Why is flight considered a game breaker?

[I'm A Banana]

Man, all this fly-hate is bizarre to me. Especially the "it's not in-genre!" argument, or the "it lets you ignore basically all the challenges!" argument. Fantasy I'm familiar with is full to the brim with flying. Even Bilbo used giant eagles on occasion. And the flying is far from problem-free. Those giant eagles were not reliable. Where flight is common, winds and weather and effort and injury all feature into the narrative.

I've run a lot of superhero games and I can't fully agree to this. Your classic ground-hugging brute response to fliers in a superhero game is to throw something heavy, like a car, a cement mixer, or a rabid wolverine. Most fantasy environment brutes aren't capable of that.

This intrigues me as a way to perhaps cope with flight in a 4e-style grid combat. The idea that (a) it's easy to knock you out of the air, and that (b), big hulks can throw part of the environment at you, doesn't seem to be a problem for big fantasy monsters. Achilles wrestled a river. I've got no problem with the Terrasque chucking hunks of rock at you and swatting you out of the air like flies. It seems very natural for such a beast. Giants lob stones. Ogres chuck trees. It might fudge with D&D's reliance on magic equipment if the PC's do it, but mostly we're talking about PC's flying and melee monsters still being able to accost them (no one seems to have a problem pitting a swarm of flying bats against a 1st-level party that can't fly after them).

There's also the point that, at least in 4e, monsters tend to come in groups, so a group that consists all of melee-heavy plodding brutes will get mulched from a distance anyway, flight or no. In a game or combat where groups are less encouraged, it might be an issue to control for in that specific fight: the terrasque can chuck rocks, the solo dragons can fly, the solo beholder can fly, whatever.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I've got no problem with the Terrasque chucking hunks of rock at you and swatting you out of the air like flies. It seems very natural for such a beast.

Or it could breathe atomic fire.

 

[FireLance]

Man, all this fly-hate is bizarre to me. Especially the "it's not in-genre!" argument, or the "it lets you ignore basically all the challenges!" argument. Fantasy I'm familiar with is full to the brim with flying. Even Bilbo used giant eagles on occasion. And the flying is far from problem-free. Those giant eagles were not reliable. Where flight is common, winds and weather and effort and injury all feature into the narrative.

I would argue that in most fantasy, flight is possible, but it is not common or reliable. And I think that the latter two are the key to the problem.

If flight was common and reliable, The Lord of the Rings would have been a very short book!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU[/ame]

 

[Doug McCrae]

Man, all this fly-hate is bizarre to me. Especially the "it's not in-genre!" argument, or the "it lets you ignore basically all the challenges!" argument.

I think I know why that is. Maps are a really big deal in D&D, since the very beginning. In fact before that, because wargames are all about the tabletop battle map too. Because maps are a big deal, terrain is a big deal. Flight lets you ignore the map.

 

[Janx]

Ditto this whole post. I also think Haste, Teleport, and Raise Dead were too low level for the results they produce.

Teleport is another "bypass a whole ton of stuff" spell. Probably even more so than flight, as the steps it takes to block teleports can get even more outrageous.

Haste to my experience has mostly been a combat changer. It makes combat easier. That's not the same as bypassing a ton of content as a surprise to the DM.

What's unbalancing about Raise Dead? It's mostly a heal spell for when the GM ganks a PC.

I think for a GM, it helps to have methods to make decent encounters and situations that have a fair balance of variety that includes sometimes blocking known "exploits".

I think it is also good for the GM to have a checklist of those exploits, and to figure out if it is fair for the given encounter to have a block for it, preferably from list of blocks so that the GM isn't using the same excuse every single time.

For instance to block Fire:
the structure isn't flamable (made of stone)
the structure is wet
the structure could ignite neighboring "innocent" structures
the structure has hostages or non-hostiles inside
the structure has desirable valuables inside

to block Speak with dead:
the subject didn't see the murderer
the subject doesn't know the murderer
the subject mistook the murderer
the subject is lying about the murderer

To block Flight:
the encounter is indoors (low ceiling)
the encounter is under a tree canopy
the encounter is smokey (smoke rises, those in air can't see/breathe well)
the encounter is drafty (strong wind current, forces movement on fliers)

to block Teleport:
the destination is too far away
the destination is unknown/unfamilar
the destination is shielded to block teleports

to block Haste:
the path is crossed with super-fine razor wire*

*it worked for Drizz't with a plowshare and quickling. Plus, in MN, people die from decapitation by barb wire and snowmobile, so it's plenty feasible that running at haste through some wire will do some damage.

Anymore blocking/negation ideas?

I don't think its fair for every encounter to employ all of these, but it is fair that some % of them feature 1 or more negations.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Flight itself isn't a huge problem. Once players are able to purchase and maintain flight on demand for the entire group via an a la carte shop til you drop magic system then flight, teleport, invisibility, various detection magics, etc start to become problems. Powerful effects were meant to part of the game and that power was balanced by rarity and limited access.

