Speed in 3.5, what am I missing?

[graeylin]

Okay, is this just one of those areas that the designers pulled a brain stop, or have I missed the rules for it?

Imagine you have three monks, identical in every way. They are at the west end of a field, facing east. On the south end, you have five archers, and the monks are well within bow range.... easy peasy shots.

At the count of five, the archers prepare to shoot at the monks, and the monks prepare to run across the field, west to east (ie, perpendicular to the archers). At the count of five, they all go...

Monk 1 races across the field, running at 4x his normal move action. That puts his normal speed of 60' per round out to 240' round.

Monk 2 walks across the field, at a pace of 60' per round.

Monk 3 stands still.

Is it correct, that in 3.5 rules, each of them has the exact same AC, relative to the archers? And that it's just as hard for them to hit the monk standing still, as the one moving 40 feet per second? Or, just as easy to hit the one moving 40'/second, as it is to hit the one standing still?

[georgie_leech]

Technically, unless the Running Monk has the Run feat, it will almost certainly be easier to hit, as they won't gain any Dexterity Bonus to their AC.

[Wacky89]

Don't try to use common sense in DND seriously. The DND world doesn't make sense and it doesn't have to.

[Troacctid]

The running Monk probably has a lower AC than the other two, because you lose your Dex bonus to AC when you run. The stationary Monk could potentially have more than the others if she used her action to take a total defense while the others were double-moving.

Remember, characters are not stationary targets. They are considered to be constantly ducking, dodging, and weaving around the battlefield. A truly stationary target--say, a cardboard cutout of a Monk--would only have an AC of 3 (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#armorClass). But a real Monk will deflect your first arrow aside with his fist and casually tilt his head out of the way of the second one.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Down this road lies trying to make sense of how weapons work. Don't do it man, don't do it.

[Doctor Awkward]

Here's the first thing you have to accept about combat in D&D:

It's an abstraction. It's a vague representation of events that are occurring, not a complete faithful recreation of them.

The second thing you have to accept is that while the rules are actually shockingly realistic in a lot of aspects, it is also a game. There are areas where the designers had to ignore a certain amount of verisimilitude in order to streamline and simplify the mechanics so that they interact in a manner that's fair to all participants.

No one stands around waiting for their turn to take an action. All actions occur simultaneously. Initiative is a representation of your overall quickness in movement. People with higher initiatives get to do their thing first, and in order to preserve balance, people with slower initiatives are allowed to react to what the faster people are doing.
Similarly, no one in D&D walks up to someone and punches them, then stands their while the other guy punches back. Combat is generally considered to be a furious exchange of attacks, dodges, parries, and ripostes. Armor Class is a binary effect, but it encompasses a great many things that foil attempts to harm you. This axe glanced harmlessly off your shield, that arrow struck you but didn't penetrate your breastplate, that sword swing was just slow enough to dodge, your magic ring prevented that Ray of Enfeeblement from striking you, and so on. Your attack and damage rolls are an extrapolation of the parts of that exchange that were successful in harming your opponent.


There are a number of underlying assumptions about the nature of combat that the system makes:

-Upon entering "combat", all participants are accorded a full five feet of space with which to maneuver, regardless of their actual size. This is what accounts for size bonuses to AC.

-All participants are assumed to be constantly glancing around them at all times, making note of any and all threats within their field of vision. That's why there's no facing in combat, and no "sneaking up" behind someone without some kind of cover. That's also why flanking is as simple as putting two enemies on opposite sides of a target, without either of them having to be the "distracting" one.

-All participants are also assumed to be constantly on guard, dodging and weaving, and otherwise doing their darndest to avoid incoming attacks. This is what accounts for your Dexterity bonus, and other such related bonuses to AC.


So with all that in mind, running your test by the rules of this system would assume three monks who most definitely do not want to get shot:

Monk #1 takes off at a dead sprint, completely ignoring anything the shooter does. This costs him his Dexterity bonus to AC. If he has the Run feat, he has trained to keep an eye on his surroundings even while running, and adjusts his steps to present a more difficult target than he otherwise would.

