D&D 5E Can We Come Up With Better (but still simple) Movement Rules?

[DND_Reborn]

Thanks everyone for your input/feedback. I've reviewed the thread and decided working with the dash action is not the way to handle things.

Instead, I am addressing the Athletics skill directly. We already have rules for movement involving climbing, swimming, and jumping; so I'm focusing instead on adding them for running. Using your normal move and dash is sufficient to cover "jogging" or x2 movement.

This will move the house-rule section to being under Special Types of Movement (PHB 182). So, I am working on that now...

 

[Argyle King]

I have to agree. Movement rates have no meaning once combat begins. According to the PHB, "In combat, characters and Monsters are in constant motion, often using Movement and Position to gain the upper hand."

Excuse me?

Unless you use optional flanking rules, it's Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots because no one wants to either risk an OA or burn an action to disengage to avoid the OA.

I'm not sure I'd agree. The basic fundamental task of a combat unit is to shoot, move, and communicate.

Even with D&D's somewhat weird movement rules, mobility is important. If I can switch to ranged attacks and hit the enemy without allowing them a chance to hit me, that's a massive advantage for my side in the conflict.

I do agree that the structure of 5E removes some of the tactical usefulness of mobility and positioning, but it is not without value. Catfolk are able to do something similar to what the OP mentions, and I've (anecdotally) seen ways of abusing that.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Catfolk are able to do something similar to what the OP mentions, and I've (anecdotally) seen ways of abusing that.

Yeah, our Tabaxi monk is crazy fast and with doubling his speed for one turn can really close in and get some attacks in when others can't.

But, that brings up a big issue as I see it. WAY too many things all have the same speed of 30! I think the lack of variable speeds doesn't help any, either.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, our Tabaxi monk is crazy fast and with doubling his speed for one turn can really close in and get some attacks in when others can't.

But, that brings up a big issue as I see it. WAY too many things all have the same speed of 30! I think the lack of variable speeds doesn't help any, either.

around 30 with 5ft squares is a good average simply because of the limitations in size for things like battlemats printable maps that fit inside a normal sized book, how far a player can reach across abattlemat if not seated closest to the action, and.... drumroll the size of most tables minus space for character sheets. If you get too high a speed it becomes difficult to model at the table

Even if you switch to a digital map tool like arkenforge where the number of squares more limited by what floating point can fit (ie tens of thousands or more) you only switch to a different problem that becomes even worse as 5e's excessive ranges quickly displays once players realize they can take advantage of it. Creating huge maps for that kind of thing is orders of magnitude more work than a simple 50-100x50-100 map. Counting the squares is a gigantic timesink that quickly leads to throwing out the mapping & not bothering to count them. Finally if you just map the area where the action is expected to be you don't need to have the map built so that every possible approach is equally fortifed to prevent any player with eyes just saying "well lets walk throughhere & ignore the whole mess" or similar

 

[DND_Reborn]

around 30 with 5ft squares is a good average simply because of the limitations in size for things like battlemats printable maps that fit inside a normal sized book, how far a player can reach across abattlemat if not seated closest to the action, and.... drumroll the size of most tables minus space for character sheets. If you get too high a speed it becomes difficult to model at the table

Even if you switch to a digital map tool like arkenforge where the number of squares more limited by what floating point can fit (ie tens of thousands or more) you only switch to a different problem that becomes even worse as 5e's excessive ranges quickly displays once players realize they can take advantage of it. Creating huge maps for that kind of thing is orders of magnitude more work than a simple 50-100x50-100 map. Counting the squares is a gigantic timesink that quickly leads to throwing out the mapping & not bothering to count them. Finally if you just map the area where the action is expected to be you don't need to have the map built so that every possible approach is equally fortifed to prevent any player with eyes just saying "well lets walk throughhere & ignore the whole mess" or similar

I understand your point, but I would hate for such logistics to be a reason why game design suffers.

Most of our maps use 10-foot squares but the grid snaps to 5-foot so it is easy to quickly count up the movement IME. YMMV of course.

Anyway, I'm just brainstorming over things right now, so we'll see what happens.

