"Forty yards in 6 seconds, by itself, is perfectly ok."
The very top NFL players can run 40 yards in ~4.5 seconds. Without any weight or equipment. You think 40 yards in armor and equipment in 6 seconds is not noteworthy?!
Would like to hear your basis for that.
A 25% reduction in speed is a lot, your average high school athlete will come in comfortably under six seconds. There's an argument for having it based on your Athletics skill, something like 100' + 10' * check bonus (which lets high level fighters achieve superhuman speed, but meh).
Your average high school athlete is sprinting on a well-maintained track, not dodging bodies, debris and cracked flagstones on a dungeon floor.
There is no reason to think an adventurer in battle conditions will come close to a trained sprinter on a track, whether they're in high school or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think pavilionaire has a good solution, but whenever a change is proposed, you should ask "what is the problem you are trying to solve?"
I don't really see a problem with the current system and I can see a big problem with a character running so fast that no non-melee action can take place.
"Forty yards in 6 seconds, by itself, is perfectly ok."
The very top NFL players can run 40 yards in ~4.5 seconds. Without any weight or equipment. You think 40 yards in armor and equipment in 6 seconds is not noteworthy?!
Would like to hear your basis for that.
Again, the system doesn't differentiate between armor or no armor. That speed applies as much to a barbarian in a loincloth as to a paladin in full plate. Should it make a distinction? Maybe, maybe not. The point is that it doesn't and we're getting the movement speed that is plausible in a no armor context in both cases. You want to bring back movement penalties for armor, be my guest. More power to you. But absent such penalties, it's fine. Really.
Well, it is not fine, IMHO. You're going to have monsters (rules have to work for them too) running at characters from long distance with no chance for a bowshot or spell in many cases. Players should be rightly upset that they did not reasonably get to use their abilities and everything just turns into a melee fight.
I have experience here. 35 years in the U.S. Army and my armor, helmet, pistol and all the ammo weighed 42 pounds, not counting my M-4. To ask a soldier to do a 40 yard dash in record time is plain ridiculous. It has no verisimilitude to it and seems to just be a way for fighters to get into melee without suffering spells or bowfire.
I keep repeating myself, but yet again: the being weighted down by armor and kit argument is pointless. The speed is the speed for completely unencumbered characters. It's also the speed for ones that are heavily armored and carrying a full pack and weapons, and we can discuss that is an issue, but as I said several times now: it's the speed for completely unencumbered characters that WotC then doesn't limit based in case of weight, and for completely unencumbered characters it is perfectly ok.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Again, I see a downside to moving so fast as I have pointed out, what is the upside? What problem are you trying to solve? There should always be a reason to make a rule change.
Again, I see a downside to moving so fast as I have pointed out, what is the upside? What problem are you trying to solve? There should always be a reason to make a rule change.
How fast characters can get in melee is as much a function of engagement distance as it is of movement speed. If a fight breaks out between characters that are already close to each other - a bar fight, or a negotation gone wrong, or pretty much just running into each other - then ranged characters are going to have a problem regardless of how fast the average combattant can sprint. In any other case it's simple math: distance to cover vs speed. Keep in mind: as is, without rule change, a character with a 30ft walking speed can already move 120ft per turn using only Boots of Haste. If 120ft in 6 seconds is problematic, then there is a problem using RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Keep in mind: as is, without rule change, a character with a 30ft walking speed can already move 120ft per turn using only Boots of Haste. If 120ft in 6 seconds is problematic, then there is a problem using RAW.
Sorry, not sure what point you're trying to make here. Obviously magic boots can change the equation. That shouldn't be relevant at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Keep in mind: as is, without rule change, a character with a 30ft walking speed can already move 120ft per turn using only Boots of Haste. If 120ft in 6 seconds is problematic, then there is a problem using RAW.
Sorry, not sure what point you're trying to make here. Obviously magic boots can change the equation. That shouldn't be relevant at all.
"You're going to have monsters (rules have to work for them too) running at characters from long distance with no chance for a bowshot or spell in many cases. Players should be rightly upset that they did not reasonably get to use their abilities and everything just turns into a melee fight."