Monk #2 also attempts to move away, but does so much more cautiously, watching as the archer tracks him.

Monk #3 remains where he is, but don't forget that he has a full five feet of space to move around in. He tenses and watches for signs of a flying arrow, counting on his agility to keep him safe.


The idea that common sense has no place in D&D is a fallacy. The rules as written cannot be utilized without interpretation and a judicious application of common sense. But unless you are willing to dive into the guts of the system, there are certain things you will just have to accept about the way the rules work.

If you are into that kind of thing, here's (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) a pretty interesting article that discusses how well D&D 3.0 models reality.

Oh, and as far as cats killing 1st-level commoners? Go ask someone who works at an animal shelter if they think a feral cat could kill a sufficiently unprepared human being.

[bjoern]

Once you figure out the monk thing, make sense of this.

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Peasant_Railgun

[graeylin]

I guess it's settled then... the answer is that the designers really didn't think about the difficulty of shooting at a person who can move a whole 5 foot in six seconds, versus someone who can move an entire 360 feet in the same period of time (ie, a monk with 90' movement, standing "still" and one who is running).

It's just as hard to hit the guy who can move five feet one side to the other, as it is to hit the guy moving at 60 feet per second. Nope, sorry.. forgot the dex loss. It's easier to hit the guy moving 40 miles an hour.

[Tohsaka Rin]

It's easier to hit the guy running full-pelt in a straight line, who basically doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of dodging side to side.

Have you ever tried to hit a moving target? If they're going full-speed in one direction, all you have to do is lead them a little.

You know exactly where they're gonna be, because if they try any tricky dodging, they'll just face-plant.

The guy jogging forward is harder to hit, because he's moving, but not as committed to that one direction.

The guy standing still has probably the best chance of not being hit, as he's not committed to anything, and can put his full attention on not being hit. That's what we call 'total defense'.

EDIT - Am I the only one who played Dodgeball in grade school?

[Hiro Protagonest]

I guess it's settled then... the answer is that the designers really didn't think about the difficulty of shooting at a person who can move a whole 5 foot in six seconds, versus someone who can move an entire 360 feet in the same period of time (ie, a monk with 90' movement, standing "still" and one who is running).

The answer is that realism doesn't matter and D&D 3.5 tries too hard to simulate things already.

[Coidzor]

Okay, is this just one of those areas that the designers pulled a brain stop, or have I missed the rules for it?

[-snip-]

Is it correct, that in 3.5 rules, each of them has the exact same AC, relative to the archers? And that it's just as hard for them to hit the monk standing still, as the one moving 40 feet per second? Or, just as easy to hit the one moving 40'/second, as it is to hit the one standing still?

So you want to houserule the game so that you and your players have to keep track of even *more* fiddly modifiers based upon how characters are moving? :smallconfused:


I guess it's settled then... the answer is that the designers really didn't think about the difficulty of shooting at a person who can move a whole 5 foot in six seconds, versus someone who can move an entire 360 feet in the same period of time (ie, a monk with 90' movement, standing "still" and one who is running).

It's just as hard to hit the guy who can move five feet one side to the other, as it is to hit the guy moving at 60 feet per second. Nope, sorry.. forgot the dex loss. It's easier to hit the guy moving 40 miles an hour.

Mostly correct, however, after a Monk's turn has passed they may no longer take a five foot step, so there's no can about it, and before their turn they're not able to take a five foot step, either, in the vast majority of cases.

Also, traveling 240 feet is almost certainly going to interact with the range increment of an archer's attacks, and can either lower a penalty to hit for the archer or give them one/increase one they already had. A longbow has a 100' range increment. Being ~240 feet away from an archer wielding a longbow will impose a -4 penalty on the archer's ranged attack, the same if the archer were nonproficient or were attempting to shoot into a melee without the Precise Shot feat. For a Shortbow with a 60' range increment, that'd be a -8 penalty on ranged attacks by the archer against the monk. Potentially more than enough to offset the lack of dexterity to armor class.


