A friend of mine is saying that horses and other similar four-legged creatures only take up to squares on the grid (instead of four) in spite of being large creatures, but i can't find that rule. Does this rule really exists or is my friend confused with earlier editions? (3.0 comes to mind)
Thank you.
That is a 3.0 rule. Starting with 3.5 all large creatures take up 4 squares no matter the shape.
Edit:19<--Personal note only.
It was changed in 3.5 because the old ruling (long creatures not having a square space) introduced facing into the rules, even though they weren't supposed to deal with facing.
Thak you all.
On a related note:
Where is the rider on a horse? If, for example, a pair of Cavaliers wanted to ride side-by-side in order to take advantage of the benefits of the Lookout feat, could they do so? And where do reach weapons for the rider get calculated from?
If there is a clear explanation in a book or FAQ, please point me there (there are a lot of horse reference to read here)
The rider occupies all the same spaces as the mount.
A horse (not a pony) is a Large creature and thus takes up a space 10 feet (2 squares) across. For simplicity, assume that you share your mount's space during combat.
Combat chapter of the core rulebook, under Mounted Combat.
Exactly, I don't mind dealing with facing. Seems more in-depth to me and since 3.0 and up are based around the miniatures game I'd think facing would have more to do with the game. But that's what houserules are for.
Every edition of D&D has been based around 'the miniatures game'. I note the rule in 1e that states your shield only grants you a bonus from attacks coming from one side/3 cardinal directions relative to your character's facing.
You're responding to 2011 there...
I imagine they removed the concept of facing because most battles would involve someone walking around and hitting their enemy in the back of the head while they just stood there. It really draws attention to the unrealism of turn-based combat.
True enough. And yet there are situations where ignoring facing leads to unhelpful results. Like flying creatures able to change their direction of flight in between two turns, although that ability is restricted within a turn. Instant immelmanns... need I say more?
One might argue that the same problem is posed with charging mounts able to do a complete 180° turn between one round and the next.
It's a houserule, sure, but IMHO it's important to track facing for flying critters and charging mounts.
I imagine they removed the concept of facing because most battles would involve someone walking around and hitting their enemy in the back of the head while they just stood there. It really draws attention to the unrealism of turn-based combat.
Definitely that, but facing also interacts weirdly with the concept of occupying a 5-foot space. You occupy that much space in combat because that's supposed to be about what you need to move about and comfortably fight. Your exact position in that 5-foot-square area is nebulous and undefined so that different body movements make sense and to accommodate all different shapes and sizes of Small and Medium creatures.