allows one to sqeeze the figures overlapingly to ride along a 10' path... hmmmn.
|
Having lived around horses (and ponies) my entire life, I find myself often at odds with D&D rules regarding them.
10x10 is actually not one of those rules. A horse in combat, whether its real, play fun between horses, or rodeo spectacle, is a constantly shifting 700lb mass of muscle and bone. Trying to get close to that is asking for at the least a hard bump, at the worst getting trampled.
Yes, its totally sensible for horses to be side by side while "passively walking" in a 10' square. Its also fairly sensible for people to be side by side when "passively walking" in a 10' square.
But regarding combat, the 10x10 is spot on.
Now, if only they could get the carry/drag weights right...
I agree with this. While the idea that a horse standing still doesn't occupy a 5x10 foot space, neither does the average human standing still occupy a 5x5 foot space, you have to think of them in context.
Sure, a person typically only occupies an area about 2.5 to 3 feet wide and 2 feet long. But, try stacking people that to each other without any personal space(don't count subways :P), and see what happens. In a fight, it becomes even more prevalent. As a side note, when packed tightly, see if you can throw a punch. :)
Put swords in their hands and they'll take up even more room. After all, while you need to close distance, you don't want to stand right next to the other guy, even if he's on your side. A wild swing could mean you lose some important part of your body.
Same with any animal, its instinct. By keeping this relative distance, creatures help to minimize the risk to themselves while maintaining their effectiveness.
As a side note, when packed tightly, see if you can throw a punch.
I don't know what kind of telegraphed roundhouses you try to use when packed like sardines, but a quick jab to the nose works quite well, especially given the limited ability to dodge. :)
|
|
As a side note, when packed tightly, see if you can throw a punch.I don't know what kind of telegraphed roundhouses you try to use when packed like sardines, but a quick jab to the nose works quite well, especially given the limited ability to dodge. :)
Quite the clever and smartassed reply, we should go drinking.
Seriously though, when you're packed that tight, you litterally don't have the room to bring your hand up, because the act of doing so would require either:
The first method is really obvious of what is about to happen, the second next to impossible when people are packed like sardines.
So, whiskey?
If horses lose their 10x10, I want humans lose their 5x5. Unless you're quite fat, you don't occupy the whole area. Maybe 5 x 2 1/2 if you stretch your arms out.
|
Gridless gaming! It's coming back!
But seriously, horses and dragons in particular have always bothered me on the 3.5 grid. I basically make a judgement call, if the player wants to do something that the creature could realistically do, but the miniature rules otherwise, I go with realism.
Miniatures are an aid, not a rulemaker.
|
|
I really like the electron cloud comparison. The 10x10n represents potential locations, not actual location. Still, in non-combat situations, 5x10 is fine with me.
Yeah, I'd have to point out that in combat, it really does seem that if horses are, say, five feet apart in an actual combat situation, there probably would be problems with running into one another, getting in the way of each other, etc.
Riding along a trail, yeah, the horses can easily "squeeze" next to each other, and doesn't cause any problems at all.
Maybe that's the solution. If you want to have your horse or other animals occupy a 5x10, just assume they are "squeezed"-
From d20srd.ord:
"In some cases, you may have to squeeze into or through an area that isn’t as wide as the space you take up. You can squeeze through or into a space that is at least half as wide as your normal space. Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls and a -4 penalty to AC."
Horses that are bunched up move at 1/2 speed and have a -4 AC but only occupy 5x10. Seems totally reasonable to me. Nobody rides that close when traveling quickly cross country but slow is fine for a leisurely ride, and the -4 AC will only matter in ambush situations, when it is actually kinda' logical. This gives you a way to deal with it without altering the rules, which is always nice.
BTW - a question. If a horse in combat occupies 10x10, does the rider gain the increased coverage as well?