The point is that speed is meaningless without context. If you don't want characters able to engage in melee over the course of a single turn, you increase distance. If they're faster, you increase the distance more. Focusing on a movement speed that quite frankly isn't excessive in terms of what supposedly heroic humans should be capable of is silly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not sure what campaigns you have been in where that has been true. Not seen many like that at all
What do you think spotting distance is outdoors? In clear terrain, it's hundreds of yards. Even in cluttered terrain (difficult terrain, so movement halved) it's unlikely to be under 25 yards. That's plenty to make melee pointless.
Not sure what campaigns you have been in where that has been true. Not seen many like that at all
What do you think spotting distance is outdoors? In clear terrain, it's hundreds of yards. Even in cluttered terrain (difficult terrain, so movement halved) it's unlikely to be under 25 yards. That's plenty to make melee pointless.
In open plains, yes, one can literally see for miles. However how often are characters out in the open like that? Everything important (or even any significant portion of things of importance) in the campaigns you have been in has been in vast open fields? Nothing of importance is indoors or underground where encounter ranges are much shorter? Or even in relatively dense forest?
Turn your accusation around. Should there really be absolutely nowhere where ranged weapons are useful?
Were also talking adventuring parties here, not invading armies. In most campaigns, the PCs aren't going to want to attack everything on sight (in most campaigns, that should be a grave mistake to begin with). DMs have options to vary encounter distances and to provide tactically interesting battlefields. That makes the whole speed argument moot in the first place - if engagement distances are too short, increase them; if too long, shorten them. This shouldn't be that hard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Not sure what campaigns you have been in where that has been true. Not seen many like that at all
What do you think spotting distance is outdoors? In clear terrain, it's hundreds of yards. Even in cluttered terrain (difficult terrain, so movement halved) it's unlikely to be under 25 yards. That's plenty to make melee pointless.
How is melee pointless at 75 feet? Round one: Dash. Round two: move and attack. Maybe ranged is slightly better by having one extra round to attack. As it should be.
Maybe the defenders can tactically retreat 30 feet in round one while firing a volley. It depends what they're defending. In that case melee loses two rounds instead of one, but "pointless" is still an exaggeration.
Arctic, desert, farmland or grassland: 6d6 x 10 feet
Forest, swamp, or woodland: 2d8 x 10 feet
Hills or wastelands: 2d10 x 10 feet
Jungle: 2d6 x 10 feet
Mountains: 4d10 x 10 feet
I really wouldn't randomize this. You do you, no problem with that, but I'd rather determine this myself both to make sure everyone in the party gets a fair shake and for the NPCs to make rational decisions about how they position themselves rather than the dice turning it into something potentially quite silly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I am not seeing any logical support for this rule change. It just comes across as a way for melee fighters not to have to deal with ranged combat spells/magic since most of those could only engage at disadvantage and then suddenly you are in their face. This does not pass my number one rule as a DM of "fun for all".
Try it in your world as a DM and let us know how it works out. Best of luck with that.
So let me get this straight.... you want there to be no situations where archery or ranged combat has an advantage... ever?
Given the relative effectiveness of melee and ranged, I expect melee characters to on average lose one round closing per five rounds of combat. Fights where they can't do anything count against that total, which means out of ten combats (of, say, 3 rounds each) there should be one where melee can't do anything, three where they need to spend a round closing, and six that start at close range.
Looking at that, I realize how limited that is. Maybe 3e style opportunity attacks.
So let me get this straight.... you want there to be no situations where archery or ranged combat has an advantage... ever?
Given the relative effectiveness of melee and ranged, I expect melee characters to on average lose one round closing per five rounds of combat. Fights where they can't do anything count against that total, which means out of ten combats (of, say, 3 rounds each) there should be one where melee can't do anything, three where they need to spend a round closing, and six that start at close range.
Looking at that, I realize how limited that is. Maybe 3e style opportunity attacks.
This is one of the posts I look at and genuinely wonder whether you're even playing the same game I am.
I'm not saying your math is wrong. I'm saying I see absolutely no benefit to doing that math in the first place, or worrying about whether the fighting in the campaign, in aggregate, is perfectly balanced between melee and ranged combat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So let me get this straight.... you want there to be no situations where archery or ranged combat has an advantage... ever?
