Understanding Space

[Syntaxis]

I'm not having trouble understanding the rule of space and how space and movement works. That's not the issue. This is more of a logistical question that I've been struggling with trying to justify the way Pathfinder approaches the rules for how much space certain creatures occupy. For example, a 100 foot long creature somehow still only occupies a space of 30 feet, so 30 feet across and 30 feet long. I could understand this if the creature was simply massively tall or could coil up like a snake, but a big, bulky creature just would not fit in that area. Can someone please shed some light on the reasoning for this kind of thing?

[kestral287]

Simplicity of game design.

It's an abstraction, nothing more or less.

[Cyrad]

That's not how space works. Size categories only go up to Colossal, which is 25x25 and +64 feet tall. After that point, it's better off presenting the creature as terrain.

[Syntaxis]

Cyrad, sorry, but you're actually just wrong right there. Look in the Bestiary. There are plenty of monsters occupying 30 feet spaces.

Kestral, that's kind of what I figured, but it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I like to be as realistic as possible, so that just bothers me.

[Bob Bob Bob]

That's because colossal is 30x30. And yeah, it's a bit of an abstraction. The second element is that a lot of creature's reach is also part of the space they take up. That's why dragons can bite so far away (long neck). That's where the wings and tail go (in the space it can reach and hit into). I guess they're tucked away when they're not swinging at people? Now, none of that helps with monsters that are big bulky things (like a bear) described as taking up more than 30 feet. 3.5 dealt with the issue with colossal+ and colossal++ size categories but there's no equivalent in pathfinder I'm aware of (and there really should be with Kaiju around). I take that back, Mogaru (technically not Godzilla) is listed with a space and reach of 60 feet. So they can make it bigger if they want to, they just choose not to in some cases. Mogaru still has the problem of being 140 feet high... while only existing in a 60 foot cube.

[Syntaxis]

Yeah, I guess I just wanted to point out how somewhat absurd it is to squeeze some monsters within these spaces. However, this is first and foremost a game with which to have fun, and a monster taking up literally your entire grid isn't fun to deal with.

[Owly]

We used one of our DM's kids' toys (a plastic shark) to represent a summoned shark (of my wizard's) during a particular lake battle. It was the right size for the shark's description in the bestiary, but it was considerably larger than the space such a creature occupies on the battlemat. Still, it was very cool, and it got me to looking at the descriptions of size of many of our classic beasts.

[Kchaka]

There is no escaping the Big Freeze.

[Lincoln Hills]

I don't think the game will honestly suffer much if you choose to integrate size rules that actually fit the description. Maybe after the players have to double-move just to get flanking, they'll have more of an impression of bigness.

'Amorphous space' is a concept I've looked into but reluctantly discarded as too much trouble - essentially the notion that a purple worm can occupy, say, a 30x30 square one round and a 10-foot-wide "L shape" the next and so on. It's a better simulation but runs into issues keeping it clear to players and getting your miniatures to cooperate (unless of course you're molding your purple worm out of Play-Doh.)

[Howie23]

Space does not indicate a cubic creature. It represents the space occupied by the creature in a way that represents only the space occupied in a manner to 1) be denied, 2) provide a valid target for attack. Can there be vital parts outside that space, yes, but abstraction for the benefit of a playable game takes priority.

[Qaianna]

And don't the rules merely do squares, not cubes? Most humans and elves stand taller than five feet, yet they're in a five foot square. Height I think is usually even more abstracted than length and width.

Especially when that human becomes 10' x 10' when he or she becomes a mounted warrior.

[Skeld]

Syntaxis wrote:

I like to be as realistic as possible, so that just bothers me.

This game is not realistic. At all. It never was meant to be. In fact, magic is the antithesis of reality.

So, the best advice i can give is, if something being "not realistic" bothers you so much that you can't enjoy the game and have fun playing it, you might be better off playing something else.

Beyond that I'll say, let creatures be however big or small or whatever shape you need them to be. Just remember that Size is a mechanical part of the rules and there are things that depend on Size. If you preserve a creatures Size, but modify isn't dimension (in terms of squares) you should be ok.

-Skeld

[Gauss]

I second Skeld's statement.

Pathfinder and reality have about as much to do with each other as religion and science. If you look too deeply at the Pathfinder rules and try to compare it to reality then one of them fails. I will let you decide which one fails.

[Illeist]

To clear up one thing: there are absolutely creatures larger than 25x25; the Oliphaunt of Jandelay, for example, is 80x80. Colossal just means 25x25 or larger.

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

Space is the final frontier. Even Humanity's greatest minds struggle to understand it.