EDIT - Am I the only one who played Dodgeball in grade school?

Well, you know, if we go by the stereotypes, we're all nerds who were traumatized in gym/PE, so... :smalltongue:

[Scorponok]

You would also have to assume the archers are trained archers. A trained archer would have an easy time picking off the target that is running at full tilt in a straight line. They would have a harder time picking off the guy who is standing still and can move in any direction.

Also keep in mind how far the monks are from the archers and how fast the arrow is travelling. I sometimes play Belagarth and we have a few archers on the field. At long distances, it takes some time for an arrow to travel through the air. A player expecting an arrow can VERY easily move out of the way at even 10 meters.

[Twurps]

I guess it's settled then... the answer is that the designers really didn't think about the difficulty of shooting at a person who can move a whole 5 foot in six seconds, versus someone who can move an entire 360 feet in the same period of time (ie, a monk with 90' movement, standing "still" and one who is running).

It's just as hard to hit the guy who can move five feet one side to the other, as it is to hit the guy moving at 60 feet per second. Nope, sorry.. forgot the dex loss. It's easier to hit the guy moving 40 miles an hour.

A person does not have a max of 5ft of movement in a 6 second round. He can take only one 5ft step to go outside of his square. Within the square however, he can move as much as he wants/needs.

Also: From personal experience in gun/crosbow/bow shooting (And yes: the occasional dodge-bal): The 'straight-line' target is indeed easier to hit than a dodging target (A Cardboard target on a string, swinging in the wind)

Basically: Without people abusing the simplification needed to turn 'real time' into 'turn based' as with the commoner rail gun, I think d&d mechanics are pretty decent.

[Mr Adventurer]

Yeah, OP is suffering a premise failure.

[graeylin]

lol... premise failure? Probably so.

Gotta love it.

It just seems one of those weird physics things to me that hitting a man-sized target standing perfectly still (no dex bonus) is just as easy as hitting the same man sized target traveling 41 miles an hour (no dex bonus).

Having six seconds and all, to draw, acquire target, aim and shoot...

I'm pretty sure I could hit a clay pigeon sitting on the ground in six seconds. I miss, a lot, when they are flying in a straight (okay, parabolic) line across my range.

[Flickerdart]

I'm pretty sure I could hit a clay pigeon sitting on the ground in six seconds. I miss, a lot, when they are flying in a straight (okay, parabolic) line across my range.
Standing perfectly still isn't +0, it's 0 Dexterity, a modifier of -5 that represents being paralyzed and completely immobile.

[Knaight]

It just seems one of those weird physics things to me that hitting a man-sized target standing perfectly still (no dex bonus) is just as easy as hitting the same man sized target traveling 41 miles an hour (no dex bonus).

Again, they aren't standing still. They're staying in approximately the same location, but there's still some degree of movement, which is probably reactive, and which is less predictable than someone running at full tilt. Shooting someone charging straight towards you is comparatively easy - they have a lot of momentum that makes it harder for them to change direction, they have a predictable path, etc. A shield or something makes this vastly more difficult, but the point stands. Meanwhile someone at a distance who is going to move in response to your shot is significantly more difficult - and arrows do move slowly enough that there is some real response time, unlike the case with most firearms.

[Coidzor]

lol... premise failure? Probably so.

Gotta love it.

It just seems one of those weird physics things to me that hitting a man-sized target standing perfectly still (no dex bonus) is just as easy as hitting the same man sized target traveling 41 miles an hour (no dex bonus).

Staying in one's square =/= being paralyzed. So that's your first issue to resolve.


I'm pretty sure I could hit a clay pigeon sitting on the ground in six seconds. I miss, a lot, when they are flying in a straight (okay, parabolic) line across my range.

Provided it's not so far away that it basically has cover against you from laying flat on the ground in whatever terrain it's in.

