5-foot step and Huge Monsters

[kreynolds]

I like phinder's idea, but fear the devastation that could ensue. However, I really like the idea of using the "one-step based on size" option for AoOs. For example, a large creature could make a single attack and take a single "step" of 10-feet (still a move-action) and not draw an AoO. Could be interesting, could be a pain in the rear, who knows.

 

[dagger]

Yeah, I like the Single Step rule in which each size cat's free move is the size of its base. I've never been wild that a Tiny housecat, a Large dire lion and a Colossal cat all make the same position adjustment of 5', but changing has a pretty big impact on the way the game is played.

It makes big creatures scarier and they more easily dominate in melee, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. (I mean, it is for the smaller opponents, but then that's the point.) To me, it has a more Sword-and-Sorcery feel to it, where an ogre is a terrifying sight to behold.

I have seen this in another group recently, is it something that has come from another game (SAGA maybe)?

 

[phindar]

I like phinder's idea, but fear the devastation that could ensue.

This has been said so many times about so many things its lost all meaning.

Actually, dagger, I don't really know where the concepts of bigger 5' steps originated. I imagine its one of those fairly simple, intuitive and potentially disastrous ideas that a lot of people come at independently. I like the idea, although I'm the first to admit its a major change with massive effects on the way combats play out.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

its been said before that the game breaks down if you give creatures larger creatures bigger 5 foot steps. It fundamentally alters the game and the way its played. full attacks become a joke to the player. the larger creature will always get a full attack on you , but you almost never get one on him. This is one of the worst changes one could make for the sake of realism.

 

[phindar]

It fundamentally alters the game and the way its played.

This to me is key. It does fundamentally alter the way the game is played, but I don't consider that an argument for or against, only a factor to be considered. Creature size in D&D isn't that important (although related factors like Reach or high STR are), and so creatures can be really big. If you make creature size important in its own right, then you have to put some thought into how big creatures should be.

Let's say a crafty ogre gets into melee with a human. The ogre can take a Single Step of 10' for free, and clobber the human who then has to move (provoking an AoO) to make a single attack. All that really means is under those rules, its a really bad idea for the 6' tall guy to try to go toe-to-toe with the 12' tall guy. It makes much more sense for smaller creatures to harry larger opponents with ranged attacks or fight them in restricted terrain.

Making creature size important changes the way you fight big creatures. It seems to me its only a disastrous change if you say, "I'll change the 5' Step, and nothing else." If you change the 5' Step and then change the things that it dramatically affects (use fewer big creatures, use smaller biggies overall, and use different tactics when dealing with them), it doesn't necessarily make the game any better or worse, just different. If the group really enjoys the verisimilitude angle, then the change might be worth it. If they don't, then it won't. There are a lot of ways to play the game, and they can all be fun. I like the 5' Step for Heroic Fantasy D&D, I like the Single Step for Sword and Sorcery grittiness.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Your single step rule is actually very interesting. The way larger monsters have been hampered by tying their speeds down to the same approximate scale as medium creatures is one of my pet peeves.

In general a marching pace is two steps per second. For a medium sized humanoid that's two steps of roughly three feet (just a bit shorter usually) each second. Which matches well with a 30ft movement rate. But take a large green dragon for example, it's 10 feet at the withers on average, and it too should be taking two steps per second. But in it's case each of those steps should be a bit shorter than it's withers so it should be moving 15ft or so per second, 20ft/s if it's stretching out the steps for a fast march. The situation only gets worse as size goes up.

 

[Rvdvelden]

You should really talk to your players before doing that. I bet the melee types will object or want to change characters to blasters / range weapon types. The danger is that everyone switches to longbows, use ranged feats and starts picking on the enemy from above or a long distance (first range increment of bows is 50-110 feet IIRC, I can't recall ever seeing someone take a range penalty in a fight because the distance between him and the target was too big).

 

[kreynolds]

This has been said so many times about so many things its lost all meaning.

Ah, but I haven't said it that many times, so it still means a lot to me.

 

[kreynolds]

It fundamentally alters the game and the way its played. full attacks become a joke to the player. the larger creature will always get a full attack on you , but you almost never get one on him.

This is exactly my concern. I'm sure with a little work, one could figure out the challenge rating modifiers for this and bigger—or even smaller—creatures, and allow the DM to be able to plan accordingly. I just don't want to do it.

 

[lukelightning]

This will make druids rule even more. I'd wildshape into a dire ape. Make a full attack, move 10 away...the target can't get a full attack on me and provokes an AoO. And my animal growthed dire ape companion is even worse.

And you'll get a lot of spiked chain wielders teaming up with a caster to cast enlarge person.