Keep in mind that a "Horse" is "a creature that walks".
One of the biggest advantages of 5e is that it cuts out a ton of superfluous rules like this. While there are many circumstantial modifiers that can be justified, it just isn't worth the extra effort, since they'll be forgotten, used inconsistently, and spark entirely unnecessary arguments between players and DMs.
D&D is a world of high fantasy and heroes. If the players are spending more time checking tables than telling stories, it's going to negatively impact the gaming experience.
By RAW? No. there is no difference in attacking fast creatures vs slow creatures, except that fast ones get out of range quicker.
Speed is more or less irrelevant to attacking (because if you get into the weeds, then creatures that use the dash action should be harder to hit, and creatures with special abilities like the Tabaxi, or have multiple speeds like the Aarakocra, add more complication. It's best if you keep those separated and irrelevant unless you want to spend your time arguing with your players that you granted a bonus to the mounted paladin but not to the flying aarakocra with the same speed, or didn't grant a 'super' bonus because the Tabaxi dashed and used feline agility to quadruple their movement that turn.
Keeping track of such modifiers is really not fun. It slows the game down immensely and requires a ton of extra effort. Plus, it tends to throw game balance out the wind. It's best avoided.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If a creature is riding a horse, and moving faster than a creature that walks.
The rider launches a ranged attack: the attack should receive a modifier? Disadvantage? Or add +2, +5 to the target AC like cover does?
The rider is the target of a ranged attack: the attack should receive a modifier? Disadvantage? Or add +2, +5 to the target AC like cover does?
Keep in mind that a "Horse" is "a creature that walks".
One of the biggest advantages of 5e is that it cuts out a ton of superfluous rules like this. While there are many circumstantial modifiers that can be justified, it just isn't worth the extra effort, since they'll be forgotten, used inconsistently, and spark entirely unnecessary arguments between players and DMs.
D&D is a world of high fantasy and heroes. If the players are spending more time checking tables than telling stories, it's going to negatively impact the gaming experience.
By RAW? No. there is no difference in attacking fast creatures vs slow creatures, except that fast ones get out of range quicker.
Speed is more or less irrelevant to attacking (because if you get into the weeds, then creatures that use the dash action should be harder to hit, and creatures with special abilities like the Tabaxi, or have multiple speeds like the Aarakocra, add more complication. It's best if you keep those separated and irrelevant unless you want to spend your time arguing with your players that you granted a bonus to the mounted paladin but not to the flying aarakocra with the same speed, or didn't grant a 'super' bonus because the Tabaxi dashed and used feline agility to quadruple their movement that turn.
Keeping track of such modifiers is really not fun. It slows the game down immensely and requires a ton of extra effort. Plus, it tends to throw game balance out the wind. It's best avoided.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.