[Doctor Awkward]

I'm pretty sure I could hit a clay pigeon sitting on the ground in six seconds. I miss, a lot, when they are flying in a straight (okay, parabolic) line across my range.

Using yourself as a basis for comparison is the worst possible thing you could do.

A D&D character is not you. Even your own D&D character is not you, even if you give him a similar skill set. Your character is someone who has spent X number of years of his life shooting practice shots at stationary targets every single day.
This is because shooting a bow is not only his job, it's also what keeps him from being eaten by a grue. He is going to be better at it than you are.


I once read a DM horror story where the DM ruled that unless your character was specifically heading into a battle, you didn't your wear armor. Yes, the actual table rule was that, after spending roughly ten uneventful minutes suited up, your character became so hot, tired, and uncomfortable that he took his armor off.

The basis for this rule was that one time the DM wore a chainmail shirt made out of soda can tabs to a Renaissance Faire, and it was really heavy, awkward, and uncomfortable.

Never mind that most medieval armor is especially designed and fitted to distribute the weight so as to reduce discomfort. Never mind that you can go to Youtube and find videos of people doing gymnastics wearing full plate. All that mattered was that there was this one time the DM, a middle-aged, overweight, and out-of-shape non-adventurer, did something vaguely similar to what he read about in a book, and thus was a competent authority to judge what it must be like for superheroes under not-even-remotely-similar circumstances.

Never, ever, ever make any rules-based assumption that begins with the words, "Well one time I did <insert activity>", because odds are even it's not even close to what will occur during a game.


Provided it's not so far away that it basically has cover against you from laying flat on the ground in whatever terrain it's in.

That's a good point. Let's see:

According to the SRD, an objects armor class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#armorClass), is equal to 10 + Dex bonus + size modifier. Objects are treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (so -5 penalty), with an additional -2 penalty on top of that. A standard clay pigeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_pigeon_shooting#Targets) is exactly 108 mm in diameter, and no bigger than 29 mm in height, or just over 4 inches by 1 inch tall, and they must weigh 3.5 oz. According to the size table (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/movementPositionAndDistance.htm#bigandLittleCreatu resInCombat), that puts them in the under six inches, or Fine category, which is a +8 bonus. This gives a clay pigeon an AC of 11.

Any shotgun is usable for skeet shooting, but a 12 gauge is pretty standard, normally using a choke of 127 mm, putting the pellet spread in the area of 52 in at 40 yards. This gives the weapon an effective range of about 23 yards. Just for even numbers, we can probably put the weapon at a range increment of 20 yards.

But Mr Mitsu! Doesn't that give a 12 gauge shotgun a maximum range of 200 yards??!
Why yes. Yes it does. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNTyCcip-ks)

Moving on...

So let's stick a clay pigeon at 20 yards away a range increment on a concrete surface.
You are within the range increment to fire without penalty. You are shooting at an AC of 11, with a +5 bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm#armorClass) if you take a full-round action (six seconds) to line up your shot.
Assuming that you are a practiced marksman with above-average Dexterity (12), and you practice every single day in your spare time (Weapon Focus).
...And you have an exceptionally well-crafted shotgun made especially for you (masterwork).
Even if you are a 1st-level commoner, right now you have +8 to your attack roll, giving you a 90% chance of destroying that pigeon in one shot.

So yeah, you probably could.

As a fun test, do this ten times in a row, and see if you don't fail at least once.

[graeylin]

It's nice of everyone to throw in their own rules (running towards the archer, etc.), in order to make their point, or ridicule me a little.

My initial test, however, was that the three monks are all at point A, and that's perpindicular to the archers. They run across a field, east to west, the archers are south, firing north. So no one runs away from the archers, or towards them. One monk stands still (standard AC), the other moves normal speed, and the third runs 4 times faster than normal speed.

And, each of them either has the same AC, or the one running (at potentially absurd speeds, if you add some extra movement enhancers) has the best chance of being hit (lowest AC). Because, he's running as fast as a car.