In the Crusades, the knights would form up for cavelry charges stirrup to stirrup, making the 5 x 10 the only "realistic" figure basing. The whole point of the heavy cavely charge was that there was no where to dodge between the horses. However, once the charge has carried home, the fighting breaks down to individual melees, with the horses whirling about in that above mentioned "electron cloud" analogy.
Seems to me that the big problem is how to show this on the battle mat. I have no problem with the idea that a group of knights should be able to charge their foes in a stirrup to stirrup charge. Of course, they should all be moving together as a unit, which brings up more problems, this time with the initiative system and simultaneous actions...
|
|
In the Crusades, the knights would form up for cavelry charges stirrup to stirrup, making the 5 x 10 the only "realistic" figure basing. The whole point of the heavy cavely charge was that there was no where to dodge between the horses. However, once the charge has carried home, the fighting breaks down to individual melees, with the horses whirling about in that above mentioned "electron cloud" analogy.
Seems to me that the big problem is how to show this on the battle mat. I have no problem with the idea that a group of knights should be able to charge their foes in a stirrup to stirrup charge. Of course, they should all be moving together as a unit, which brings up more problems, this time with the initiative system and simultaneous actions...
Isn't there a regional feat for Mendev or somewhere in the PFCS for simulating this? Bah, I don't have my copy with me, this is going to bug me all day now.
I guess the only logical way to show it on the battlemap would be to use 5x10 models and then shift them to the centre of two "strips" once the charge is done...
Having lived around horses (and ponies) my entire life, I find myself often at odds with D&D rules regarding them.
10x10 is actually not one of those rules. A horse in combat, whether its real, play fun between horses, or rodeo spectacle, is a constantly shifting 700lb mass of muscle and bone. Trying to get close to that is asking for at the least a hard bump, at the worst getting trampled.
Yes, its totally sensible for horses to be side by side while "passively walking" in a 10' square. Its also fairly sensible for people to be side by side when "passively walking" in a 10' square.
But regarding combat, the 10x10 is spot on.
Now, if only they could get the carry/drag weights right...
How badly off are the carry/drag weight limits for horses?
I'm with the 10' x 10' camp for combat and normal movement, as this actually lets the horse turn around in its own space without the necessity of fancy manoeuvring. There is always the option of using the 5' x 10' area if "squeezing" (with resultant penalties). I think of it as the difference between a loose box and a horse stall (from my very vague memories of earlier times spent around horses). The "stirrup to stirrup" charge situation hasn't occurred in our games to date, so I'm not worrying about it.
We use the 4-square horse tiles from the Wilderness set of Dungeon Tiles (there are two in each set). That makes miniature placement much easier.
Regarding the rider's reach, it was stated in the rules (or was it the FAQ?) somewhere that one chooses one square for the rider out of the four, and use it throughout the ride (barring a 5' adjustment, I think). The rider gets normal (5') reach from that one square. Of course, if fighting from horseback against someone on the ground, the rider gets a +1 bonus to attack because of the difference in height.
In the Crusades, the knights would form up for cavelry charges stirrup to stirrup, making the 5 x 10 the only "realistic" figure basing. The whole point of the heavy cavely charge was that there was no where to dodge between the horses. However, once the charge has carried home, the fighting breaks down to individual melees, with the horses whirling about in that above mentioned "electron cloud" analogy.
Seems to me that the big problem is how to show this on the battle mat. I have no problem with the idea that a group of knights should be able to charge their foes in a stirrup to stirrup charge. Of course, they should all be moving together as a unit, which brings up more problems, this time with the initiative system and simultaneous actions...
I believe the DMG II and/or PHB II introduced something along the lines of teamwork maneuvers. They were special abilities that groups could undertake after training with each other for a certain amount of time (typically a couple of weeks or so). It required a "leader," who has to have certain feats and/or skill ranks (thus setting a minimum level for the ability and representing that there needs to be someone familiar with the tactic to teach everyone else). You can use this mechanic to create what you are talking about. Perhaps require the leader to have some or all of the following: Mounted Combat (a must), Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, and/or Trample. Stipulating X ranks in Ride may also be a good idea (or completely superfluous, depending on the exact feat requirements you list). The unit can then make a Charge and/or Overrun action on the lowest Initiative count in the group at the lowest speed in the group (theoretically, they'd all be mounted on the same kinds of horses, so that last bit wouldn't really matter).
