HELP: Do Damaged flying creatures lose ability to fly?

[Nyarlathotep]

Good evening all!

Quick question for you guys...

Do flying creatures (oh let's say a dragon) lose the ability to fly if they are damaged to half hit points or less? I'm sure I had seen this rule somewhere, but can't find it for the life of me, which makes me think I've made it up?

 

[Vorput]

This probably doesn't help (unless I'm right), but I've been playing 3.0 and then 3.5 since they came out, and I've never seen this rule anywhere.

 

[ElectricDragon]

I believe that rule is from 2e or earlier. I remember it too but was unable to find anything about it anywhere in the SRD. As I recall, there were two levels: must glide to ground and crash to ground but I don't recall the specifics except that it only applied to winged creatures.

Ciao
Dave

 

[Nifft]

I too don't know of any such rule.

Sounds like it could have a place in a Condition Track, though.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Klaus]

Good evening all!

Quick question for you guys...

Do flying creatures (oh let's say a dragon) lose the ability to fly if they are damaged to half hit points or less? I'm sure I had seen this rule somewhere, but can't find it for the life of me, which makes me think I've made it up?

No such rule. Any creature functions perfectly until dropped to 0 hp (when they become staggered and can only take 1 action per round) or negative hp (when they become unconscious and plummet down).

If the creature is forced to take only one action in a round, it must choose to take a move action to remain aloft or fall (almost all falls will hit the ground in one round or less, except from extreme heights).

 

[Thurbane]

It was a 1E (possibly 2E) rule that stated a creature that relied on wings for physical flight (as opposed to levitation etc) could not fly once brought below 50% hit points.

AFAIK, no such rule exists in 3E - my older players still miss it: "What, we hit that wyvern for at least 30 points, no way can it fly!".

From memory, there was also a rule for area effects like Fireball damaging the wings of creatures with membranous (insects) or feathered (avians) wings.

 

[Felix]

I could have sworn it was a 3e rule too. I'll have a look for it.

 

[phindar]

I gotta say, I like the idea of injured creatures being unable to fly. If I were going to run a game that it would be important (like say, a Dragonhunter Contest Campaign), I'd definitely put in some sort of "Reduced Speed and Manueverability Class at 50% HP, Forced to Land at 25%." Except I'd spell "maneuverability" correctly.

It doesn't surprise me that it was a rule in 2e. It was probably several rules, worded differently and with mutually exclusive applications across several supplements. If I had to guess.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I gotta say, I like the idea of injured creatures being unable to fly.

I hate it. I think it's a terrible idea. It's a half-baked attempt at realism without accomplishing anything except gimping flyers for no good reason. In other words, any such rule would only make sense if you've also similarly affect walking, swimming, climbing, and burrowing. Oh, don't forget spellcasting, doing any sort of skill, thinking (cause pain will affect that), talking, and just anything really.

 

[Nifft]

It's a half-baked attempt at realism without accomplishing anything except gimping flyers for no good reason.

Agree.

If you're using a system with a Condition Track (like Star Wars Saga Edition), you could add a flying penalty to the same point that normally gives a movement penalty. That would be fair -- if you would be too injured to walk at full speed, it's totally fair to penalize your other movement modes.

Cheers, -- N