D&D 5E 30 speed for all! Halflings, Gnomes, Dwarves were feeling left behind?

[Ahnehnois]

How do you start an encounter 300 feet away? How do you even have line of sight here? Unless you're fighting in open fields, I suppose. Unless the two forces are already automatically hostile, wouldn't most encounters close to talking distance first?
...
I'm not saying you're wrong, but, I do believe this is very, very much an outlier.

I see plenty of those close-range fights where distance is not really important, but I don't see it as being terribly unusual. If one goes strictly by the rules (3e anyway), the spotting distance for open plains is 6d6×40 feet. That's more than one can move in a round. And if no one's really hiding and someone is decent at spotting, you're going to see each other from a ways a way. And frankly, those rules are very conservative. The 5e exploration rules are more vague and have been revised several times, but they seem much more generous.

There's also an abundance of possibilities for enhanced scouting through magic.

It's true that hostility isn't always assumed, but it's not uncommon to see some monsters that you can safely assume are bad. How often does one actually talk to, say, orcs?

I've found that for most encounters, closing speed is not that important, but it does come up regularly. Certainly something that will vary heavily from campaign to campaign.

 

[Hussar]

I see plenty of those close-range fights where distance is not really important, but I don't see it as being terribly unusual. If one goes strictly by the rules (3e anyway), the spotting distance for open plains is 6d6×40 feet. That's more than one can move in a round. And if no one's really hiding and someone is decent at spotting, you're going to see each other from a ways a way. And frankly, those rules are very conservative. The 5e exploration rules are more vague and have been revised several times, but they seem much more generous.

There's also an abundance of possibilities for enhanced scouting through magic.

It's true that hostility isn't always assumed, but it's not uncommon to see some monsters that you can safely assume are bad. How often does one actually talk to, say, orcs?

I've found that for most encounters, closing speed is not that important, but it does come up regularly. Certainly something that will vary heavily from campaign to campaign.

But, how often are you fighting on an open plain? You mention orcs, so, why are they on open plains during daylight? Wouldn't most encounters with orcs occur at night?

I'm not really buying it. Start with modules and work forward. Other than daylight on open plains, your encounter distance will won't really matter.

I dunno, maybe groups start rolling initiative when the parties are half a mile away from each other and then start counting through the rounds for the first fifteen or twenty or so until they get into combat distance, but, I doubt it.

 

[TwoSix]

I sometimes wonder if one were to put up a poll asking if the sky were blue on a D&D website, a third of responders would pick the completely wrongheaded thing, every time, just as a matter of principle.

On any website with a large number of nerds, of course! We're a pedantic people!

The sky? What time? Are there clouds? Has there been any excess of volcanic activity within the current location and timeframe?

Are we ever talking about Earth? The Martian sky varies between blue, pink, and yellowish-brown. And the Venusian sky is pink to red!

 

[Ahnehnois]

But, how often are you fighting on an open plain?

I guess that depends on where you set your campaign doesn't it?

You mention orcs, so, why are they on open plains during daylight? Wouldn't most encounters with orcs occur at night?

Honestly, I've probably never actually enforced that aspect of the orc. Maybe I'm the only one.

In any case, feel free to replace example with goblinoids or your favorite campaign-specific enemy of choice. I don't think it's unrealistic that a party might sometimes see a set of creatures in the distance and, based on situational factors, decide that the creatures are a threat and start chucking fireballs.

I certainly don't see it as unrealistic that some bandits or some evil monster sees the PCs and attacks without thinking about it.

I dunno, maybe groups start rolling initiative when the parties are half a mile away from each other and then start counting through the rounds for the first fifteen or twenty or so until they get into combat distance, but, I doubt it.

I don't know. Again, I'm not disagreeing that closing rates are frequently irrelevant. Just not always.


As I stated above, I think it would be fine if the default approach were to ignore movement speeds and grid-based movement tracking altogether, given how much work it is for how little result.

 

[Desdichado]

As I stated above, I think it would be fine if the default approach were to ignore movement speeds and grid-based movement tracking altogether, given how much work it is for how little result.

I dunno; I consider myself pretty firmly in the "theater of the mind" preference camp. And yet, at the same time, the lack of a good (or even decent. Or even poor, in many cases) set of chase rules is a major frustration I have with D&D in general, and for any kind of chase rules, some kind of relative speed stat is essential.

 

[Umbran]

and for any kind of chase rules, some kind of relative speed stat is essential.

True. But for a good chase, you probably don't want flat speeds, do you? You want something more heavily influenced by player choices than "He moves at 30, you move at 25, so you lose!"

I would think a scheme of "slow, medium, or fast, then modified by the results of skill or stat checks" would be far more interesting for a chase.

 

[Derren]

True. But for a good chase, you probably don't want flat speeds, do you? You want something more heavily influenced by player choices than "He moves at 30, you move at 25, so you lose!"

Why? If there are significant speed differences (small guy vs normal guy or normal guy vs mounted guy) I do not see why a chase should not be over quite fast, In the absence of such differences the chase rules come into play. Also you can factor in endurance in chases even with a speed difference if you want and the small races do not have a disadvantage there.

 

[Obryn]

Why? If there are significant speed differences (small guy vs normal guy or normal guy vs mounted guy) I do not see why a chase should not be over quite fast, In the absence of such differences the chase rules come into play. Also you can factor in endurance in chases even with a speed difference if you want and the small races do not have a disadvantage there.

Because any chase rules worth their salt will acknowledge that they don't take place on a flat and featureless plane, with no corners or obstacles in sight. Where, it might be added, being small is often advantageous.

 

[Derren]

Because any chase rules worth their salt will acknowledge that they don't take place on a flat and featureless plane, with no corners or obstacles in sight.

No, chase rules will acknowledge the possibility of obstacles being there and the route not being a straight line and have rules for that and yet still allow for a chase over a flat, featureless plane as that is also a possibility in the game.

 

[Obryn]

No, chase rules will acknowledge the possibility of obstacles being there and the route not being a straight line and have rules for that and yet still allow for a chase over a flat, featureless plane as that is also a possibility in the game.

Out of necessity, all the dedicated chase rules I've seen (examples - Savage Worlds, Feng Shui) switch to a much more narrative system once the chase rules begin. There's no call for maps because of the speed and distance involved.

What dedicated chase rules are you thinking of?