Longer feet, shorter feet

Naathez · Apr 13, 2004

Once, in a WOTC FAQ, I read this question:

"How long is a 5' step for a giant?"

The answer was of course, "5 feet."

All good and right. But...

I was wondering whether it wouldn't be ... right... to let creatures have a LARGER distance they can move and still have a full round worth of actions, depending on HOW LARGE they are. (I.E., since their LEGS are longer, a "pace" for them is probably more than 5 feet)

I was thinking along the lines of "Length of " 5' " step= Creature's Reach", with obvious modifications for creatures whose reach depends on very long necks or arms, not size. (assuming there are any)

How heavy a modification do you think this is? Is it adviseable? Logical? Worth the pain?

Enworld, speak thy truth...

Korak · Apr 13, 2004

Naathez said:
Once, in a WOTC FAQ, I read this question:

"How long is a 5' step for a giant?"

The answer was of course, "5 feet."

All good and right. But...

I was wondering whether it wouldn't be ... right... to let creatures have a LARGER distance they can move and still have a full round worth of actions, depending on HOW LARGE they are. (I.E., since their LEGS are longer, a "pace" for them is probably more than 5 feet)

I was thinking along the lines of "Length of " 5' " step= Creature's Reach", with obvious modifications for creatures whose reach depends on very long necks or arms, not size. (assuming there are any)

How heavy a modification do you think this is? Is it adviseable? Logical? Worth the pain?

Enworld, speak thy truth...

That is a HUGE powerup for large creatures. This could be the cause of much PC death. I see Fire Giant Clerics (righteous might) with spiked chains (Can full attack anyone that starts the round within 45'... what good is spring attack again?). Seriously, it would take some careful design work on the part of the DM (lots of confined spaces, or large expanses where ranged combat is preferable) and PCs with high base speed and great tumble mods to keep such a game competitive.

Then again, for the right kind of DM, it might be fun.

DarkMaster · Apr 13, 2004

Naathez said:
Once, in a WOTC FAQ, I read this question:

"How long is a 5' step for a giant?"

The answer was of course, "5 feet."

All good and right. But...

I was wondering whether it wouldn't be ... right... to let creatures have a LARGER distance they can move and still have a full round worth of actions, depending on HOW LARGE they are. (I.E., since their LEGS are longer, a "pace" for them is probably more than 5 feet)

I was thinking along the lines of "Length of " 5' " step= Creature's Reach", with obvious modifications for creatures whose reach depends on very long necks or arms, not size. (assuming there are any)

How heavy a modification do you think this is? Is it adviseable? Logical? Worth the pain?

Enworld, speak thy truth...

I like it, I might actually use it for my next session, why would a Gargantuan dragon be limited to 5' for it's step.

drnuncheon · Apr 13, 2004

Probably ought to be in house rules.

Basically, what this will do is give a bigger benefit to the effects of reach, without regard to how actually fast the creature is. Sure, that giant has a longer stride, but it's going to take longer for it to make a stride, as well. Note that a hill giant or an ogre has twice as much reach as a human, but only moves 10' faster.

Slightly more logical would be to base the distance of a 5' step on the actual speed of the creature, reasoning that something that was incredibly fast could do more in the same 'free action' than a slower creature could - but then you're giving advantages to monks and other folks with speed boosts.

J

Naathez · Apr 13, 2004

HEY! thanks for replying so fast!

As to the fact it's a huge power-up for large creatures, i am more than aware of this...

it's just i think that a giant whose LEGS are longer than a FULL human really SHOULD be able to move farther than a human with the same ease. I KNOW D&D isn't realistic of course, and must NOT be - otherwise we'll play "Make ends meet with a low salary", a game we all play every day. But well, it seems to me like something to reflect upon...

As for dragons, ....

well, actually i believe PART of their reach depends on their necks...

of course , they can attack with claws at the same reach, so...

sigh... rules simplify reality and it's good.. and needed...

perhaps the problem is that reality is too complicated...

(assuming considering reality is meaningful when we're talking about fighting fire-spitting dragons....)

DrNuncheon.. good points. actually, my idea of using reach was simply an hypothesis... perhaps the simplest possible. what I think is something could be done and, should be done... as to how... we have now several ideas...

if this is to be moved to House Rules, no prob... but I don't know how...

Darklone · Apr 13, 2004

The rules somehow assume some "real" things such as heavier and larger things moving more slow than shorter ones... otherwise, why shouldn't a giant (twice as large as a human) not move twice as fast?

DarkMaster · Apr 13, 2004

Darklone said:
The rules somehow assume some "real" things such as heavier and larger things moving more slow than shorter ones... otherwise, why shouldn't a giant (twice as large as a human) not move twice as fast?

yes but for a 30ft giant a 5ft step is the equivalent 1 foot step. Quite difficult to explain that Giant cannot move more than that during combat.

Kemrain · Apr 13, 2004

Assuming you can have giants (their bones support them, their muscles can move them, they have working organs and their bloodpressure is great enough to get blood to their brains), and assuming they're just humans on a larger scale (totally impossible with Physics 1.0, btw), you should probably scale everything equally.. If a human is six feet tall, and a giant 30 feet tall, a 5 foot step for the giant is 25 feet...

Using real world physics for something that cannot exist in the real world is a little screwey. But that's the fun part, hmm?

- Kemrain the "Don't get me started on Dragons!"

dcollins · Apr 13, 2004

Very large creatures are often assumed by D&D to be relatively slower-moving.

Example: Tarrasque. Reach: 25 ft. Speed: 20 ft. So his no-AOO "adjustment" should be... 25 ft.?

Eltern · Apr 13, 2004

Make this a function of base speed, and not size, and you've got something that still makes sense, has the potential to be more balanced, and could possibly more fun, for the high level monks/psionic warriors with speed of thought and burst.

How about 1/6 of base speed, rounded up to nearest 5ft increment?

30: 5
20: 5
10: 5
<10: Um... this will always equal 5ft...