(and yes, I know this is "using me"... so, if you prefer, replace "I" with "archer" in the following paragraph)
And yup, if you place a clay pigeon 60 feet from me on a concrete surface, give me six seconds, I can hit it. I can also miss it. You are right, out of 10 times, I'll probably miss a couple times. Put that same clay pigeon on a car zooming across the same concrete surface at 40 miles and hour, however, and I can pretty much guarantee, I'll miss it a lot more than I will the stationary one.

And yet, DnD (and I totally admit, it's obviously flawed... I noted that possibility in my first sentence), I should hit the pigeon attached to the car MORE often than the one stationary on a post, or on the ground.

So, yes, the obvious answer is "the designers didn't factor in speed to AC. Brain stop on their part. You aren't missing any rule. Things that move fast have lower AC's compared to when they don't move as fast."

[georgie_leech]

It's nice of everyone to throw in their own rules (running towards the archer, etc.), in order to make their point, or ridicule me a little.

My initial test, however, was that the three monks are all at point A, and that's perpindicular to the archers. They run across a field, east to west, the archers are south, firing north. So no one runs away from the archers, or towards them. One monk stands still (standard AC), the other moves normal speed, and the third runs 4 times faster than normal speed.

And, each of them either has the same AC, or the one running (at potentially absurd speeds, if you add some extra movement enhancers) has the best chance of being hit (lowest AC). Because, he's running as fast as a car.

(and yes, I know this is "using me"... so, if you prefer, replace "I" with "archer" in the following paragraph)
And yup, if you place a clay pigeon 60 feet from me on a concrete surface, give me six seconds, I can hit it. I can also miss it. You are right, out of 10 times, I'll probably miss a couple times. Put that same clay pigeon on a car zooming across the same concrete surface at 40 miles and hour, however, and I can pretty much guarantee, I'll miss it a lot more than I will the stationary one.

And yet, DnD (and I totally admit, it's obviously flawed... I noted that possibility in my first sentence), I should hit the pigeon attached to the car MORE often than the one stationary on a post, or on the ground.

So, yes, the obvious answer is "the designers didn't factor in speed to AC. Brain stop on their part. You aren't missing any rule. Things that move fast have lower AC's compared to when they don't move as fast."

Quibble: 240 feet per round is only about 27 miles an hour. And I'll bet you would have an easier time hitting a target moving in a completely predictable pattern than you would hitting a character constantly monitoring you and ready to dodge out of the way. Part of real training with a ranged weapon is learning how to hit a moving target.

[Coidzor]

It's nice of everyone to throw in their own rules (running towards the archer, etc.), in order to make their point, or ridicule me a little.

What do you mean my rules? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#rangeIncrement) :smalltongue:


My initial test, however, was that the three monks are all at point A, and that's perpindicular to the archers. They run across a field, east to west, the archers are south, firing north. So no one runs away from the archers, or towards them. One monk stands still (standard AC), the other moves normal speed, and the third runs 4 times faster than normal speed.

Moving 240 away from the archers, even if not directly away from them, or past them is still going to increase or decrease the distance between a monk and any given archer. Now if you have a line of archers that stretches out forever and the monks that move stay parallel to that line, that's another matter, but the archers near the monks' starting point still have range come into play when attacking at least the monk which ran 240 feet.

If the center archer or the position of the quantum archers is 30 feet away from the monk starting position, then that's 240^2 + 30^2 = distance from the archer squared or 58500 feet. The square root of that is ~242. Thus the center archer does still take penalties to hit The Running Monk from range.

[Doctor Awkward]

Ignore them, graeylin.


Put that same clay pigeon on a car zooming across the same concrete surface at 40 miles and hour, however, and I can pretty much guarantee, I'll miss it a lot more than I will the stationary one.

That is a valid complaint. From a purely realistic standpoint, it is more difficult to hit a moving target than a stationary one. Traps wouldn't exist if it wasn't.

But the speed that a target moves is just one of those things the designers had to streamline in order to make the game playable.

