Base land speed [Archive] - Wizards Community

Base land speed [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Windspear
01-05-08, 01:15 PM Is that OK? I don't think so.
The idea of that is the all humans, elvs, half orcs and the likes move at exactly the same speed. Now that can't be right.
How about you add 5ft for each point of DEX modifier?
Dalzig
01-05-08, 04:19 PM Other than changing combat mechanics, a possible problem with this is the jump skill. Suddenly having a dexterity of 18 gives you +8 to jump. This probably wouldn't be game-breaking, but it deserves to be mentioned.

Really, I'm just seeing this as making dexterity classes that much better over armor fighters. Basically, an unneeded rule.
ppirilla
01-05-08, 06:18 PM In reality, they probably wouldn't move at exactly the same speed.

But moving the same distance to within 5 feet in six seconds? That seems pretty reasonable.

Granted there are those that can run much quicker still, but there are also abilities a character can gain to improve their base speed.
DarkRhystar
01-06-08, 06:46 PM Is that OK? I don't think so.
The idea of that is the all humans, elvs, half orcs and the likes move at exactly the same speed. Now that can't be right.
How about you add 5ft for each point of DEX modifier?

Bad house rule. Two thumbs down.
Orenmir
01-06-08, 10:52 PM There are many aspects of D&D that sacrifice logic for balanced game mechanics. Base land speed is one of them.

<only slightly off topic>
Another is AC. How logical is it that your AC is a static number? A part of AC is Dexterity -- bobbing and weaving. Much like a boxer avoiding punches. Sometimes you get lucky and avoid a hit; sometimes you're unlucky and bob when you should have weaved. This type of randomness should be represented by a roll of the die. Afterall, your attacker gets to roll. I think it would be perfectly logical to replace the static "10" in your AC with a d20 (or maybe d10+5 or 2d10). But, game balance might be sacrificed. Or, at least, it would slow down battle too much with everybody rolling and calculating numbers (kinda sounds like grappling).
</only slightly off topic>
ppirilla
01-06-08, 10:56 PM <only slightly off topic>
Another is AC. How logical is it that your AC is a static number? A part of AC is Dexterity -- bobbing and weaving. Much like a boxer avoiding punches. Sometimes you get lucky and avoid a hit; sometimes you're unlucky and bob when you should have weaved. This type of randomness should be represented by a roll of the die. Afterall, your attacker gets to roll. I think it would be perfectly logical to replace the static "10" in your AC with a d20 (or maybe d10+5). But, game balance might be sacrificed. Or, at least, it would slow down battle too much with everybody rolling and calculating numbers (kinda sounds like grappling).
</only slightly off topic>

Changing the static "10+" in AC to "+1d20" does not affect game balance in any way shape or form. In fact, in my games we use this as a houserule. (though NPC's and monsters often take 10 on attack and AC rolls to save time)
Orenmir
01-06-08, 11:08 PM (though NPC's and monsters often take 10 on attack and AC rolls to save time)

I like this idea, but there is one aspect that unbalances the game. If a monster takes 10 on attack rolls, the players will know if they are going to get hit or not after one attack. Thus, giving the players an unfair advantage. If I was a player in your game, taking Combat Expertise would be my fist feat. I could boost my AC up to the point were I would know a monster couldn't hit me - ever.

Anyway -- this is way off topic, so I think I'll start another thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14761342#post14761342) about it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Windspear 01-05-08, 01:15 PM	Is that OK? I don't think so. The idea of that is the all humans, elvs, half orcs and the likes move at exactly the same speed. Now that can't be right. How about you add 5ft for each point of DEX modifier?
Dalzig 01-05-08, 04:19 PM	Other than changing combat mechanics, a possible problem with this is the jump skill. Suddenly having a dexterity of 18 gives you +8 to jump. This probably wouldn't be game-breaking, but it deserves to be mentioned. Really, I'm just seeing this as making dexterity classes that much better over armor fighters. Basically, an unneeded rule.
ppirilla 01-05-08, 06:18 PM	In reality, they probably wouldn't move at exactly the same speed. But moving the same distance to within 5 feet in six seconds? That seems pretty reasonable. Granted there are those that can run much quicker still, but there are also abilities a character can gain to improve their base speed.
DarkRhystar 01-06-08, 06:46 PM	Is that OK? I don't think so. The idea of that is the all humans, elvs, half orcs and the likes move at exactly the same speed. Now that can't be right. How about you add 5ft for each point of DEX modifier? Bad house rule. Two thumbs down.
Orenmir 01-06-08, 10:52 PM	There are many aspects of D&D that sacrifice logic for balanced game mechanics. Base land speed is one of them. <only slightly off topic> Another is AC. How logical is it that your AC is a static number? A part of AC is Dexterity -- bobbing and weaving. Much like a boxer avoiding punches. Sometimes you get lucky and avoid a hit; sometimes you're unlucky and bob when you should have weaved. This type of randomness should be represented by a roll of the die. Afterall, your attacker gets to roll. I think it would be perfectly logical to replace the static "10" in your AC with a d20 (or maybe d10+5 or 2d10). But, game balance might be sacrificed. Or, at least, it would slow down battle too much with everybody rolling and calculating numbers (kinda sounds like grappling). </only slightly off topic>
ppirilla 01-06-08, 10:56 PM	<only slightly off topic> Another is AC. How logical is it that your AC is a static number? A part of AC is Dexterity -- bobbing and weaving. Much like a boxer avoiding punches. Sometimes you get lucky and avoid a hit; sometimes you're unlucky and bob when you should have weaved. This type of randomness should be represented by a roll of the die. Afterall, your attacker gets to roll. I think it would be perfectly logical to replace the static "10" in your AC with a d20 (or maybe d10+5). But, game balance might be sacrificed. Or, at least, it would slow down battle too much with everybody rolling and calculating numbers (kinda sounds like grappling). </only slightly off topic> Changing the static "10+" in AC to "+1d20" does not affect game balance in any way shape or form. In fact, in my games we use this as a houserule. (though NPC's and monsters often take 10 on attack and AC rolls to save time)
Orenmir 01-06-08, 11:08 PM	(though NPC's and monsters often take 10 on attack and AC rolls to save time) I like this idea, but there is one aspect that unbalances the game. If a monster takes 10 on attack rolls, the players will know if they are going to get hit or not after one attack. Thus, giving the players an unfair advantage. If I was a player in your game, taking Combat Expertise would be my fist feat. I could boost my AC up to the point were I would know a monster couldn't hit me - ever. Anyway -- this is way off topic, so I think I'll start another thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14761342#post14761342) about it.