Mearls On D&D's Design Premises/Goals

If your interpretation of RAW is that narrow, that contests can ONLY be between 2 characters, simply because that's the examples given, that's on you.

Maxperson said:

You don't actually need to house rule to resolve a foot race. A simple dex check is sufficient. "A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing." Moving quickly, such as you would in a race, is modeled well enough with a dex check or multiple checks.

It's only if you want to do a foot race as a contest that you would need to house rule. Contests require two contestants, so if the race has more than two it moves out of RAW contests, and contests require direct opposition, which doesn't exist in a foot race.

Click to expand...

One might have to consider if any of the contestants have Mobility, and if any one is a Barbarian's with the Fast Movement class feature. A DM might decide to give Advantage on the dexterity check to anyone where any of the above are applicable or they might just rule based on someone's movement, check not needed.

billd91 said:

How pedantic do we need to be here? If the contest resulted in a tie for any of the examples in the book, does that imply there was absolutely no motion? That positions haven't changed in the slightest? I don't think that's what they're trying to say - rather that the relative status of the participants with respect to the contest hasn't changed. So if they tie in a footrace, it doesn't imply they haven't moved, just that their status relative to each other hasn't changed. In other words, they ran the race, got to the finish line, but neither could claim victory over the other.

Click to expand...

For RAW, we're working literally so pedantic is called for.

Say A and B get 15, C 12, D 11. You are saying that A and B crossing the line in equal first place is remaining the same as before the contest. That's a stretch, and the approach taken requires a house rule for cross-compares.

That is why I said with "approximately equal justice" above. It's no more of a stretch - no more of a house rule - to say that the generality of the DM decides the DC includes that the DM might decide the DC based on other creatures check. Pragmatically, that works equally well.

@pemerton I find myself not disliking your approach, but not seeing it as less a house rule or more justified than the alternative approach. Certainly I think finishing a race in any place does a poor job of remaining the same, unless all finishers tied! That said, I agree with @Jester David who suggests this is perhaps simply poor choice of words. When looking at RAW of course, choice of words is what we have and we can't make guesses about designer foibles. For RAI, sure. In the end, I don't think it matters who claims the high-ground because the case of multiple competitors is not clearly covered by the rules at all. Just the same as how far is further than your usual jump distance.

Instead, they've acknowledged diversity of needs and provided tools good enough for a DM to apply on the fly. I think that's what Mearls is getting at and why he is happy about their approach to 5th. I don't think he means ignore those tools (a possible implication), rather I think he means apply them as you need to, to resolve situations at your table.

Hi, folks. I have a question for you: this need for DMs ruling out footraces, or anything else, does go along or against the premise of 5e being more narrative, fluent, at the table, in actual play?

Numidius said:

Hi, folks. I have a question for you: this need for DMs ruling out footraces, or anything else, does go along or against the premise of 5e being more narrative, fluent, at the table, in actual play?

Click to expand...

I don't thikn it shows the system is more "narrative" - it does show the system has rules minutiae and complexity, which I think are at odds with being "light".

Thanks for the reply, pemerton. In your experience, are there ways to stop a combat, once it is engaged, to avoid it from ending only with the total death of the enemies?

duplicate post deleted

Maxperson said:

You don't actually need to house rule to resolve a foot race. A simple dex check is sufficient. "A Dexterity check can model any attempt to move nimbly, quickly, or quietly, or to keep from falling on tricky footing." Moving quickly, such as you would in a race, is modeled well enough with a dex check or multiple checks.

Click to expand...

What would be the DC? Given that it depends on how fast the other competitors run, it's very natural to think the DC is set by a roll that is modified by their DEX and skill in the same way.

Maxperson said:

It's only if you want to do a foot race as a contest that you would need to house rule. Contests require two contestants, so if the race has more than two it moves out of RAW contests, and contests require direct opposition, which doesn't exist in a foot race.

Click to expand...

I'm with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] on your insistence that the example of two contestants is a rule, as opposed to an illustration or a core case from which further (and utterly straightforward) extrapolation might be made.

Your oddly narrow interpetation of "direct opposition" is something I've already remarked upon. In this post I'll just add: there's nothing in the fiction of trying to outrun someone, compared to trying to be the first of the two of you to snatch up a ring, that suggests a different resolution mechanic should be required; and there's nothing about the mechanic that is suggested for the ring example that seems at all inapplicable to the footrace; which means that your insistence that the two are different from the point of view of resolution is not grounded in any sound principle of interpreting and applying RPG rules that I'm aware of.

Numidius said:

Thanks for the reply, pemerton. In your experience, are there ways to stop a combat, once it is engaged, to avoid it from ending only with the total death of the enemies?

Click to expand...

If we're talking about 5e in particular, I don't have much experience - I'm in this thread because there was/is some interesting stuff about action resolution methodologies.

For D&D in general it's hard because no one goes "hors de combat" - unlike (say) systems with more granular/"realistic" combat resolution systems where people might suffer impairment or injury that takes them out without killing them. Morale is a traditional factor here, though often it produces flight rather than surrender which can just prolong the time to kill! GM decision-making - "They throw down their weapons and raise their hands!" - can be another way of handling it (but be prepared for the implications for player resources - if they get the benefits of "kills" using fewer limited-use abilities, they'll have more of those available for later).

Are you asking in the abstract, or are you actively looking for different approaches in your game?

Numidius said:

Hi, folks. I have a question for you: this need for DMs ruling out footraces, or anything else, does go along or against the premise of 5e being more narrative, fluent, at the table, in actual play?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by more narrative or fluent? Are you referring to the rolling of dice, as if the rolling of a die is in opposition to a game being narrative?

One could easily ignore the die option and look at the contestants' movement speeds to determine a winner - is that what you mean by fluent?