5 ft. step for large creatuers? [Archive] - Wizards Community

5 ft. step for large creatuers? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
seraphimpunk
01-29-07, 12:43 PM It just occured to me that its silly for a large or huge creature to have the same 5 ft. adjustment that a medium creature has. The tactical adjustment should be based on the creature's size and reach, shouldn't it?

size & reach: tactical adjustment:
5 ft. / 5 ft. 5 ft.
10 ft. / 5 ft. 5 ft.
10 ft. / 10 ft. 10 ft.
15 ft. / 10 ft. 10 ft.
15 ft. / 15 ft. 15 ft.
20 ft. / 15 ft. 15 ft.
20 ft. / 20 ft. 20 ft.
Some_call_me_Tim
01-29-07, 12:47 PM The tactical adjustment should be based on the creature's size and reach, shouldn't it?There you go, trying to introduce logic into the game. :P

Imagine fighting a giant with these rules.

Giant full attacks takes a 15 ft. step back
human fighter has to move, provoke AO, gets only one attack
rinse, repeat, until fighter is dead.

Bad idea.
tarkin
01-29-07, 01:05 PM It's not logic he is introducing. It is a huge logical mistake. Basically, he has it backwards.

He thinks "5 ft step is something that I can do, so if larger people should be able to do more." That is wrong.

Instead 5ft step depends on your opponent, not something about you. That is, there is no magical movement of 5 ft that the gods decreed your opponents shall not hit you on. Instead, 5ft is the largest amount of movement that anyone can take before you have moved so much that YOUR OPPONENT can hit you. Your opponent is the one taking the real action, so it is his size, not yours that determines whether or not you can move.

So it does not matter if you are tiny or Collosal, what matters is your opponent. And guess what, the size of your opponent AFFECTS wether or not you can do a 5ft step or step further. The larger your opponent is, the more reach he has. The smaller he is, the less reach he has.

If your opponent is tiny, he has no reach, and you can take a 30 ft step, without fear of taking an AoO. If your opponet is huge, he has a lot of reach and you might find that while you can still take a 5ft step, that 5ft step is no longer enough. You can no longer "I step 5ft back and cast a spell" or "I step 5ft back and fire my arrow". The 5ft step has been functionally reduced in power by about 80%.

---------

Now, if you wanted to increase the realism, you could make the 5ft step more depenenent on your opponent's size. Size has already been dealt with by the reach rules, but that still leaves speed.

You could House Rule that if your init is at least 10 points greater than his, you can take a 10 ft step because he is so slow he can't hit you, 20 points greater than his a 15 ft step, 30 points greater, a 20 ft step, etc.

That would be a House Rule that makes sense.
jadehawk
01-29-07, 01:17 PM It's not logic he is introducing. It is a huge logical mistake. Basically, he has it backwards.

He thinks "5 ft step is something that I can do, so if larger people should be able to do more." That is wrong.

Instead 5ft step depends on your opponent, not something about you. That is, there is no magical movement of 5 ft that the gods decreed your opponents shall not hit you on. Instead, 5ft is the largest amount of movement that anyone can take before you have moved so much that YOUR OPPONENT can hit you. Your opponent is the one taking the real action, so it is his size, not yours that determines whether or not you can move.

So it does not matter if you are tiny or Collosal, what matters is your opponent. And guess what, the size of your opponent AFFECTS wether or not you can do a 5ft step or step further. The larger your opponent is, the more reach he has. The smaller he is, the less reach he has.

If your opponent is tiny, he has no reach, and you can take a 30 ft step, without fear of taking an AoO. If your opponet is huge, he has a lot of reach and you might find that while you can still take a 5ft step, that 5ft step is no longer enough. You can no longer "I step 5ft back and cast a spell" or "I step 5ft back and fire my arrow". The 5ft step has been functionally reduced in power by about 80%.

---------

Now, if you wanted to increase the realism, you could make the 5ft step more depenenent on your opponent's size. Size has already been dealt with by the reach rules, but that still leaves speed.

You could House Rule that if your init is at least 10 points greater than his, you can take a 10 ft step because he is so slow he can't hit you, 20 points greater than his a 15 ft step, 30 points greater, a 20 ft step, etc.

