I am pretty sure this isn't listed anywhere but...
Let's say a gargantuan creature wants to take a 5-foot step. Would the range for 5-foot step be increased because of how big it is? This is in relation to the thread here but it made me wonder about those gargantuan or even colossal sized creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very true. I was trying to imagine in my head the Tarrasque for example only moving 5 feet...that'd be like a tiny shuffle...which of course made me smile thinking about that!
it is quite ridiculous that massive beasties 5ft steps are so tiny
I felt a right prune giving a gargantuan blue dragon mini a 5ft step
big beasties dont often have fast speed but they have a biggish stride relatively
there should be a monster feat imo
You could houserule that the 5ft. step is an increment equal to your base size. This would make "size" sense but isn't RAW.
It would be fairly trivial to say that creatures can "shift" (to borrow a 4e term) a distance equal to the natural reach given by their size from the table in CRB. You'd have to bear in mind that it would make larger creatures more dangerous, but when you consider their size on the battlefield, I doubt it would be game breaking.
@Chemlak - Kind of what I was thinking, my group is pretty clever and could use the increased difficulty
@LazarX - Definitely true, AoO's are not a big concern at that size but positioning and full-attacks may be :)
@Nova and @Stuart - Houserule probably IS my only option and I would likely make it a monster feat.
I had the same ideas some time ago. It really helped when a fellow player described it as a repositioning, turning or 'fixing of the feet' that can only be represented by the smallest increment on the grid, 5 ft. At the other end of the spectrum the shift of a medium creature is increased to account for it. This certainly isn't RAW but makes sense logically. That said, I think a monstrjrous feat to increase it is a great idea!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be fairly trivial to say that creatures can "shift" (to borrow a 4e term) a distance equal to the natural reach given by their size from the table in CRB. You'd have to bear in mind that it would make larger creatures more dangerous, but when you consider their size on the battlefield, I doubt it would be game breaking.
No, it would be absolutely game breaking. One of the primary dangers from large creatures is the AOO from approaching them. You are giving this to them every turn. It also gives monsters *obscene* battlefield mobility.
The combat sequence for a melee character moves from:
1) Engage (Take AoO)
2) Single Attack
3) Take Full Attack
4) Trade Full Attacks (since it can't take more than a 5 foot step away without provoking or withdrawling).
To:
1) Engage (Take AoO)
2) Single Attack
3) Monster full attacks.
4) Monster x-foot steps away.
5) Player must re-engage (takes another AoO)
6) Player only gets a single attack again.)
repeat 4-6 until the player is utterly murdered.
Mobility goes from being a nice to have feat to absolutely mandatory to survive. The full attack action for players is relegated to the status of "something you might get to do between levels 5-9 or so". Two weapon fighting feats are rendered worthless. Melee characters, who already struggle to keep up with their ranged brothers, fall further behind.
For real. It may sound "silly" that a monster can only shuffle 5 feet, but it really is a fundamental balancing aspect of the rules and without it, combat breaks very quickly.
it is a fundamental part of balance, that is a very good point
unfortunately its a rather ugly fundamental thing having been playing dnd-next lately and is liberating to escape stuff like the 5ft step
@robb. agreed. poor melee already gets bad rub cf to archer, giving biggies a 15ft step would make it worse!!
Having only 5 ft steps is important to game balance.
That aside, size should have NOTHING to do with it. If you're 50 ft tall but still run as fast as a human, sorry, bud. No way in hell should you have the coordination and speed to travel more than a human in the same amount of time!
If you were to do it, it would be based on speed. Probably extra 5 ft for every +30 ft above 30.
Remember kids, despite its name, a 5 ft step is not necessarily just a single "step." It's a quick shift of position. Being able to move faster than the speed of sound would be more conducive to shifting position further in the same amount of time than being as big as a skyscraper would.
Verisimilitude-wise, big creatures are usually slower in the real world. The bigger a creature is, the slower it moves as a proportion of it's body size.
I stand happily corrected.
w/o training, like Mr B, lots things bigger than a human are as fast/faster
tiger, gorilla, elk, giraffe, kangaroo?
It maybe that 4 legged beasties have a better 5ft step than 2 legged? although an ostrich still wins?
maybe we cant escape that ever since they introduce the grid, the AOO, and strict movement where are tied to it?
humans run/walk other prey down as we can sweat etc....the average bloke is nowhere near mr B
Verisimilitude-wise, big creatures are usually slower in the real world. The bigger a creature is, the slower it moves as a proportion of it's body size.They only appear to move slower, name one big massive animal slower than a human, besides the large sloth.
A bear? No they can out run Usain Bolt.
An elephant? No an elephant can reach speeds of 25 mph.
A horse? Definitely faster than a human.
Humans are some of the slowest sprinters on earth, we are only good at long distance running.
You didn't read the second sentence, did you?
As a proportion of body size, a house cat is faster than a cheetah. In one second, a house cat can travel 29 body lengths, while a cheetah can go 25. So, bigger creatures can travel faster, but that distance when measured relative to body size actually decreases.
A tiger beetle can travel at 125 body lengths per second, or about 1.2 miles per hour.
Also, the only elephants that have been clocked scientifically, have topped out around 15 miles per hour. Also, technically elephants can't run. Their gait pattern remains the same no matter how fast they go, unlike a horse which changes walking patterns based on speed.
Lastly, humans are not built for speed. We are built for endurance, so of course we're going to lose most of those comparisons. One of the few land animals that can equal or beat us on endurance is horses. There are African tribes that hunt by chasing the same animal all day until it falls over from exhaustion.
What you argued is that because proportionally they are slower irl so they should have the same 5 ft step.
But it doesn't matter if proportionally they are slower as long as in the same amount of time they cover more distance than they should have > than 5 ft step.
So basically I am saying based on real life argument large creatures should have greater than 5 ft steps. However, I think the balance argument is more compelling.
If we view the 5-foot step as an aspect of base land speed, then all our arguments are going to end up as a higher land speed means a more-than-5-foot step.
Even more extreme, Gignere and Irontruth are arguing run speeds. And running makes a character lose Dexterity bonus to AC. A running character is easier to hit. This is unlike a 5-foot step.
To avoid cognitive dissonance, I view the 5-foot step as footwork. The character in combat is dancing around, light on his feet, and often sidesteps two feet as part of dodging his opponent's swings. To move in a 5-foot step, he sidesteps two or three times in the same direction. Large creatures have to have their feet more solidly planted on the ground to bear their weight, so their longer stride is canceled out by less footwork.
the running makes you easy to hit also makes little sense. Play laser quest, or a FPS shooter and she how 5fts steps keep you alive....not
BUT we do need rules,and a sense of balance so we have to grit our teeth
Balance is a very compelling argument and I don't think I would ever suggest this as an update to the actual rules. I was thinking of houseruling a monster feat (meaning they would probably lose one of their other feats if taken) and as far as AoO's go...they don't have combat reflexes so only 1 person's getting hit hard. But I may not do this with the arguments given for balance, I was just hoping to avoid standard difficulty increases like max hp and such. Like I said my players are pretty clever and more HP doesn't really thrill them.