Given the relative effectiveness of melee and ranged, I expect melee characters to on average lose one round closing per five rounds of combat. Fights where they can't do anything count against that total, which means out of ten combats (of, say, 3 rounds each) there should be one where melee can't do anything, three where they need to spend a round closing, and six that start at close range.
Looking at that, I realize how limited that is. Maybe 3e style opportunity attacks.
This is one of the posts I look at and genuinely wonder whether you're even playing the same game I am.
I'm not saying your math is wrong. I'm saying I see absolutely no benefit to doing that math in the first place, or worrying about whether the fighting in the campaign, in aggregate, is perfectly balanced between melee and ranged combat.
Perfectly balanced is not necessary, but the benefit of general balance is to ensure that your melee/ranged players are having fun and staying engaged. That's pretty high up in importance for me.
That being said, I think the current design handles all this just fine. As a DM I have all the tools I need to adjust battlefield conditions and opening positions to keep things challenging and fun for a variety of PCs. "We should do it like this because another edition did" is not an argument that carries any weight with me whatsoever. 3e's rules were made to work with 3e's content.
I think a simple house rule if you want to allow variation in running speed would be to incorporate an Athletics check into the Dash action. The roll is at disadvantage if you're wearing heavy armor. Add a modifier to your movement speed depending on your roll to determine how far you can dash.
5 or less: -5
6 - 10: 0
11 - 15: +5
16 - 20: +10
20 - 24: +20
25 - 30: +30
30 or more: +60
So yeah, if you have expertise in Athletics and are Guidanced or inspired, you can hit Olympic pace some of the time.
I really like the idea of advantage on Athletics checks letting you just go faster. Modifying the rules for passive Athletics seems apropos: +5' to speed while you have Advantage, -5' while you have Disadvantage.
I don't think so. it steps on the toes of what the Rogue (Cunning Action) and Monk (Step of the Wind) can do. I think by giving it to everybody they lose a lot of their uniqueness (battlefield movement).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Adventures worth winning. Forming an immediate connection with players and tying their character into the greater world. Your character matters. I empower you to change the world around you. Your choices matter.
I am a professional DM crafting the greatest stories. Message me for openings in my games. Discord: thirstybard#5980 Website: https://bardicgaming.com/
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your average high school athlete is sprinting on a well-maintained track, not dodging bodies, debris and cracked flagstones on a dungeon floor.
There is no reason to think an adventurer in battle conditions will come close to a trained sprinter on a track, whether they're in high school or not.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think pavilionaire has a good solution, but whenever a change is proposed, you should ask "what is the problem you are trying to solve?"
I don't really see a problem with the current system and I can see a big problem with a character running so fast that no non-melee action can take place.
I keep repeating myself, but yet again: the being weighted down by armor and kit argument is pointless. The speed is the speed for completely unencumbered characters. It's also the speed for ones that are heavily armored and carrying a full pack and weapons, and we can discuss that is an issue, but as I said several times now: it's the speed for completely unencumbered characters that WotC then doesn't limit based in case of weight, and for completely unencumbered characters it is perfectly ok.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Again, I see a downside to moving so fast as I have pointed out, what is the upside? What problem are you trying to solve? There should always be a reason to make a rule change.
How fast characters can get in melee is as much a function of engagement distance as it is of movement speed. If a fight breaks out between characters that are already close to each other - a bar fight, or a negotation gone wrong, or pretty much just running into each other - then ranged characters are going to have a problem regardless of how fast the average combattant can sprint. In any other case it's simple math: distance to cover vs speed. Keep in mind: as is, without rule change, a character with a 30ft walking speed can already move 120ft per turn using only Boots of Haste. If 120ft in 6 seconds is problematic, then there is a problem using RAW.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Sorry, not sure what point you're trying to make here. Obviously magic boots can change the equation. That shouldn't be relevant at all.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Melee builds are completely irrelevant to any outdoor combat. A dramatic reduction in all weapon and spell ranges would also solve the problem.
"You're going to have monsters (rules have to work for them too) running at characters from long distance with no chance for a bowshot or spell in many cases. Players should be rightly upset that they did not reasonably get to use their abilities and everything just turns into a melee fight."