Hope that helps!
I believe the DMG II and/or PHB II introduced something along the lines of teamwork maneuvers. They were special abilities that groups could undertake after training with each other for a certain amount of time (typically a couple of weeks or so). It required a "leader," who has to have certain feats and/or skill ranks (thus setting a minimum level for the ability and representing that there needs to be someone familiar with the tactic to teach everyone else). You can use this mechanic to create what you are talking about. Perhaps require the leader to have some or all of the following: Mounted Combat (a must), Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, and/or Trample. Stipulating X ranks in Ride may also be a good idea (or completely superfluous, depending on the exact feat requirements you list). The unit can then make a Charge and/or Overrun action on the lowest Initiative count in the group at the lowest speed in the group (theoretically, they'd all be mounted on the same kinds of horses, so that last bit wouldn't really matter).
Hope that helps!
Good point!
Heroes of Battle has the Heavy Cavalry teamwork benefit (p. 118). The team leader must have: Handle Animal 4 ranks, Ride 8 ranks, Mounted Combat feat, Trample feat. Team members must have: Ride 1 rank (members' mounts need not be members of the team). It takes two weeks of practice before the team works properly (and another two weeks every time a new member joins).
In effect, the team squeezes to present a line which is 5'-wide per member. They delay to act on the slowest members' initiative count. So long as they remain in a cohesive set of squares and move at least their speed each round, they don't take squeezing penalties to AC and attack rolls, their foes cannot avoid overruns but must attempt to block, and the mounts count as one size category larger for purposes of resolving overruning (e.g., a horse counts as Huge, with +8 to overrun instead of +4).
With regard to area effect spells, each Medium creature on a Large mount is considered to be occupying a space 5' wide and 10' long (different from the FAQ - maybe only while in a Heavy Cavalry formation?).
I believe the DMG II and/or PHB II introduced something along the lines of teamwork maneuvers. They were special abilities that groups could undertake after training with each other for a certain amount of time (typically a couple of weeks or so). It required a "leader," who has to have certain feats and/or skill ranks (thus setting a minimum level for the ability and representing that there needs to be someone familiar with the tactic to teach everyone else). You can use this mechanic to create what you are talking about. Perhaps require the leader to have some or all of the following: Mounted Combat (a must), Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, and/or Trample. Stipulating X ranks in Ride may also be a good idea (or completely superfluous, depending on the exact feat requirements you list). The unit can then make a Charge and/or Overrun action on the lowest Initiative count in the group at the lowest speed in the group (theoretically, they'd all be mounted on the same kinds of horses, so that last bit wouldn't really matter).
Hope that helps!
Good point!
Heroes of Battle has the Heavy Cavalry teamwork benefit (p. 118). The team leader must have: Handle Animal 4 ranks, Ride 8 ranks, Mounted Combat feat, Trample feat. Team members must have: Ride 1 rank (members' mounts need not be members of the team). It takes two weeks of practice before the team works properly (and another two weeks every time a new member joins).
In effect, the team squeezes to present a line which is 5'-wide per member. They delay to act on the slowest members' initiative count. So long as they remain in a cohesive set of squares and move at least their speed each round, they don't take squeezing penalties to AC and attack rolls, their foes cannot avoid overruns but must attempt to block, and the mounts count as one size category larger for purposes of resolving overruning (e.g., a horse counts as Huge, with +8 to overrun instead of +4).
With regard to area effect spells, each Medium creature on a Large...
I guess that I really should have gotten the Heroes of Battle back when it came out. That is the exact rule for which I was looking. Thanks!