PDA

View Full Version : The size of a horse.



YPU
2007-05-15, 04:39 AM
So, according to the current rules it appears a horse takes 2x2 tiles on a map, unless I missed some rule somewhere. But I see a lot of people, including myself who use a 2x1 size for a horse or horse like creature. What do you do?
This calls for a poll, now where did I leave those?

Aethir
2007-05-15, 05:02 AM
The SRD says it's 10/5 so that's a 2 by 1 on the square grid.

DaMullet
2007-05-15, 05:14 AM
Actually, Sir, the SRD says horses are Large creatures and take up 10 feet, but have a 5 foot reach because they're quadrupeds.

Nowhere does it mention a different size in any dimension.

You see, the size rules aren't how much space they need to stand (except in the case of Gelatinous Cubes and what), but rather the space they need to move and attack properly.

Aethir
2007-05-15, 05:21 AM
Let's take a very specific case that's provable then, the humble displacer beast. The base set has him as a 2-1 ratio for size yet the MM lists his space as 10 ft.

DaMullet
2007-05-15, 05:26 AM
The base set is not Core, last I checked. In my monster manual, it once again says, "Large Magical Beast" "Space/Reach: 10/5 (10 with tentacles)"

Telling me it occupies 4 squares, and threatens out to 10 feet with it's tentacles.

If that means something different to you, I'd love to hear what.

I think I once purchased this base set you speak of, and I know for a fact all the large creatures were off, because it doesn't make sense according to DnD combat tactics.

Aethir
2007-05-15, 05:29 AM
Do you have a purely core product that actually shows sizes accurately to what the proper dimensions would be? I'd love to see it if you do.

DaMullet
2007-05-15, 05:33 AM
It's called the Dungeon Master's Guide. Perhaps you've heard of it. In the back, it's got a large grid pattern showing the floor layout of a Long and a Tall large creature, with threatened area.

Long large creatures include quadrupeds, which cannot make attacks at reach due to having no limbs to fight with at that distance. Tall large creatures are those like Trolls, who can attack at reach due to their height.

Aethir
2007-05-15, 05:35 AM
Try checking the arms and equipment guide then. Page 56 specifically with its overhead view of the gridwork for several land vehicles. Every horse shown attached to something is a 2x1 square creature.

DaMullet
2007-05-15, 05:40 AM
Aye. But a horse hitched to a wagon isn't nearly so ready for battle, is he? See my post earlier about what grids represent.

AtomicKitKat
2007-05-15, 05:40 AM
It's the difference between AD&D/3.0 and 3.5. In the former, they used to have Face/Reach, while in the latter, it's Space/Reach. In the former, it allowed you to basically box in a horse with about 6 Medium creatures(give or take), while in the latter, you would need 8 to do the same. Both cases excluding diagonals.

DaMullet
2007-05-15, 05:43 AM
I see. You've been very enlightening, Atomic. And that was an excellent debate, Aethir.

Aethir
2007-05-15, 05:45 AM
There's a reason the TC designated this to be a "poll" not an arguement. You wanna vote the other option (theoretically) be my guest, but his question was to size not a direct insinuation of combat instances. Common sense dictates that it would be a 2x1 on the grid, while in combat the demands of space would list it as 2x2.
Every morning should start with a good debate, do you know of a current list as to what errata is updated to meet with 3.5 standards perchance?

prufock
2007-05-15, 08:31 AM
AtomicKitKat has it right. D&D 3.0 had facing, so you had creatures taking up space in rectangular sections. D&D 3.5 did away with facing, and space is now entirely square. A horse's space, as a large creature, is 10x10.

Arms and Equipment Guide is 3.0, so it would include facing. Both the DMG (in the back, as DaMullet said) and the Monster Manual (p 314) have the squares per size information.

It's important to note that outside of combat, size and reach don't matter a whole lot. Obviously a horse is not 10'x10', nor is a human 5'x5'.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-15, 08:40 AM
It's important to note that outside of combat, size and reach don't matter a whole lot. Obviously a horse is not 10'x10', nor is a human 5'x5'.
Right. Take this into account when judging the Arms and Equipment Guide vehicle illustrations, too. The horses just aren't meant to be spaced far enough apart to give them fighting room when hitched to a carriage or any other vehicle. As such, they will not be using normal combat space.

If combat does break out around hitched horses, however, you may consider applying "squeezing (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/movement.html#squeezing)" penalties to the horses' acctions.

prufock
2007-05-15, 08:45 AM
To answer the question about what I personally do, I use the space rules as they are printed. To be an effective combatant, a horse (as well as other "long" animals) has to be able to turn. I can see the reasoning behind using facing, but deleting it makes the game simpler without losing anything.

I DO use facing in Star Wars for starship combat, though.

NullAshton
2007-05-15, 08:51 AM
Horses don't take up a 10 by 10 square, exactly. Rather, they take up a 10 by 10 square in combat. That means that no enemies can cross that 10 by 10 square(with exceptions), and that allies can't fight in those four squares(again, with exceptions, like mounting).

Think of it like this. You have a spooked horse, that is angry at you for some reason. It's jumping around and kicking and moving. Could you honestly get near that horse without getting trampled? That's what the 10 by 10 square abstracts.