That would be a House Rule that makes sense.

I'd still say that there is some logic to a larger character being able to move more than 5 feet as an adjustment. To me, the 5 foot move is taking a single (long) step for positioning as a free action. Obviously larger creatures should be able to move more...does this mean that smaller creatures that don't threaten the squares around them cannot take a 5 foot adjustment as a free action? I would suggest making the 5 foot adjustment some component of your speed (which might allow certain characters with magically enhanced speeds to make larger free action adjustments)...Say for every 20 points of speed you have, you can make 5 feet of an adjustment as a free action. If you allowed this, certain creatures with speeds less than 20 could not take the 5 foot adjustment and certain creatures (or high level monks) would be able to make incredible free action adjustments.

As indicated in the last post I would still stick them with an attack of opportunity if they moved out of a threatened square and more than 5 feet.
Vegepygmy
01-29-07, 02:51 PM I'd still say that there is some logic to a larger character being able to move more than 5 feet as an adjustment.Regardless of whether there is any "logic" to it, it would be an Extremely Bad Idea to change the rules of the game in this way.
seraphimpunk
01-29-07, 02:59 PM I don't think it'd be a bad change. There's a number of ways to move around within a creatures threat area already ( tumble, spring attack, mobility ).

yes, i'm asserting some logic. but i'm also just examining the argument. seeing if its feasible.

to me it makes sense that a 20 ft. dragon might lurch forward 10 ft. or hop to the side 10 ft. rather than a human who repositions himself by 5ft.

I also don't agree that the 5 ft. step is a measure of your opponent's reach. its completely a factor of your own movement and size. Its the most you can move easily without provoking an attack from your opponent, without doing a full withdraw action. But might it not be possible that larger creatures can move farther without leaving an opening?

Granted, this kind of change would make combat with larger creatures more difficult and deadly, but reach already makes it difficult, and i'm a sadistic DM anyway, I like a tougher opponent.
Archangel62
01-29-07, 03:01 PM The main reason why it wouldn't work is this, no matter how big you are you can't move more than a certain amount without leaving yourself vulnerable.
seraphimpunk
01-29-07, 03:11 PM my goal: have a huge mature adult dragon be able to advance more than 5ft. and take a full attack. ( i'm cruel ). I'm not worried about provoking attacks of opportunity so much as being able to "5 ft. step" and still take a full attack.

ginormous creatures should be able to move around a bit more and still attack. its a relative adjustment for them. a medium creature can swing his sword a few times and step back, and a large creature swinging his sword a few times that steps back would step back farther.

( i have issues with why big creatures don't have more movement, but i won't go into that here )

Instead 5ft step depends on your opponent, not something about you. That is, there is no magical movement of 5 ft that the gods decreed your opponents shall not hit you on. Instead, 5ft is the largest amount of movement that anyone can take before you have moved so much that YOUR OPPONENT can hit you. Your opponent is the one taking the real action, so it is his size, not yours that determines whether or not you can move.

It depends more on whether or not your opponent has reach. for a medium sized creature, their reach is 5 ft. When you step back warily, you can only defend or threaten an area 5 ft. around you at a time. So it makes sense to me that you can step back and defend the area you just left, because you can reach it. you're effectively blocking pursuit by defending yourself or being ready to defend yourself.

A giant might be able to do the same by moving his foot away from where he was standing, backing up. Due to the difference in relative size and reach there wouldn't be anything to attack within reach when the giant moved away.

So it does not matter if you are tiny or Collosal, what matters is your opponent. And guess what, the size of your opponent AFFECTS wether or not you can do a 5ft step or step further. The larger your opponent is, the more reach he has. The smaller he is, the less reach he has.

The size of your opponent doesn't effect whether you can or cannot take a 5 ft. step. You can always take a 5 ft. step. Your opponent's reach only effects what you can do freely after you take the 5 ft. step.
seraphimpunk
01-29-07, 03:12 PM The main reason why it wouldn't work is this, no matter how big you are you can't move more than a certain amount without leaving yourself vulnerable.

I believe in that. What I'm proposing is that, that distance, how far you can move without leaving yourself vulnerable, is not a constant, but instead varies based on your size and reach.
Vegepygmy
01-29-07, 03:20 PM I don't think it'd be a bad change...