Given that a round is stated to be roughly six seconds, there are some pretty ludicrous extrapolations that come as a result of that, like a 20th level human monk being able to run at 40 mph. Even more ridiculous is the fact that it's possible to build an archer that can accurately shoot at distances measured in miles. Since all attacks land in the round they are fired, his arrows would have to cover that distance in six seconds, meaning that they far exceed the speed of sound.

It's not perfect, and the higher level you go the more the physics start to fall apart.
Most of the complaints you are getting are simply attempting to clarify that while, yes, some rules are borked when compared to real life, they are actually not nearly as borked as some people would like you to think (a lot of which is holdover from older editions of D&D that had literally zero basis in reality).

[georgie_leech]

Given that a round is stated to be roughly six seconds, there are some pretty ludicrous extrapolations that come as a result of that, like a 20th level human monk being able to run at 40 mph. Even more ridiculous is the fact that it's possible to build an archer that can accurately shoot at distances measured in miles. Since all attacks land in the round they are fired, his arrows would have to cover that distance in six seconds, meaning that they far exceed the speed of sound.



Considering that at 20th level you can also have characters that transform into dragons while calling down the wrath of nature and killing everything around them by sucking out their souls, I really don't think there's a problem with characters that can run fast.

[Flickerdart]

And yet, DnD (and I totally admit, it's obviously flawed... I noted that possibility in my first sentence), I should hit the pigeon attached to the car MORE often than the one stationary on a post, or on the ground.

Wrong.

The pigeon on the ground has a penalty of -5 to AC from being stationary.

The pigeon on the car is moving and thus clearly does not.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that a character who does not leave a 5ft square is standing as still as an inanimate clay pigeon lying on the ground. This is not the case, as has been illustrated.

[Solaris]

Ignore them, graeylin.



That is a valid complaint. From a purely realistic standpoint, it is more difficult to hit a moving target than a stationary one. Traps wouldn't exist if it wasn't.

But the speed that a target moves is just one of those things the designers had to streamline in order to make the game playable.

Given that a round is stated to be roughly six seconds, there are some pretty ludicrous extrapolations that come as a result of that, like a 20th level human monk being able to run at 40 mph. Even more ridiculous is the fact that it's possible to build an archer that can accurately shoot at distances measured in miles. Since all attacks land in the round they are fired, his arrows would have to cover that distance in six seconds, meaning that they far exceed the speed of sound.

It's not perfect, and the higher level you go the more the physics start to fall apart.
Most of the complaints you are getting are simply attempting to clarify that while, yes, some rules are borked when compared to real life, they are actually not nearly as borked as some people would like you to think (a lot of which is holdover from older editions of D&D that had literally zero basis in reality).

Both my experiences in dodgeball and my experiences shooting at people tell me that the guy staying in one place, ready to evade is going to be harder to hit than the guys running. My experiences aiming at vehicles tell me that 40 mph isn't that big a factor, it just means I get fewer attacks against the vehicle before it's out of range.

You know what you do with a guy running? You lead him. He'll go down. Running targets are really predictable to shoot at.
In D&D, he's lost his Dexterity bonus to AC because he's running full-tilt.

You know what you do with a guy taking the double move action? You lead him a little less. He'll still go down.
In D&D, he's at his normal AC.

You know what you do with the guy watching you, waiting to react to your shots? Hose that sonufagun with a lot of bullets because he's got a vested interest in being where you're not aiming, and regardless of what you'll hear from people who've never fired a shot at another person your agility and ability to move yourself does play a role in whether or not the other guy's bullets hit ya.
In D&D, that's the total defense action, which nets you a +4 bonus to AC.

You know what you do with the static target just sitting there? Pop off a single round. Whee.
In D&D, that static object isn't just flat-footed, it has a 0 Dexterity. It's not the same as a target that simply isn't moving.

The ACs of moving targets is one of the situations the game designers got right.

[Psyren]

It's easier to hit the guy running full-pelt in a straight line, who basically doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of dodging side to side.

