Long creatures (2x1)?

[jkohlhepp]

Are there any creatures that are long, i.e. 2x1 squares or 3x2 or anything like that? Based on reading the Size entry MM pg. 6 it seems that all Large creatures are 2x2. But that seems odd to be me when you consider creatures like dire wolves, or horses. Seems to me like they should be 2x1.

So, in summary, do the rules have anything about these "long" creatures. Do things like horses, dire wolves really take up a 2x2 space? If long creatures do exist in the rules, how can you tell which large creatures should be 2x1 and which should be 2x2?

Thanks,

~ Justin

 

[keterys]

They don't exist anymore. That was something done in 3.0, but not 3.5 or 4e.

That said, they can squeeze when necessary.

 

[babinro]

Common sense should also prevail on the DM's part. A human can obviously walk down a typical hall in your home without squeezing despite it being less than than 5ft wide. The same idea can be used with creatures like horses when they travel.

Aside from being a partial simplification, I believe the game is making these creatures 2x2 because in a combat situation, they would require more space for the purposes of maneuvering and attacking different enemies at different angles from within its square.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Aside from being a partial simplification, I believe the game is making these creatures 2x2 because in a combat situation, they would require more space for the purposes of maneuvering and attacking different enemies at different angles from within its square.

This. A creature's "space" on the battle mat isn't meant to represent the amount of space it literally occupies, but the space that it controls--effectively occupies--during combat. A step this way or that, turning suddenly, making wild swings, that sort of thing.

It's the same reason a medium creature "takes up" a 5x5 square, when in reality most of us aren't nearly that big.

 

[jkohlhepp]

A creature's "space" on the battle mat isn't meant to represent the amount of space it literally occupies, but the space that it controls--effectively occupies--during combat. A step this way or that, turning suddenly, making wild swings, that sort of thing.

I can certainly get behind this argument. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something in the rules before I had a ton of 2x2 dire wolves running around the battle mat.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Mechanically the reason is really simply because 4e does not have a concept of facing and irregularly shaped creatures would bring up issues relating to that. Making all creatures square simply avoids the whole issue.

I don't really think for the most part its all that unrealistic either. Yes, many creatures could probably fit in narrower spaces than the rules strictly allow for, but could they FIGHT in such spaces effectively? Moreover if you're fighting a horse is there anywhere in its space you could realistically fit and still engage it effectively in combat? I think the answer to both of those is mostly no.

I'd also say this in regards to horses in particular. The standard width of the isle in a barn is 12 feet. Yes, you can handle a horse in a narrower space, but it isn't so easy. Those cases where you really would place it in narrower confines, say trailering or moving it in and out of a gate, squeezing isn't really an issue.

So overall the slightly abstract square creatures really don't seem like a big issue to me. Most indoor map layouts in 4e are going to regularize everything to 5' and 10' widths anyway, so if you have large creatures in an encounter just make the places where they can go wide enough for them. Sure the horse may not have a problem in an 8' wide space and could probably move at a good speed in a 5' wide space, but it won't come up often enough to worry about. If it DOES come up as an issue then yeah, have the DM rule that it gets the combat penalty for squeezing but not the movement penalty.

 

[DracoSuave]

Mechanically the reason is really simply because 4e does not have a concept of facing and irregularly shaped creatures would bring up issues relating to that. Making all creatures square simply avoids the whole issue.

I don't really think for the most part its all that unrealistic either. Yes, many creatures could probably fit in narrower spaces than the rules strictly allow for, but could they FIGHT in such spaces effectively? Moreover if you're fighting a horse is there anywhere in its space you could realistically fit and still engage it effectively in combat? I think the answer to both of those is mostly no.

I'd also say this in regards to horses in particular. The standard width of the isle in a barn is 12 feet. Yes, you can handle a horse in a narrower space, but it isn't so easy. Those cases where you really would place it in narrower confines, say trailering or moving it in and out of a gate, squeezing isn't really an issue.

This.

I mean, your halfling wizard isn't exactly 5 feet wide by 5 feet wide either*. An occupied space should be thought more of as the space that creature is -holding- rather than the space they physically occupy.


*barring, of course, said halfling is not Fat Princess.

 

[Henry]

I've seen a horse on a farm who felt threatened before; that 10 foot by 10 foot space as well as threatened area is pretty easily explained.

 

[Flipguarder]

It's the same reason a medium creature "takes up" a 5x5 square, when in reality most of us aren't nearly that big.

You stop descriminating against my 5 foot nothing 490 pound human.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

but it is not so far fetched to assume someone with a great sword in a corridor only 3 ft wide can´t effectively fight there.

And a horse in a 5 ft wide corridor is also not so happy, because it can´t turn around etc.