The point is that speed is meaningless without context. If you don't want characters able to engage in melee over the course of a single turn, you increase distance. If they're faster, you increase the distance more. Focusing on a movement speed that quite frankly isn't excessive in terms of what supposedly heroic humans should be capable of is silly.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What do you think spotting distance is outdoors? In clear terrain, it's hundreds of yards. Even in cluttered terrain (difficult terrain, so movement halved) it's unlikely to be under 25 yards. That's plenty to make melee pointless.
Were also talking adventuring parties here, not invading armies. In most campaigns, the PCs aren't going to want to attack everything on sight (in most campaigns, that should be a grave mistake to begin with). DMs have options to vary encounter distances and to provide tactically interesting battlefields. That makes the whole speed argument moot in the first place - if engagement distances are too short, increase them; if too long, shorten them. This shouldn't be that hard.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How is melee pointless at 75 feet? Round one: Dash. Round two: move and attack. Maybe ranged is slightly better by having one extra round to attack. As it should be.
Maybe the defenders can tactically retreat 30 feet in round one while firing a volley. It depends what they're defending. In that case melee loses two rounds instead of one, but "pointless" is still an exaggeration.
Difficult terrain (you're not going to get spotting distance that short in good terrain). Round 1: dash. Round 2: dash. Round 3: got there.
Encounter Distance
Terrain
Arctic, desert, farmland or grassland: 6d6 x 10 feet
Forest, swamp, or woodland: 2d8 x 10 feet
Hills or wastelands: 2d10 x 10 feet
Jungle: 2d6 x 10 feet
Mountains: 4d10 x 10 feet
Visibility Outdoors
Clear day, no obstructions: 2 miles
Rain: 1 mile
Fog 100 to 300 feet
From a height: x 20
<Insert clever signature here>
I really wouldn't randomize this. You do you, no problem with that, but I'd rather determine this myself both to make sure everyone in the party gets a fair shake and for the NPCs to make rational decisions about how they position themselves rather than the dice turning it into something potentially quite silly.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I am not seeing any logical support for this rule change. It just comes across as a way for melee fighters not to have to deal with ranged combat spells/magic since most of those could only engage at disadvantage and then suddenly you are in their face. This does not pass my number one rule as a DM of "fun for all".
Try it in your world as a DM and let us know how it works out. Best of luck with that.
Given the relative effectiveness of melee and ranged, I expect melee characters to on average lose one round closing per five rounds of combat. Fights where they can't do anything count against that total, which means out of ten combats (of, say, 3 rounds each) there should be one where melee can't do anything, three where they need to spend a round closing, and six that start at close range.
Looking at that, I realize how limited that is. Maybe 3e style opportunity attacks.
This is one of the posts I look at and genuinely wonder whether you're even playing the same game I am.
I'm not saying your math is wrong. I'm saying I see absolutely no benefit to doing that math in the first place, or worrying about whether the fighting in the campaign, in aggregate, is perfectly balanced between melee and ranged combat.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Perfectly balanced is not necessary, but the benefit of general balance is to ensure that your melee/ranged players are having fun and staying engaged. That's pretty high up in importance for me.
That being said, I think the current design handles all this just fine. As a DM I have all the tools I need to adjust battlefield conditions and opening positions to keep things challenging and fun for a variety of PCs. "We should do it like this because another edition did" is not an argument that carries any weight with me whatsoever. 3e's rules were made to work with 3e's content.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I really like the idea of advantage on Athletics checks letting you just go faster. Modifying the rules for passive Athletics seems apropos: +5' to speed while you have Advantage, -5' while you have Disadvantage.
I don't think so. it steps on the toes of what the Rogue (Cunning Action) and Monk (Step of the Wind) can do. I think by giving it to everybody they lose a lot of their uniqueness (battlefield movement).
Adventures worth winning. Forming an immediate connection with players and tying their character into the greater world. Your character matters. I empower you to change the world around you. Your choices matter.
I am a professional DM crafting the greatest stories. Message me for openings in my games. Discord: thirstybard#5980
Website: https://bardicgaming.com/