if by correct you mean 'pretty heavily weighted in a way that rarely, if ever, occurs naturally', then yes. This still means flight makes it a lot more of a problem, because something that occurs somewhere between 'never' and 'only if the DM screws up the encounter design entirely' now occurs frequently.
yes, as far as I am concerned these circumstances pretty much never occur, and just to summarize, those circumstances are
1) the party can kite the enemy indefinitely, the enemy cannot close the gap
2) the party can reach the enemy with their ranged attack, but the enemy cannot reach the party
3) the enemy cannot take cover
4) the enemy decides to try to close the gap despite 1 to 3, over several rounds
Yes, I do not have this case.
It occurs frequently how? It can't occur in many instances. For example, if you are in a forest, then these circumstances cannot occur, because the enemy can take cover. The same in any town setting. Even in a plain it may be possible for the enemy to take cover from a flying enemy, just as easily as they can take cover from a ranged enemy.
You keep acting like these four assumptions are ridiculous to make, then making them for the flying PC as though they are obvious. If cover alone can stop a ranged character, why can't it stop a ranged flying character?
When the flier is safe while the rest of the party isn't, the party can just run / take cover while the flier takes care of the rest. Even if they cannot, this in no way reduces the issue the flier poses for the encounter.
1) Interesting that you put "the enemy cannot close the gap" as a point of ridiculousness, but the idea that the party can run while a flying character solos the encounter seems perfectly reasonable to you. If the entire party can run and escape the enemy... why can't they kite the enemy? Or, if there is effective cover, why can't the ranged character and the party reach this cover and use it to equal effect?
2) Yes, actually, if the party cannot flee this absolutely reduces the issue of the flier. Because then the flier is no different from a ground archer, who stays 90 ft back from the main fight. Whether they are 90ft in the air or 90 ft away on the ground, they are very likely to be out of range and entirely safe from the enemy that is focusing on the rest of the party.
I don't often have fliers, but I do have rogue archers, and they often remain entirely uninjured in fights, because they take up a position significantly far away from the fight, and just snipe into the melee while the rest of the party fights in the scrum. This is exactly the "worst case" of a flier in the same situation.
I assumed nothing, I replied to the scenario you gave me
No, you are constantly assuming aspects of the encounter to make flight a bigger and bigger problem.
I quoted where you said that...
No you didn't, because I never said that flyers warp the rules of the game. You seem to have trouble figuring out who you are responding to.
I am no fan of long quotes, I quote the pertinent part (feel free to disagree with my assessment).
A single sentence is never the "pertinent part" of a multi-point post.
I am not sure what you are going on about, what you are referring to is not in the post I quoted. You said encounter rules need fixing, how is something that can use improvement (encounter building) a defense for something else also being broken (flight) ?
Then you need to reread the post past the first sentence. I never even said anything about encounter rules needing fixing. Seriously, here's the post, I don't talk about encounter rules AT ALL, I never have.
I did not disagree with your exploration point, did I? We were discussing combat however, and there Find Familiar is not all that useful, which is what I wrote
So, at the very least we agree flight is not disruptive to exploration. Great.
Now, what hard to reach places were you talking about that matter in a combat scenario, that flight is somehow uniquely qualified to handle but nothing else is?
I'd say the flier has much better chances of accomplishing something useful. Turn invisible, fly into the castle, open the gate. Now try that with an archer
Interesting. So, we aren't talking about the flight spell here, this must be someone without it. Okay, so here's what I'd do with an archer. Ready? Turn invisible, climb up the walls of the castle, open the gate. Done.
Woof, almost pulled something with that one. Oh, and before you try and talk about athletics checks, refresh yourself on the rules of of climbing. Athletics checks wouldn't be needed to climb anything but a sheer surface, per the rules. And even if you REALLY want to insist that I absolutely must make checks... Then I'll just use a race with a climbing speed.
I found your kiting conditions unrealistic, and said that given these broken criteria, flight does indeed not make things worse
So, if we do not assume that the parties ranged attacks can reach the enemy, without the enemies ranged attacks being able to reach the party.... how is flight a problem? After all, if they are in reach of the enemies attacks, then they are vulnerable to damage.
Or do you assume that the flying character will always be out of reach of the enemies attacks? While you consider it unrealistic that the archer can do the same.
is your new idea that any encounter should work, no matter what? There is a certain baseline competence that every encounter needs.
Interesting. So it is bad to redesign an encounter based on someone being able to fly. But redesigning it based on someone being able to cast fireball is "baseline competence that every encounter needs"
Why is one PC ability bad to design around and the other just baseline competence?
Was my point that flight is so broken that there is no possible way to design an encounter where it is not still broken? No, so not sure what your point is.
Of course I can have a murder mystery that is solved by 'speak with dead' completely, but I can also have one where it helps little to not at all.
And thus you find my point. Of course you can have a combat encounter that is completely solved by flight. But you can also have one where it helps little to not at all. Flight isn't any more special or difficult to deal with than any other PC ability. You complained you have to take it into account, specifically stating "
but it still means I have to design the encounter differently because of them (and potentially a lot more than just the encounters)" This is true of ALL PC abilities, you have to design encounters and challenges to account for the abilities.
No, I do not have player Changelings. I am not sure how pointing out other things that can be problematic in any way reduces the problems with flight.
Because people treat flight like it is a special problem. A Changeling or other character able to instantly disguise themselves as anyone? Not a problem at all (until you have to deal with it). Flight? a dread apparition that hangs over every game and must be curtailed less the game be lost.
But that's just... wrong. Many times people make assumptions about flight that ignore fundamental aspects of the situation. Like assuming the combat encoutner will be a one-sided slaughter, but not accounting for the rest of the party.
Thank you, that was my point. There are some I do not want however, and flight is among them. I prefer a more gritty / realistic world. I do not like constructs or water breathing / aquatic races for the same reason. Heck, darkvision is something I gladly would get rid of / drastically reduce in power and occurrence. I see no reason why Elves or Dwarves would have it for example, and those races that get it will often get disadvantage in broad daylight.
You seem to be missing my point though. Yes, you have to account for flight. And darkvision. And magic. And tremorsense now, but none of this is uniquely difficult to deal with. they are all about the same level of difficulty.
And I don't care if you prefer gritty worlds and want to take out large chunks of the game. That doesn't mean you need to act like flight is particularly egregious. It isn't.
