Shouldn't Larger Creatures be able to take bigger than 5-Foot Steps?

[BlueWitch]

Just a thought that came to mind when playing a Giant.

5-Foot Steps are free actions that let you move, well, 5 ft.

But bigger creatures would be able to cover much more ground than that in 1 Step.

So are there any special rules regarding this? It's kinda weird and I think its' sort of wrong that they can't.

[Psyren]

Just a thought that came to mind when playing a Giant.

5-Foot Steps are free actions that let you move, well, 5 ft.

But bigger creatures would be able to cover much more ground than that in 1 Step.

So are there any special rules regarding this? It's kinda weird and I think its' sort of wrong that they can't.

"Sorry it took so long to catch up. Short legs."
"...You were fifteen feet tall." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0453.html)

By RAW, size-changing magic doesn't affect any of your speeds, whether you're taking a small step or running flat-out. As with many other things dealing with magic, best not to think of the physics too much.

[ciopo]

well, "1 step" would be about the length of the creature legs, assuming it's biped ( so "tall") that would be about half the height, the higher ceiling of large creature is 16ft, so 1 step would be.. 8ft?
a horse "step" would be less than 5 feet .

a (to me) more reasonable ruling would be "1/6th of it's land speed" , so something that can move 60ft/roudn can take a 10ft/step, in lieu of "how much can it move in one second" being what is allowed as free action

[martixy]

I think so at least.

To that effect, in my game we have a "Combat step" which is your shortest side. So a 10x15 creature can take 10 ft. steps.
Also, size increases do grant a speed bonus.

My size table is a lot larger than this silly little thing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreatu resInCombat).

Speaking of which, have you considered how ranged weapons range increments change with size? No? Well, there's another column for you. How about construct bonus HP btw?

[tiercel]

Speaking of which, have you considered how ranged weapons range increments change with size? No? Well, there's another column for you.

Kind of this, much less other considerations:

Shouldn’t an average size human with a greatsword have a reach advantage over an average sized human with a dagger, all else being equal?

Shouldn’t an average size human with a dagger have a reach advantage over an average sized human using armor spikes?

Shouldn’t a 6’6” human with a longsword have a reach advantage over a 5’0” human with a longsword?

Shouldn’t a 6’6” human with a Medium-sized longsword have a reach advantage over a 2’8” halfling with a Small-sized longsword?

Shouldn’t a 6’6” human with a Medium-sized greatsword have a reach advantage over a 2’8” halfling with a Small-sized dagger?

——

Point being, that obviously there is a lot that’s been streamlined to make combat work as a game rather than go for more realism. The issue becomes, if you start adding houserules for more realistic size considerations, how many are enough, I suppose.

[Psyren]

Note that a weapon's range/reach is that for which it is effective. A greatsword might be as tall as a person, but lacking the reach property it has the same effective range as a shortsword. One thing our games do however is give everyone several feats baseline as just things you can do in the combat system if you meet the prerequisites, like Power Attack and Awesome Blow; one such feat is Lunge, so everyone can sacrifice some accuracy to try and hit things further away on their turn.

[liquidformat]

Beyond just 5' steps, size should also effect how many squares you can attack at once with an attack. Technically a large creature shouldn't have just a 10' reach but be able to attack two adjacent squares with one attack. Similarly a huge giant throwing a boulder should be able to hit 2-4 adjacent squares with said boulder...

[Biggus]

Speaking of which, have you considered how ranged weapons range increments change with size? No? Well, there's another column for you.

It's in the Arms & Equipment Guide, p.4-5. They increase or decrease 25% per size category.

[Doctor Awkward]

Not necessarily. For one thing, a "5-foot step" is not precisely one step for a medium-sized creature. The average person has only a two to a two-and-a-half foot stride, so moving five feet from you current location is most definitely more than a single step. While a larger creature may be able to easily cover that distance in a single stride, they almost certainly could not move their limbs as quickly as a smaller creature in that same span of time because physics. So an act that is one or two steps for a small creature likely is only a single step for a large creature because it's not just about distance. It's about time.

