Post/Author/DateTime	Post
smrtgmp 09-10-04, 06:50 AM	Did they do away with the various sizing types (such as large, long for a horse)? I saw it doesnt say this anymore, so I assume the answer is yes. If so does anyone know the reasoning for this? Was it just to simplify book keeping? I can see a horse taking up a space 10 ft long, but 10ft wide? Just seems wrong. Any insight into this matter would be much appreciated.
d_nychus 09-10-04, 09:11 AM	It was because of the fact that long creatures were forced to be ascribed "fronts" and "backs" with the old sizes. That just did not make any sense at all in a game without facing. The creature really could not threaten everything around it without being able to do backflips to attack those were were "behind" it; something that was allowed for the game play, but made little sense with the facing rules. It led to some very bad game play effects, such as one very memorable encounter in my game where a group of PCs managed to "pin" a dragon against a wall, without it being able to attack anyone except with it's tail slap. Ever since then, I had houseruled that all creatures have square faces in 3.0, and I was very happy to see WotC do the same with 3.5 via space. Also, creatures in the "long" catagory in 3.0 were very cramped in their spaces. For instance, a human really only takes up maybe a tenth of his space, but threatens not only all of that, but every space around it without using movement. A horse, on the other hand, takes up something close to 70% of his space, and yet has to sacrifice movement to attack those who are in range if he could turn in his square like a human can. Are horses somehow magically stationary after they move, unlike a human? And now the sizes are more uniforms as well, which helps a lot in catagorizing a creature.
smrtgmp 09-10-04, 08:16 PM	Ahh...that clears things up nicely. Thanks for the info. :)