Granted, this kind of change would make combat with larger creatures more difficult and deadly, but reach already makes it difficult, and i'm a sadistic DM anyway, I like a tougher opponent...

my goal: have a huge mature adult dragon be able to advance more than 5ft. and take a full attack. ( i'm cruel ).Given that you are a cruel and sadistic DM who wants to make combat with larger creatures more difficult and deadly...you're right, it's not a bad change.

It should not surprise you, however, that others who don't share those traits and/or goals consider it a change for the worse.
seraphimpunk
01-29-07, 03:27 PM Given that you are a cruel and sadistic DM who wants to make combat with larger creatures more difficult and deadly...you're right, it's not a bad change.

It should not surprise you, however, that others who don't share those traits and/or goals consider it a change for the worse.

No, I'm not surprised. I was trying to get a gauge of how much dissent it would create here on the boards before even proposing the idea to my group. The forums is a good sounding board. Lots of opinions and views on the matter that I can take into consideration before subjecting my pc's to it.
WinDReiN
01-29-07, 07:20 PM Larger creatures tend to be slower when moving. Taking a 5ft step is a free action, taking a 20ft step would require a longer amount of time, so it ceases to be a free action. DC 40 check in Tumble skill proves that only highly acrobatic and agile creatures can take 10 ft step...
Nom
01-29-07, 08:00 PM There are a bunch of reasons why it's 5 ft. for everyone. The most obvious is that it's the smallest discrete unit of distance representable on the grid: one square. If you allow "steps" larger than 5 ft. then you run into pathing issues for starters (large creatures are awkward enough to path anyway).

The 5 ft. step is incidental movement: basically shuffling around during combat without really moving. One could argue that large creatures could shuffle further. One could also take Tarkin's position that it's harder for a large creature to move without exposing an opening for a smaller one, but I don't really buy that.

All creatures are assumed to be moving about in their space in combat. The 5 ft. step simply allows the creature's normal activity to drift into an adjacent square.
my goal: have a huge mature adult dragon be able to advance more than 5ft. and take a full attack. ( i'm cruel ). I'm not worried about provoking attacks of opportunity so much as being able to "5 ft. step" and still take a full attack.The huge mature dragon still has massive reach; it can full attack at a range that a Medium creature cannot hope to match. Admittedly, things get a little odd when two huge creatures fight each other, sniping at the edge of their reach.

Fact is, the game is designed around the Medium creature (which is also why Small creatures get to use the same mechanics as Medium creatures for the most part). Heroes are Medium (or Small). Things that are not Medium generally aren't heroes and thus exist as either foes or allies. Some game systems attempt to be universally scaling. D&D does not; it's firmly based around the reference point of a Medium creature, ability score 10, and the Hit Die. Everything is defined in terms of these reference points.
risner
01-29-07, 09:08 PM shouldn't it?

No
pres_man
01-29-07, 11:04 PM It's a game. For balance, you get 5' adjustment with no AoO, it works for everybody with at least a 5' speed. Just let it go, the game is not meant to be a "realism" simulator.
runestar
01-29-07, 11:37 PM I also see this more of a game balance issue than a logical one.:)
Imagine the abuse a hydra could wrought if it could take 10-ft steps...
draconic_swine
01-30-07, 10:13 AM I'm with everyone who says that allowing this would be a bad idea. It's a pure game balance thing. This definitely falls under the type of rule that's gonna hurt a PC a lot more than it will help (in fact, nothing about this would even help a PC).

I don't think it'd be a bad change. There's a number of ways to move around within a creatures threat area already ( tumble, spring attack, mobility ).

True, but doing so either requires a fair number of ranks (if you want to be all but guaranteed success every time) in a skill most classes can't take, or 2-3 feats, which is a lot for even a fighter who just want to be able to keep up with big monsters without provoking AoOs. IMO that's way too much investment, and if every character pretty much has to take something to be effective in combat, then it's a bad idea.
Harliquinn
01-30-07, 01:32 PM I'm with everyone who says that allowing this would be a bad idea. It's a pure game balance thing. This definitely falls under the type of rule that's gonna hurt a PC a lot more than it will help (in fact, nothing about this would even help a PC).