Additionally:

Kind of this, much less other considerations:

Shouldn’t an average size human with a greatsword have a reach advantage over an average sized human with a dagger, all else being equal?

No because all else is not equal. A greatsword is heavy, ponderous, and slow, both to swing and to recover from said swing and re-position for another swing. A dagger is light and quick and a skillful enough wielder could potentially close the distance inside the greatswords reach.

2nd Edition used to simulate this with the weapon speed factor statistic. The larger your weapon the higher the speed factor and the later you acted in the combat round and the fewer attacks per round you were allowed to make.


Shouldn’t an average size human with a dagger have a reach advantage over an average sized human using armor spikes?


It depends. The person with the armor spikes is wearing a suit of armor. If the person with the dagger is not then the armored person has a significant defensive advantage. He can hit the dagger wielder anywhere while the dagger wielder has to carefully aim. The armor spiked person additionally has two free hands to do whatever else he pleases.


Shouldn’t a 6’6” human with a longsword have a reach advantage over a 5’0” human with a longsword?
At starting distance, yes.
If the smaller person can close with him, the taller person is then at a significant disadvantage. In sport fencing height confers such a huge advantage because of the rules of engagement. In brawl to the death where there are no rules it's not always that simple. Terrain can also make your size a liability.


Shouldn’t a 6’6” human with a Medium-sized longsword have a reach advantage over a 2’8” halfling with a Small-sized longsword?

Shouldn’t a 6’6” human with a Medium-sized greatsword have a reach advantage over a 2’8” halfling with a Small-sized dagger?

Once again, only if he can keep the halfing-- who is not only a much smaller and more difficult target to hit but is also likely much quicker on their feet-- from getting inside his reach.

A real fight is nothing like a sport fight. There are a hundred thousand things that can determine the outcome and nothing is ever guaranteed. That's what the dice rolls are for.

[BlueWitch]

Beyond just 5' steps, size should also effect how many squares you can attack at once with an attack. Technically a large creature shouldn't have just a 10' reach but be able to attack two adjacent squares with one attack. Similarly a huge giant throwing a boulder should be able to hit 2-4 adjacent squares with said boulder...

My group was thinking this too!
If a Huge Giant swings a Great Axe side ways it should slash everyone in at least the first 3 adjacent squares. Even more if we measure it.

But you have to have the Whirlwind Attack feat for that. Still, that's wrong in my opinion. But I guess I kinda understand how this could get overlooked. 3.5/PF isn't perfect.

[martixy]

My group was thinking this too!
If a Huge Giant swings a Great Axe side ways it should slash everyone in at least the first 3 adjacent squares. Even more if we measure it.

But you have to have the Whirlwind Attack feat for that. Still, that's wrong in my opinion. But I guess I kinda understand how this could get overlooked. 3.5/PF isn't perfect.

Before being imperfect it is also a game. There are many things we talk about here, which I guarantee you, the designers have also thought about, and have specifically chosen not to include, in the service of more streamlined gameplay. Range increment changes by size is probably one such thing; the weapon speed concept Doctor Awkward mentioned is definitely one such thing.

It is up to each individual DM to decide what amount of complexity he and his table are willing to deal with and go from there.

[jdizzlean]

i often feel the same about things like sneak attack.

that tiny peck of a gnome gets the same bonus as a cloud giant sneak attacking someone... seems unlikely

[Rynjin]

good god no.

Putting aside logic (because none was put into the game when making it), do you really want to make largehugeness even more powerful? If you increase a Large or larger creature's "5 ft. step" you effectively increase their Reach by the same amount.

This makes it difficult to engage AND escape and turns the game into even more of a boring "stand there and slug it out because you have literally no other viable options" fest.