Remove the balance factors and of course there will will be overuse/abuse of such things. The answer surprisingly enough, was to nerf the effects into oblivion rather than fix the actual problem. The actual problem was simply at odds with the marketing strategy. Players buy more stuff. Players want access to more stuff. The player base is appeased but look-ZOMG it's broken!

Duh.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I cannot fathom how people have difficulties with flying, unless for some reason the GM only uses ground-bound melee-only brutes with the mental capacity of an angry chihuahua in wide open featureless planes.

The majority of encounters ARE with ground-bound, melee only opponents. Always have been.
[

It's not like you can't have encounters, puzzles, traps, and even entire "dungeons" in the sky. Or just have them indoors or under a canopy with a limited ceiling height. Heck, even a few bows or a good old fashioned rock can help get things going in the right direction.

Or... you can stop treating the symptom and instead go after the CAUSE...

Is it adapting the metagame that leaves people in a fluster? Are people put off over climbing and jumping skills not being good enough? Are the rules too much of a headache to keep track of?

No these are not really at issue as many posts above will indicate. Improvisation and adaptation to counter the problem are not what breaks the game. What breaks the game is when the occasional adaptation becomes the obligatory default scenario.

Is getting from point A to point B without having to get tangled up in the bushes some sort of deal breaker?

When the game up to that point has so prominently featured the struggle to get through the tangling bushes, rendering that struggle entirely moot CAN BE a deal-breaker.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Well I don't much like the high end DnD characters as super heroes sort of game. Like it gritty and prefer to run a game in the sword'n'sorcery style. And that would mean no fly spells. Not even a friendly pegasus to ride.

But if I'm going to break out of my usual game rut and go all High Fantasy, I'm going to go High Fantasy. Players want to feel all free and flying? Great. I'lll do what I can to accomodate. Characters can all fly and use it for overland travel and combat encounters? OK, fine. If there are encounters while travelling then by definition they won't be with ground pounders, they'll be something flying characters will interact with. Either voluntarily such as a scene on the ground that attracts their attention or involuntarily such as a pack of wyvern riding orcs coming out of the sun.*

Someone above mentioned no chasm encounters (that's chasm, not chasme.) Well, they won't be of the same sort, no. But if you put the mcguffin at the bottom of the cavern then the heroes have got to fly down into it the narrow chasm. Then you've got giant spider webs or goblins on hang gliders with petrol bombs or kamikaze zombies or, or... You get the picture. It can be made challenging. Those things that become routine (like crossing rivers) can simply be glossed over. We already gloss over the things that are routine and dull for us. And don't forget there is terrain in the air. Updrafts, down drafts, wind, rain, fog/cloud, mountains in fog/cloud. Dragons count as terrain if they're large enough. Floating castles/sky islands. The lot.

And sometimes I'd even throw in an encounter where the flying heroes completely wail on the poor old ground pounders. And how about a scene/episode in which the heroes find themselves talking to a bunch of ground pounders and find out what it's like down on the ground during an air raid? Even throw in an air raid while they're there.

I do agree with those who've said they don't like the idea of playing a supers game dressed up as fantasy. I'd not allow fly spells that give perfect manoeuverability. In fact I'd try to discourage fly spells in favour of flying mounts. I'd do away with that utter bollux feat 'wing over,' I mean what a cop out. No hovering gun platforms thank you. Well, not many. And none pretending to dragons.

For inspiration look to old war movies like the Battle of Britain. Or Star Wars. Plenty of dog fights there. There's even a well known scene about flying through a chasm.

Of course all this does require a lot more work on the part of the GM. And I do understand that not everyone has the time to do their own adventures or make major modifications to bought ones. And I can see that in these cases something like flying heroes would be a major pain. Most published adventures are not written with flying PCs in mind. In which case, nerf that damn flying. Well, perhaps chat with players and make sure everyone is happy with the sort of game you're playing. Then nerf that damn flying.

cheers all.

*BTW: do you know why you put orcs on the backs of wyverns and goblins on wargs? A distraction from the mount.

 

[Kafen]

Of course all this does require a lot more work on the part of the GM. And I do understand that not everyone has the time to do their own adventures or make major modifications to bought ones. And I can see that in these cases something like flying heroes would be a major pain. Most published adventures are not written with flying PCs in mind. In which case, nerf that damn flying. Well, perhaps chat with players and make sure everyone is happy with the sort of game you're playing. Then nerf that damn flying.

cheers all.

*BTW: do you know why you put orcs on the backs of wyverns and goblins on wargs? A distraction from the mount.

I introduced a species of drake into my game to 'nerf' flying. PCs still fear it at level 8-10. The drakes are attracted to flying things. So, the players do a lot of self regulation. It's my quick fix for the flying issue.

 

[The Human Target]

I ran a game of 4E DnD on Sunday.

They fought blazewyrm, with flight (hover) and reach 2.

Had I wanted to, I could of floated above the party and basically TPKed them as the only member with any real ranged powers is the wizard and he doesn't have a high damage output.

Flight is usually just unfun.