ALl it would do it really make it so Large PC's were the only way to go in his campaign.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
seraphimpunk 01-29-07, 12:43 PM	It just occured to me that its silly for a large or huge creature to have the same 5 ft. adjustment that a medium creature has. The tactical adjustment should be based on the creature's size and reach, shouldn't it? size & reach: tactical adjustment: 5 ft. / 5 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft. / 5 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft. / 10 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. / 10 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. / 15 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. / 15 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. / 20 ft. 20 ft.
Some_call_me_Tim 01-29-07, 12:47 PM	The tactical adjustment should be based on the creature's size and reach, shouldn't it?There you go, trying to introduce logic into the game. :P Imagine fighting a giant with these rules. Giant full attacks takes a 15 ft. step back human fighter has to move, provoke AO, gets only one attack rinse, repeat, until fighter is dead. Bad idea.
tarkin 01-29-07, 01:05 PM	It's not logic he is introducing. It is a huge logical mistake. Basically, he has it backwards. He thinks "5 ft step is something that I can do, so if larger people should be able to do more." That is wrong. Instead 5ft step depends on your opponent, not something about you. That is, there is no magical movement of 5 ft that the gods decreed your opponents shall not hit you on. Instead, 5ft is the largest amount of movement that anyone can take before you have moved so much that YOUR OPPONENT can hit you. Your opponent is the one taking the real action, so it is his size, not yours that determines whether or not you can move. So it does not matter if you are tiny or Collosal, what matters is your opponent. And guess what, the size of your opponent AFFECTS wether or not you can do a 5ft step or step further. The larger your opponent is, the more reach he has. The smaller he is, the less reach he has. If your opponent is tiny, he has no reach, and you can take a 30 ft step, without fear of taking an AoO. If your opponet is huge, he has a lot of reach and you might find that while you can still take a 5ft step, that 5ft step is no longer enough. You can no longer "I step 5ft back and cast a spell" or "I step 5ft back and fire my arrow". The 5ft step has been functionally reduced in power by about 80%. --------- Now, if you wanted to increase the realism, you could make the 5ft step more depenenent on your opponent's size. Size has already been dealt with by the reach rules, but that still leaves speed. You could House Rule that if your init is at least 10 points greater than his, you can take a 10 ft step because he is so slow he can't hit you, 20 points greater than his a 15 ft step, 30 points greater, a 20 ft step, etc. That would be a House Rule that makes sense.
jadehawk 01-29-07, 01:17 PM	It's not logic he is introducing. It is a huge logical mistake. Basically, he has it backwards. He thinks "5 ft step is something that I can do, so if larger people should be able to do more." That is wrong. Instead 5ft step depends on your opponent, not something about you. That is, there is no magical movement of 5 ft that the gods decreed your opponents shall not hit you on. Instead, 5ft is the largest amount of movement that anyone can take before you have moved so much that YOUR OPPONENT can hit you. Your opponent is the one taking the real action, so it is his size, not yours that determines whether or not you can move. So it does not matter if you are tiny or Collosal, what matters is your opponent. And guess what, the size of your opponent AFFECTS wether or not you can do a 5ft step or step further. The larger your opponent is, the more reach he has. The smaller he is, the less reach he has. If your opponent is tiny, he has no reach, and you can take a 30 ft step, without fear of taking an AoO. If your opponet is huge, he has a lot of reach and you might find that while you can still take a 5ft step, that 5ft step is no longer enough. You can no longer "I step 5ft back and cast a spell" or "I step 5ft back and fire my arrow". The 5ft step has been functionally reduced in power by about 80%. --------- Now, if you wanted to increase the realism, you could make the 5ft step more depenenent on your opponent's size. Size has already been dealt with by the reach rules, but that still leaves speed. You could House Rule that if your init is at least 10 points greater than his, you can take a 10 ft step because he is so slow he can't hit you, 20 points greater than his a 15 ft step, 30 points greater, a 20 ft step, etc. That would be a House Rule that makes sense. I'd still say that there is some logic to a larger character being able to move more than 5 feet as an adjustment. To