[Powerdork]

I'd like to remark that a 5-foot step represents the net effect of the footwork you're able to do as part of holding your ground, engaging in a melee, casting a summoning spell while deftly dodging arrows and axes. Having that be abstracted as anything more than the most marginal movement in a turn where there's no real movement action being taken seems wrong.

[Elysiume]

While I agree with the posts saying that it wouldn't be a good mechanical addition, if you're coming at it from a realism angle, it should be based on speed. Again as noted upthread, a five-foot step isn't literally one step. A human doesn't have a five-foot stride and a giant centipede takes dozens (hundreds?) of steps to move. Creatures that can move faster would move further with the amount of effort that the non-action of a five-foot step requires.

[liquidformat]

good god no.

Putting aside logic (because none was put into the game when making it), do you really want to make largehugeness even more powerful? If you increase a Large or larger creature's "5 ft. step" you effectively increase their Reach by the same amount.

This makes it difficult to engage AND escape and turns the game into even more of a boring "stand there and slug it out because you have literally no other viable options" fest.

Hey now the game does have logic and is generally very consistent with its logic, well as consistent as one can be when magic starts to get involved. However, it is just the game logic isn't always grounded in physics, economics, or reason of our universe. Which is honestly fine since it is a game that is based around magic that breaks, physics, reality, and sometimes even the universe.

There are any number of things we can look at, such as 5' step based on speed, how many squares should a huge and larger creature be able to attack, how do we justify a wizard starting the game with 3-5000gp magic item at level one and ignore 200gp/level for them to function...

[Psychoalpha]

A dagger and a greatsword have the same 'reach' because even the space a character occupies is an approximation. I mean, stand up and look at the ground under your feet. Do you really take up 5ft of space to every side? The assumption is that you can be anywhere in that 5ft square. So two people in adjacent 5ft squares could be anywhere from 9ft and a handful of inches apart, to literally up in each other's faces. A dagger can't make a melee attack that far away, and a greatsword is basically useless in that close of proximity, so the game splits the difference and gives neither an advantage or disadvantage.

The same sort of logic holds true for various other mismatched weapons and characters in adjacent 5ft squares.

I imagine larger creatures don't get more than 5ft steps because a 5ft step is supposed to represent minimal movement. People always seem to pretend it's like you're actually moving five feet out of the way, but again, squares in D&D are an approximation of position. It could just as easily represent moving inches back, which still puts you in another square and out of reach of whatever you were moving away from (or into reach of something you move towards). The problem then isn't that larger creatures don't get larger 5ft steps, but that larger creatures STILL move in 5ft increments and thus a 5ft step is still the most minimal movement the game recognizes.

[Calthropstu]

I think so at least.

To that effect, in my game we have a "Combat step" which is your shortest side. So a 10x15 creature can take 10 ft. steps.
Also, size increases do grant a speed bonus.

My size table is a lot larger than this silly little thing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreatu resInCombat).

Speaking of which, have you considered how ranged weapons range increments change with size? No? Well, there's another column for you. How about construct bonus HP btw?

I like the shortest base route. I might just start using that.

[Doctor Awkward]

A dagger and a greatsword have the same 'reach' because even the space a character occupies is an approximation. I mean, stand up and look at the ground under your feet. Do you really take up 5ft of space to every side? The assumption is that you can be anywhere in that 5ft square. So two people in adjacent 5ft squares could be anywhere from 9ft and a handful of inches apart, to literally up in each other's faces. A dagger can't make a melee attack that far away, and a greatsword is basically useless in that close of proximity, so the game splits the difference and gives neither an advantage or disadvantage.

The same sort of logic holds true for various other mismatched weapons and characters in adjacent 5ft squares.

I imagine larger creatures don't get more than 5ft steps because a 5ft step is supposed to represent minimal movement. People always seem to pretend it's like you're actually moving five feet out of the way, but again, squares in D&D are an approximation of position. It could just as easily represent moving inches back, which still puts you in another square and out of reach of whatever you were moving away from (or into reach of something you move towards). The problem then isn't that larger creatures don't get larger 5ft steps, but that larger creatures STILL move in 5ft increments and thus a 5ft step is still the most minimal movement the game recognizes.


