Level Up (A5E) Why is non-magical flying so limited for PCs?

[Faolyn]

I'm gonna give you the best answer I can: I know it when I see it.

OK, that's not very helpful, because you're basically saying that they're not appropriate in games of a type you can't even define. Because let's face it, it should be clear by now that a "typical fantasy game" is very different for other people.

And it doesn't matter how much flight is constrained in other contexts; not all opponents I may want to use in a fantasy game are going to be fliers and/or ranged attackers, and that chance increases as the encounters take place outdoors. And no, hyper-mobile PCs don't make this better, they're just a different kind of problem child (and one at least as extreme as a lot of animals and the like are pretty mobile themselves so they'd have to exceed even those).

There's mobility, and then there's ground cover. Unless the terrain is completely open, like a desert or a grassland, there's going to be undergrowth and debris that should give the NPC at least half-cover from attacks from above. Even a animals know that if someone is attacking them from above, to take shelter from that attacker.

Like I said, there are games and campaign types where I don't care, because flight is intrinsically a minor benefit; when most of what you're fighting is going to be ranged attackers, it doesn't matter. That's not what I expect in a typical fantasy game, and I have no interest in being forced into it.

Who said anything about being forced? If you, personally, don't like the heritages, ban them for your game.

 

[lichmaster]

Ya know, you could always write those rules and then pitch them to the GPG. Or just self-publish.

You know I had the idea to pitch some mechanics but ultimately didn't manage. If this kind of thing won't be already published by then I'm gonna pitch it for sure

 

[lichmaster]

Target your players STRENGTHS not their weaknesses.

But make it a -choice-.

These two sentences summarize the kind of games I prefer to run.

Instead of "punishing" players because they built strong characters and trying to constantly come up with ways to directly counteract them, I'd rather they seeked challenge by themselves.

Shooting land animals while flying isn't that fun. Or maybe the feeling of being "untouchable" can be fun for one encounter, but players will quickly come to ignore those encounters, and this is GOOD.
There's nothing interesting in a fight against defenseless animals for instance. But, if those animals were attacking a caravan, being able to protect it from above would be useful and cool, and the PCs would definitely look like super-heroes to the rescued party. Plus, animals will flee when outmatched. So the (standard) combat encounter almost becomes more of a social encounter.

If instead of animals the caravan were attacked by purely melee monsters or humanoids (why don't they have ranged weapons?), they'll also quickly realize they're outmatched. Most of them will run away looking for revenge, or will try to take hostages instead. In any case, the dreaded one-sided encounter becomes a social encounter with much more at stakes: how do they handle with the hostages? Do they let the monsters run or do they murder them while pretty much defenseless?

 

[Micah Sweet]

In situations where the ground-bound combatants really can't affect the flyers, that would be an excellent opportunity for the GM to think reasonably about morale, a concept which has sadly fallen out of fashion in RPGs.

 

[lichmaster]

In situations where the ground-bound combatants really can't affect the flyers, that would be an excellent opportunity for the GM to think reasonably about morale, a concept which has sadly fallen out of fashion in RPGs.

Exactly, I mentioned this in a previous post.
It doesn't look like, but IMO this absence has significantly changed the fight dynamics from older editions.
A combat now is designed to last 3 rounds. This was not implemented in a good way imo: damage for monsters is often too high and their HPs are too low (which makes for very swingy combat).
I'd rather do the opposite: more monster HP and less monster damage. Less swingy combat and more retreats. More friction, less use of "novas"

 

[Thomas Shey]

I suppose it does a little (although why should NPCs have less scope than PCs?), but verisimilitude is important to me.

NPCs per se, shouldn't. There absolutely should be NPC groups that have as wide a range of abilities within them as any PC group.

But the kicker is, they aren't every set of opponents you should encounter. They shouldn't even be most of them. PC groups aren't a normal, common construction in most settings, verisimilitude or no. Objecting because they aren't is like objecting that not every group of opponents a commando team deals with in a modern setting isn't another commando team. It'd be weird if it was. Same here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

OK, that's not very helpful, because you're basically saying that they're not appropriate in games of a type you can't even define. Because let's face it, it should be clear by now that a "typical fantasy game" is very different for other people.

Its the best I'm gonna give you, so take it or leave it. I don't think what I'm talking about is particularly uncommon, however.

There's mobility, and then there's ground cover. Unless the terrain is completely open, like a desert or a grassland, there's going to be undergrowth and debris that should give the NPC at least half-cover from attacks from above. Even a animals know that if someone is attacking them from above, to take shelter from that attacker.

If the opposition can get to them in time. Badlands and a lot of mountains have extensive area that don't have that much top down cover, and angle fire is a thing too; by the time that's giving serious cover its giving it to every ranged attacker. And if you're staying there, you aren't getting much done yourself. None of this is specific to fliers (and, I should note, only does so much for fliers with area effects).

Who said anything about being forced? If you, personally, don't like the heritages, ban them for your game.

I'd rather simply play a game where it was a nonissue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In situations where the ground-bound combatants really can't affect the flyers, that would be an excellent opportunity for the GM to think reasonably about morale, a concept which has sadly fallen out of fashion in RPGs.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sold "can reliably make certain opposition flee" is all that better than "can fight them without repercussions".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Its the best I'm gonna give you, so take it or leave it. I don't think what I'm talking about is particularly uncommon, however.


If the opposition can get to them in time. Badlands and a lot of mountains have extensive area that don't have that much top down cover, and angle fire is a thing too; by the time that's giving serious cover its giving it to every ranged attacker. And if you're staying there, you aren't getting much done yourself. None of this is specific to fliers (and, I should note, only does so much for fliers with area effects).


I'd rather simply play a game where it was a nonissue.

You can...by banning rules elements you don't want to use at your table. It's actually pretty easy, and doesn't demand that rules change for everybody else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't disagree, but I'm not sold "can reliably make certain opposition flee" is all that better than "can fight them without repercussions".

I am. Makes a lot more sense in the world after all.