me, the 5 foot move is taking a single (long) step for positioning as a free action. Obviously larger creatures should be able to move more...does this mean that smaller creatures that don't threaten the squares around them cannot take a 5 foot adjustment as a free action? I would suggest making the 5 foot adjustment some component of your speed (which might allow certain characters with magically enhanced speeds to make larger free action adjustments)...Say for every 20 points of speed you have, you can make 5 feet of an adjustment as a free action. If you allowed this, certain creatures with speeds less than 20 could not take the 5 foot adjustment and certain creatures (or high level monks) would be able to make incredible free action adjustments. As indicated in the last post I would still stick them with an attack of opportunity if they moved out of a threatened square and more than 5 feet.
Vegepygmy 01-29-07, 02:51 PM	I'd still say that there is some logic to a larger character being able to move more than 5 feet as an adjustment.Regardless of whether there is any "logic" to it, it would be an Extremely Bad Idea to change the rules of the game in this way.
seraphimpunk 01-29-07, 02:59 PM	I don't think it'd be a bad change. There's a number of ways to move around within a creatures threat area already ( tumble, spring attack, mobility ). yes, i'm asserting some logic. but i'm also just examining the argument. seeing if its feasible. to me it makes sense that a 20 ft. dragon might lurch forward 10 ft. or hop to the side 10 ft. rather than a human who repositions himself by 5ft. I also don't agree that the 5 ft. step is a measure of your opponent's reach. its completely a factor of your own movement and size. Its the most you can move easily without provoking an attack from your opponent, without doing a full withdraw action. But might it not be possible that larger creatures can move farther without leaving an opening? Granted, this kind of change would make combat with larger creatures more difficult and deadly, but reach already makes it difficult, and i'm a sadistic DM anyway, I like a tougher opponent.
Archangel62 01-29-07, 03:01 PM	The main reason why it wouldn't work is this, no matter how big you are you can't move more than a certain amount without leaving yourself vulnerable.
seraphimpunk 01-29-07, 03:11 PM	my goal: have a huge mature adult dragon be able to advance more than 5ft. and take a full attack. ( i'm cruel ). I'm not worried about provoking attacks of opportunity so much as being able to "5 ft. step" and still take a full attack. ginormous creatures should be able to move around a bit more and still attack. its a relative adjustment for them. a medium creature can swing his sword a few times and step back, and a large creature swinging his sword a few times that steps back would step back farther. ( i have issues with why big creatures don't have more movement, but i won't go into that here ) Instead 5ft step depends on your opponent, not something about you. That is, there is no magical movement of 5 ft that the gods decreed your opponents shall not hit you on. Instead, 5ft is the largest amount of movement that anyone can take before you have moved so much that YOUR OPPONENT can hit you. Your opponent is the one taking the real action, so it is his size, not yours that determines whether or not you can move. It depends more on whether or not your opponent has reach. for a medium sized creature, their reach is 5 ft. When you step back warily, you can only defend or threaten an area 5 ft. around you at a time. So it makes sense to me that you can step back and defend the area you just left, because you can reach it. you're effectively blocking pursuit by defending yourself or being ready to defend yourself. A giant might be able to do the same by moving his foot away from where he was standing, backing up. Due to the difference in relative size and reach there wouldn't be anything to attack within reach when the giant moved away. So it does not matter if you are tiny or Collosal, what matters is your opponent. And guess what, the size of your opponent AFFECTS wether or not you can do a 5ft step or step further. The larger your opponent is, the more reach he has. The smaller he is, the less reach he has. The size of your opponent doesn't effect whether you can or cannot take a 5 ft. step. You can always take a 5 ft. step. Your opponent's reach only effects what you can do freely after you take the 5 ft. step.
seraphimpunk 01-29-07, 03:12 PM	The main reason why it wouldn't work is this, no matter how big you are you can't move more than a certain amount without leaving yourself vulnerable. I believe in that. What I'm proposing is that, that distance, how far you can move without leaving yourself vulnerable, is not a constant, but instead varies based on your size and reach.