Khoran
2007-05-15, 08:55 AM
As noted before, the MM's entry for Space/Reach says Horses currently take up a 10ftx10ft Area and have a 5ft Reach. I've made a visual using tables tos show what this would mean.

{table=head]Spaces|x|x|x

Reach|Reach|Reach|Reach

Reach|Creature|Creature|Reach

Reach|Creature|Creature|Reach

Reach|Reach|Reach|Reach[/table]

Not exactly pretty, but you get the idea.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-15, 09:17 AM
I DO use facing in Star Wars for starship combat, though.
Yeah, for even D&D vehicle combat, non-square facing is pretty impossible to do away with. Especially for really long vehicles. Unlike snakes, most vehicles don't coil up while fighting.

Stephen_E
2007-05-15, 09:47 AM
DnD Minis, which are 3.5, also use a 10x10 space for horses, displacer beasts ectre.

Stephen

prufock
2007-05-15, 10:02 AM
Yeah, for even D&D vehicle combat, non-square facing is pretty impossible to do away with. Especially for really long vehicles. Unlike snakes, most vehicles don't coil up while fighting.

I concur. I haven't really done much D&D vehicle combat (just a couple of sailing ship encounters), but ships and perhaps siege engines would seem to require facing. A ship is only going to have so many cannons on one side, and can't exactly spin in place within 6 seconds to fire with all guns. In Star Wars, along with the gun facing problem, you also have the ability to angle shields, and even engine wash. It's difficult to get away from facing with vehicles.

prufock
2007-05-15, 10:03 AM
DnD Minis, which are 3.5, also use a 10x10 space for horses, displacer beasts ectre.

Stephen

Yup, though they use circular bases instead of square ones - just for aesthetic reasons, I guess.

Citizen Joe
2007-05-15, 10:11 AM
Its been a long time since I've played with minis, but I remember liking one brand that used a hexagonal base. It was nice because I would paint the various facets to indicate if it was shielded, flanked, rear attack, etc. But I also used a hex grid instead of a square grid.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-15, 10:12 AM
Yup, though they use circular bases instead of square ones - just for aesthetic reasons, I guess.
Gargantuan and Colossal minis go back to square though. Otherwise entire squares of their space probably wouldn't be covered, I suppose.

Personally, I prefer circular bases. As you mentioned, it's aesthetically pleasing. Plus, I think it helps reduce the chance of knocking other minis over when using them in tight configurations.

YPU
2007-05-16, 01:00 PM
Ah the turning thing yes. I use warhammer minis quite a lot in my dnd games, those quite neatly take 1x2 size. But I do rule that a horse needs the space of a large creature to turn. So a horse cant turn in a 5 foot wide hallway. Its somewhere in between I guess. Else, you really couldn’t ride in a tight formation on horses.

Piccamo
2007-05-16, 01:35 PM
Squeezing: 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.

When a Large creature (which normally takes up four squares) squeezes into a space that’s one square wide, the creature’s miniature figure occupies two squares, centered on the line between the two squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.

A creature can squeeze past an opponent while moving but it can’t end its movement in an occupied square.

To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space’s width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can’t attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC.

You can still do tight formations, it just makes you less maneuverable...go figure :smalltongue:

YPU
2007-05-17, 05:06 AM
You can still do tight formations, it just makes you less maneuverable...go figure :smalltongue:
And since the rider isn’t squeezing the penalties don’t count for him I suppose. This is interesting.

squishycube
2007-05-17, 05:27 AM
..and it was the size of a horse's"
Joking aside though, facing is pretty neat to use if you run a combat heavy campaign. The rules for facing with squares and hexes (hexes very much advised) are in Unearthed Arcana (and therefore also in the SRD!)

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-17, 05:42 AM
Since DnD has no core facing rules (UA has some I think) creatures have to have a square base since you don't know what direction they're facing.

I tend to use Warhammer models so horses are 5 by 10.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-17, 07:04 AM
The rules for facing with squares and hexes (hexes very much advised) are in Unearthed Arcana (and therefore also in the SRD!)
Correction. None of the rules from Unearthed Arcana are in the SRD. But people do often provide rules from Unearthed Arcana alongside the SRD.

lumberofdabeast
2007-05-18, 07:35 AM
Correction. None of the rules from Unearthed Arcana are in the SRD. But people do often provide rules from Unearthed Arcana alongside the SRD.

Actually, according to d20srd.org (www.d20srd.org), quite a lot of Unearthed Arcana is in the SRD.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-05-18, 07:42 AM
Actually, according to d20srd.org (www.d20srd.org), quite a lot of Unearthed Arcana is in the SRD.

Maybe we should look at the official source.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

I don't see anything from Unearthed Arcana but I only scanned the list.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-05-18, 10:04 AM
Maybe we should look at the official source.
Exactly. d20srd.org is not the official SRD itself. It is an independent website that provides access to the SRD as well as a number of other resources, including character sheets, monster and spell filters, and the Open Game Content from Unearthed Arcana. Despite being labled "Supplemental SRD" none of that is in the SRD. (Though the Epic, Psionic, and Divine sections are.)