Additionally: (https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/09/dd-have-you-ever-wondered-what-a-five-foot-square-actually-looks-like.html)
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/5ft-square-irl-e1568261676809.jpg

Pictured: A 5-foot-square.

The gentleman in that picture is 6 foot 3 inches tall. That is the sort of scale that you are abstracting with combat in D&D.

[False God]

This might be easier to measure with "squares" rather than feet, since we're abstracting size anyway. If a "square" was always based off a creature's size, then we could simplify everything from movement to attacks. You attack a square, not a target in it. The smaller you are the fewer targets can be hit by your attack (attack vs active rolled defense), the larger you are the more targets you can hit. Imagine a huge giant's arrow, the things a frikken ballista! It'll go right through Jimmy and probably Timmy and Sally too!

"6 square movement" for a large creature would be double that of a medium one. Small creatures would have to constantly be running to keep up with a medium creature, while a large creature could walk faster than them.

But now we're dealing with a really "gamey" system devoid of real-world measurements (and really, we should be using metric, which would also be easily divisible) that feels really gamey when we play it since all the jargon is game terms and not IRL terms.

But ya know. That's what we get for using a system based off some king's shoe size.

[Rynjin]

I like the shortest base route. I might just start using that.

The issue I have with this, in more detail, is that in many ways it doubles the Reach of creatures. It makes Reach (already one of the most powerful abilities in the game) artificially stronger.

I think the problem is the biggest starting at Huge, becaue a Huge creature would have an effective Reach of 30 feet.

This means that retreat from combat (which is already difficult in 3.PF) becomes nearly impossible, as does any sort of tactical repositioning. There becomes NO POINT in trying to gain a tactical advantage over a Huge or larger creature, because they can attack you from the range it takes you an entire Move action to move.

It makes Heavy armor weaker, because a character in Heavy armor will now have to double Move (or Charge) any time they want to attack.

It exacerbates the martial/caster disparity by making full attacks harder to achieve. Starting at Large, even.

A Large creature can put itself out of range of a full attack every single round by simply starting 10 feet out.

There are so many compound issues to this houserule that I'm pretty sure I've missed some, and the fixes for these issues are so extensive you may as well play a different system entirely.

[Selion]

Just a thought that came to mind when playing a Giant.

5-Foot Steps are free actions that let you move, well, 5 ft.

But bigger creatures would be able to cover much more ground than that in 1 Step.

So are there any special rules regarding this? It's kinda weird and I think its' sort of wrong that they can't.

If suddenly the entire d&d/pathfinder world doubled in size, strange things would happen: archers and spellcasters would notice they couldn't anymore step away from danger in combat to shot with their bow or cast a spell.
(In real life doubling your size would have more dramatic effects, namely you would die in a few minutes because your metabolic activity would be too high with a lower surface/volume ratio and you would keep too much heat, so it's better not complaining too much)

[Gullintanni]

I've always thought of a five foot step as a combat re-adjustment. If you watch a boxing match or an MMA fight, you get a good sense of what the 5 foot step was meant to model.

It's not a retreat, it's a shift in combat stance, form or position designed to either facilitate withdrawing just out of the opponent's reach, or to maneuver around your opponent to try and gain advantageous position.

Accordingly, the 5 foot step isn't about managing distance, it's about managing position. You're not trying to escape or hasten away, those actions are modeled by the Withdraw action or just flat out movement.

While Huge+ creatures could move further than 5 feet while repositioning, it wouldn't really help improve the game, nor would it necessarily have a consequence that represents what the five foot step was meant to model:

That is, movement within combat that is designed to keep you engaged with your opponent.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

I agree that this is a bad idea. But maybe increasing the "combat step" distance would be a nice buff for the Fast Movement class feature, scaling it up slowly to compensate for it being mostly useless on full-attacking martials