Vegepygmy 01-29-07, 03:20 PM	I don't think it'd be a bad change... Granted, this kind of change would make combat with larger creatures more difficult and deadly, but reach already makes it difficult, and i'm a sadistic DM anyway, I like a tougher opponent... my goal: have a huge mature adult dragon be able to advance more than 5ft. and take a full attack. ( i'm cruel ).Given that you are a cruel and sadistic DM who wants to make combat with larger creatures more difficult and deadly...you're right, it's not a bad change. It should not surprise you, however, that others who don't share those traits and/or goals consider it a change for the worse.
seraphimpunk 01-29-07, 03:27 PM	Given that you are a cruel and sadistic DM who wants to make combat with larger creatures more difficult and deadly...you're right, it's not a bad change. It should not surprise you, however, that others who don't share those traits and/or goals consider it a change for the worse. No, I'm not surprised. I was trying to get a gauge of how much dissent it would create here on the boards before even proposing the idea to my group. The forums is a good sounding board. Lots of opinions and views on the matter that I can take into consideration before subjecting my pc's to it.
WinDReiN 01-29-07, 07:20 PM	Larger creatures tend to be slower when moving. Taking a 5ft step is a free action, taking a 20ft step would require a longer amount of time, so it ceases to be a free action. DC 40 check in Tumble skill proves that only highly acrobatic and agile creatures can take 10 ft step...
Nom 01-29-07, 08:00 PM	There are a bunch of reasons why it's 5 ft. for everyone. The most obvious is that it's the smallest discrete unit of distance representable on the grid: one square. If you allow "steps" larger than 5 ft. then you run into pathing issues for starters (large creatures are awkward enough to path anyway). The 5 ft. step is incidental movement: basically shuffling around during combat without really moving. One could argue that large creatures could shuffle further. One could also take Tarkin's position that it's harder for a large creature to move without exposing an opening for a smaller one, but I don't really buy that. All creatures are assumed to be moving about in their space in combat. The 5 ft. step simply allows the creature's normal activity to drift into an adjacent square. my goal: have a huge mature adult dragon be able to advance more than 5ft. and take a full attack. ( i'm cruel ). I'm not worried about provoking attacks of opportunity so much as being able to "5 ft. step" and still take a full attack.The huge mature dragon still has massive reach; it can full attack at a range that a Medium creature cannot hope to match. Admittedly, things get a little odd when two huge creatures fight each other, sniping at the edge of their reach. Fact is, the game is designed around the Medium creature (which is also why Small creatures get to use the same mechanics as Medium creatures for the most part). Heroes are Medium (or Small). Things that are not Medium generally aren't heroes and thus exist as either foes or allies. Some game systems attempt to be universally scaling. D&D does not; it's firmly based around the reference point of a Medium creature, ability score 10, and the Hit Die. Everything is defined in terms of these reference points.
risner 01-29-07, 09:08 PM	shouldn't it? No
pres_man 01-29-07, 11:04 PM	It's a game. For balance, you get 5' adjustment with no AoO, it works for everybody with at least a 5' speed. Just let it go, the game is not meant to be a "realism" simulator.
runestar 01-29-07, 11:37 PM	I also see this more of a game balance issue than a logical one.:) Imagine the abuse a hydra could wrought if it could take 10-ft steps...
draconic_swine 01-30-07, 10:13 AM	I'm with everyone who says that allowing this would be a bad idea. It's a pure game balance thing. This definitely falls under the type of rule that's gonna hurt a PC a lot more than it will help (in fact, nothing about this would even help a PC). I don't think it'd be a bad change. There's a number of ways to move around within a creatures threat area already ( tumble, spring attack, mobility ). True, but doing so either requires a fair number of ranks (if you want to be all but guaranteed success every time) in a skill most classes can't take, or 2-3 feats, which is a lot for even a fighter who just want to be able to keep up with big monsters without provoking AoOs. IMO that's way too much investment, and if every character pretty much has to take something to be effective in combat, then it's a bad idea.
Harliquinn 01-30-07, 01:32 PM	I'm with everyone who says that allowing this would be a bad idea. It's a pure game balance thing. This definitely falls under the type of rule that's gonna hurt a PC a lot more than it will help (in fact, nothing about this would even help a PC). ALl it would do it really make it so Large PC's were the only way to go in his campaign.