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

[Desdichado]

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!"

No, you're right. I think the flat speeds are important for tactical movement in combat (although I already noted I prefer "theater of the mind" combat, so that's not important for me personally) but for chase rules, they need to be able to translate into some kind of modifier. The heart of any kind of decent chase rules has to be some kind of opposed roll.

 

[Derren]

What dedicated chase rules are you thinking of?

Chase rules where terrain (yes, including flat plane) and also movement speed of the participants are part of the equation.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

Even then, a simple comparison of static speed scores isn't going to be any fun for anyone anymore than resolving a wrestling action with a simple comparison of static Strength scores would be.

This has long been a "big miss" in [most iterations of] the D&D rules system, in my opinion. The lack of any kind of chase rules is a major hole that needs filling.

 

[Obryn]

Chase rules where terrain (yes, including flat plane) and also movement speed of the participants are part of the equation.

Such as? I'm asking for examples...

Even then, a simple comparison of static speed scores isn't going to be any fun for anyone anymore than resolving a wrestling action with a simple comparison of static Strength scores would be.

This has long been a "big miss" in [most iterations of] the D&D rules system, in my opinion. The lack of any kind of chase rules is a major hole that needs filling.

Oh, agreed 100%. While you could use skill challenges for it in 4e, that's still not completely fulfilling. I mentioned two systems that I think do it well upthread, but more or less it almost has to be a minigame or subsystem to do dramatic chases justice.

 

[Herschel]

Because things making sense is fun for me and this rule is not. And the bucket is already quite full...

I'm a Fighter, I swing an Axe, all I do is swing an axe, but wait, I'm a Wizard now. Well, got tired of being a Wizard, I'll learn to be a Cleric. Clerics are cool.

Wow, there's a lot of Cleric-y stuff, I know a couple of heal spells and I can pray really welll now, I think I'll become a Barbarian because all that training and finese I've learned is really bogging me down.

Woo Hoo, I 'm now even faster than those puny Halflings 'cause I have two levels of Barbarian! Screw you, shorties!

Did I mention I'm an Elf?

Be very quiet, we're hunting dragons. Any noise will break my verisimillitude. Dragons have great hearing and will hear us, even though they don't have ears. The blues ones even breath lightning and dragons fly even though their musculo-skeletal systems would never me able to actually take flight.

It's magic.

 

[Herschel]

Even then, a simple comparison of static speed scores isn't going to be any fun for anyone anymore than resolving a wrestling action with a simple comparison of static Strength scores would be.

This has long been a "big miss" in [most iterations of] the D&D rules system, in my opinion. The lack of any kind of chase rules is a major hole that needs filling.

I'm very much with you on this.

 

[Desdichado]

Oh, agreed 100%. While you could use skill challenges for it in 4e, that's still not completely fulfilling. I mentioned two systems that I think do it well upthread, but more or less it almost has to be a minigame or subsystem to do dramatic chases justice.

It wasn't a bad framework around which to build a chase system, but it was too bare-bones, in my opinion, to really become sufficiently interesting. But I think starting with a skill challenge, and then making it more robust to support chases specifically wouldn't have been a bad way to go.

 

[Jacob Marley]

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

I run a lot of wilderness encounters in my Greyhawk campaign; a plurality of the hexes on the 'Darlene' map are labeled as 'plains' for adjudication purposes. I also enjoy running large-scale military engagements. In my case, that results in a significantly larger proportion of combats occurring in plains terrain than in a typical dungeon-based adventure.

I like different movement speeds. I don't really care about the verisimilitude reasons; I just think it results in a more tactically interesting game. Do I charge in with my half-orc barbarian and engage the enemy knowing the dwarf rogue will be two full rounds behind me? Or, do I advance with the dwarf and allow the enemy an additional two rounds to act? As long as D&D Next allows for these kinds of decisions, then I am fine with whatever base speeds the races may have. If these decisions are not present, then it is another red mark on the ledger for D&D Next.

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.

In 3.x, especially at low-levels, spell durations matter. Knowing when to cast buffs or battlefield control spells when combats can take 15+ rounds to complete, and are played out over a 48 x 96, 96 x 96, or 96 x 144 square area, can be a challenge. Knowing when to drink/apply a potion or oil, or activate a magic item, matter.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In 3.x, especially at low-levels, spell durations matter.

And ranges. A lowly Fireball has a minimum range of 600 ft and doesn't require an attack roll. If you can start an engagement at that range, you can do some serious damage before getting into melee. I flamed my players pretty good once with an unseen assailant.

 

[Herschel]

Yan, check out the poll status, looks like twice as many people want it to be 25 than 30.

Math and statitsical analysis are not your strong points.

49 for 5, 33 for 6 and 25 not caring is nowhere near "twice as many people wanting it".

IF this site were a scientific, representative sample then only 46% agree with you, and there's no granularity to discern whether or not they feel strongly about it.