 

[Argyle King]

Yeah, our Tabaxi monk is crazy fast and with doubling his speed for one turn can really close in and get some attacks in when others can't.

But, that brings up a big issue as I see it. WAY too many things all have the same speed of 30! I think the lack of variable speeds doesn't help any, either.

In a previous game, one of the players did something similar with a monk/rogue multiclass.

He would dart in, hit, disengage, and then run away. In an enclosed room it didn't work as well, but it was still an effective way to needle down an enemy with minimal danger. The group joked about trying a campaign where we all built characters around that basic concept and acted as a team of speedy cat-ninjas.

 

[tetrasodium]

I understand your point, but I would hate for such logistics to be a reason why game design suffers.

Most of our maps use 10-foot squares but the grid snaps to 5-foot so it is easy to quickly count up the movement IME. YMMV of course.

Anyway, I'm just brainstorming over things right now, so we'll see what happens.

I think the problem in 5e is more that the system suffers because they didn't consider things like that or how people actually gm/play the game when "designing" too many parts of the system.

 

[DND_Reborn]

UPDATE: Here's what I am thinking for Running:

Notes: I elected against including disadvantage on ability checks mostly because running and jumping could easily happen in the same turn (i.e. the running long jump), and it wouldn't make sense if a check was require for the jump.

I was thinking about adding this, but it seems too fiddly:
OPTIONAL: You also have disadvantage on ability checks that do not include proficiency in the Athletics skill.

Another option is to use the rule for fast movement penalizing Wisdom (Perception) tests (PHB . 182):

and using something similar for Running.

The limitation on the Dash action under Chases (DMG p. 252) limits how long you can run quickly, as doing so would require the Dash action as well.

Limitations:
I could easily come up with rules for limitations on how long you can run, etc. but 5E has no such rules for limitations on special types of movement (how long you can climb or swim, for instance). We all know 5E is purposefully negligent about such things, however, so for the time being I am ignoring them as well and leaving it up to DM fiat.

 

[Don Durito]

Except for feats like Sentinel or other special abilities, what would getting rid of OA do to the game? Would it encourage more fluid movement rather than the trench warfare that so often seems to occur in melee combat? I would think grappling would become very popular. Thoughts?
Sorry, don't mean to derail the thread.

Unlikely. It would mean that nothing would much stop you moving unless you have a reason to - but the same would apply to the enemy so why bother? You can dart in and hit and then back out really, but the enemy can still follow even if they're engaged with someone else.

In certain edge cases you would get weird results - a Monk could hit someone and have enough movement to back entirely out of reach for attack.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm a bit confused by the OP. A lot of the discussion seems to follow concerns over tactical movement - but I don't see that in the OP. It seems more concerned with differential movement and the fact that movement is so predictable.

If you want more fine-grained tactical movement then make more use of the grid - but if you want more fluid dynamic movement it's probably better to do what 13th Age does and get rid of the grid. Instead divide the battlefield up into zones. People are either engaged, nearby (in the same zone) or far away (in a different zone). Therefore movement to other zones requires a DC and an Athletics and Acrobatic check depending on the type of terrain. Moving through a barroom brawl has one kind of difficulty while trying to clamber over some boulders up a hillside to get to the archers has a different one. As 5E has different movement speeds give characters a movement bonus or penalty to the roll of +1/-1 for every 5ft of standard movement they have above or below 30.

Also allow unengaged characters to intercept (as in 13th Age) if you pass close to them (don't worry about squares - it's artificial anyway - it's always been ridiculous that you can potentially weave your way around enemy combatants who are standing still in order to get to the back line - intercepting is something that D20 games have long desperately needed - grid or no grid). If you are intercepted then you will take an attack of opportunity if you want to continue.

This both speeds up movement greatly and also makes it more interesting. (PCs don't have to worry about difficult terrain and how it affects movement and if the archer is just out of reach - they just describe what they are trying to do and the GM sets a DC).

Edit: It wouldn't be too hard to actually have some kind of hybrid system where movement within a single zone with multiple combatants is grid based and highly tactical with flanking and the like, while movement from one zone to another is more abstracted.