Have you ever tried to hit a moving target? If they're going full-speed in one direction, all you have to do is lead them a little.

You know exactly where they're gonna be, because if they try any tricky dodging, they'll just face-plant.

The guy jogging forward is harder to hit, because he's moving, but not as committed to that one direction.

The guy standing still has probably the best chance of not being hit, as he's not committed to anything, and can put his full attention on not being hit. That's what we call 'total defense'.

EDIT - Am I the only one who played Dodgeball in grade school?

So is everyone else ignoring this? Because this seems plenty valid to me.

Also, if you're running directly towards the archers from far away, that would arguably make you even easier to hit, because you become a larger target as you get closer.

[Doctor Awkward]

You know what you do with a guy running? You lead him.
...

You know what you do with a guy taking the double move action? You lead him a little less.
...

You know what you do with the guy watching you, waiting to react to your shots? Hose that sonufagun with a lot of bullets
...


That's not really the point.

The issue at hand is that, per the rules of ranged combat in D&D, there is no difference between a sprinting target with the Run feat, a target taking a double-move, and a target doing something with his move action other than changing his current 5 foot square.

Per the rules of D&D, each of those targets has exactly the same Armor Class, which suggests that a shooter has exactly equal chance of hitting any one of them. Which in turn suggests that moving from your current location doesn't make it harder for someone to hit you with a ranged weapon.

The disconnect the OP is having, that we are trying to clear up, is that all of those little adjustments you are talking about there are considered to happen automatically. It's assumed that a character being proficient with a weapon knows how to do all of those things, and does them without the player having to say, "I'll shoot at the running guy, and lead him enough that the arrow will still hit him based on his speed and the velocity of the arrow" every single time.

[Coidzor]

So is everyone else ignoring this? Because this seems plenty valid to me.

Also, if you're running directly towards the archers from far away, that would arguably make you even easier to hit, because you become a larger target as you get closer.

Well, yeah. I was just pointing out that there's a bit more to the interaction than what had initially been accounted for.

Including the part where running towards or away from the archers would have an effect on how easy it is to hit someone. Because range penalties, either removing them or having them enter the equation.

Are range penalties and losing them a perfect model? No, almost certainly not.

[Solaris]

So is everyone else ignoring this? Because this seems plenty valid to me.

Also, if you're running directly towards the archers from far away, that would arguably make you even easier to hit, because you become a larger target as you get closer.

Nope, it's spot-on. I pretty much just reiterated what he said with my post and added in comparisons between D&D rules and my own experiences to support how the D&D rules are a fairly accurate representation of the real-world situations.

[Knaight]

The disconnect the OP is having, that we are trying to clear up, is that all of those little adjustments you are talking about there are considered to happen automatically. It's assumed that a character being proficient with a weapon knows how to do all of those things, and does them without the player having to say, "I'll shoot at the running guy, and lead him enough that the arrow will still hit him based on his speed and the velocity of the arrow" every single time.

Of course it happens automatically. It not doing so would be really dumb. It's the equivalent of having to declare a melee attack to the effect of "I try to hit him with my sword, but not where he's blocking, and if he dodges I'm aiming for the spot he's moving to". That's just part of the general process.

[Yahzi]

It's nice of everyone to throw in their own rules (running towards the archer, etc.), in order to make their point, or ridicule me a little.
You are complaining that people didn't read your post closely enough, but you didn't read their responses.


the stationary one.
A monk that is not running is not paralyzed. The rules for shooting at inanimate objects with no DEX bonus are different than the rules for shooting at people trying not to be hit. This has been pointed out but you refuse to acknowledge it.

The monk who is as stationary as a clay pigeon has a -5 AC instead of whatever DEX mod he is supposed to have. Yes, that is easier to hit than the guy running.

[atemu1234]

Considering that at 20th level you can also have characters that transform into dragons while calling down the wrath of nature and killing everything around them by sucking out their souls, I really don't think there's a problem with characters that can run fast.

We're rapidly approaching the 'Guy at the Gym' fallacy.