Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8286873" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I totally get darkvision, though I view it differently for my own games, but the movement statement is interesting. Wouldn’t the cost/benefit stay pretty much the same if your movement speed was just what you can do without especial exertion? That’s about how I do it, but falling would only happen if they’re really trying to push it or totally flub the roll. Whereas I’d say that allowing some minor improvement via rolling allows for a somewhat more graduated vision model. Definitely grok why people don’t want to have that complexity, though. Makes sense. Absolutely. Give me a goal and an approach, and let’s have fun with it. I don’t mind suggestions of proficiencies either, like, “I’d like to use my proficiency in Athletics to turn my Dash into a Sprint and try to make up the 5 ft I’m short by” or “I’d like to use my proficiency in Navigators tools, which we have used previously to model knowledge of higher maths and ability to calculate distance and such mentally, to gauge the jump and get a little more distance.” I agreeEven though the listed weights are often less than what strong man competitors can do?Movement speed is the one where I probably differ the most from the majority. This surprises me quite a bit.&nbsp; &nbsp;I wonder what your reasoning is, here?&nbsp; Balance, efficient gameplay, other? &nbsp;&nbsp;For me, the knowledge that 5e is mostly allowing less than (or at most the same as) what collegiate athletes can do, even at high levels, means I just can’t limit the PCs to the numbers provided. Beyond that, gameplay is improved for us by having skills allow greater feats with higher checks.&nbsp; &nbsp;For movement, I’m fine with the limit in combat, but out of combat the speeds are ludicrously low. I simply can’t pretend that my rogue with Mobile is fast when he is too slow to compete in a foot race with a high schooler of moderate talent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8286873, member: 6704184"] I totally get darkvision, though I view it differently for my own games, but the movement statement is interesting. Wouldn’t the cost/benefit stay pretty much the same if your movement speed was just what you can do without especial exertion? That’s about how I do it, but falling would only happen if they’re really trying to push it or totally flub the roll. Whereas I’d say that allowing some minor improvement via rolling allows for a somewhat more graduated vision model. Definitely grok why people don’t want to have that complexity, though. Makes sense. Absolutely. Give me a goal and an approach, and let’s have fun with it. I don’t mind suggestions of proficiencies either, like, “I’d like to use my proficiency in Athletics to turn my Dash into a Sprint and try to make up the 5 ft I’m short by” or “I’d like to use my proficiency in Navigators tools, which we have used previously to model knowledge of higher maths and ability to calculate distance and such mentally, to gauge the jump and get a little more distance.” I agree Even though the listed weights are often less than what strong man competitors can do? Movement speed is the one where I probably differ the most from the majority. This surprises me quite a bit. I wonder what your reasoning is, here? Balance, efficient gameplay, other? For me, the knowledge that 5e is mostly allowing less than (or at most the same as) what collegiate athletes can do, even at high levels, means I just can’t limit the PCs to the numbers provided. Beyond that, gameplay is improved for us by having skills allow greater feats with higher checks. For movement, I’m fine with the limit in combat, but out of combat the speeds are ludicrously low. I simply can’t pretend that my rogue with Mobile is fast when he is too slow to compete in a foot race with a high schooler of moderate talent. [/QUOTE]

Verification