D&D (2024) Survey Launch | Player's Handbook Playtest 5 | Unearthed Arcana | D&D

[Vaalingrade]

So far no one defending it has given me any reason for it, they just try to debunk the reasons against it. I would assume you have more than just a ‘it is not that bad’ to defend it

Because that's the discussion.

People are spreading misinformation that flight will break the game and being debunked.

When people claim Reptillians rule the world, it's not up to people to prove mammal rule is necessary.

 

[tetrasodium]

As said, you cannot read a rule like this and then run it in a way that breaks the game.

5e in particular is a known quantity at this point. There is no excuse to run a crappy game just because some its rules are unclear and/or incomplete. You can just play something else if you're unwilling to address these problems with the game.

As said, the fix is simple, and frankly I don't believe you're actually coming from a place of running the game strictly and obtusely RAW. I don't believe you believe anyone runs the game that way, and Id be incredibly incredulous to have you reply and confirm you're the one in a million DM who would refuse a simple fix just because its not explicitly written in the book.

Wow.. That's a low bar you are trying to set. We aren't talking about some niche indy game here. It's especially telling that you go from saying that the rule doesn't break the game straight over to blaming the GM.

 

[Emberashh]

And this is true of the VAST number of magical abilities classes have access to. So... who cares? LotR would be very different with teleportation or Raise Dead too.

Plus the unsaid part of that is that LOTR being different if they just tried to fly to Mordor doesn't mean there wouldn't be an interesting story.

If Tolkien had written it that the Eagles agreed to help ferry the Fellowship, that would have necessarily resulted in something disrupting that attempt. The Nazgul already have flying mounts, and as easily as the Eagles were depicted as bodying them they could easily be written the other way around. (Which in turn would actually help sell the danger of them later on in the story)

 

[Emberashh]

Wow.. That's a low bar you are trying to set. We aren't talking about some niche indy game here

Do keep in mind there are multiple trains of thought in this topic and you're crossing the streams by jumping to this conclusion.

It's especially telling that you go from saying that the rule doesn't break the game straight over to blaming the GM.

I never said or did either of these things.

And uh, are you going to actually address and engage the actual rule discussion I put up or are you going to keep orbiting around it?

Not even an acknowledgement from you that I proposed a fix that introduces a middle ground between the rules you posted in that tweet and what we have in 5e.

Though there again acknowledging that means you can't accuse me of saying theres no problem so

 

[tetrasodium]

Do keep in mind there are multiple trains of thought in this topic and you're crossing the streams by jumping to this conclusion.



I never said or did either of these things.

And uh, are you going to actually address and engage the actual rule discussion I put up or are you going to keep orbiting around it?

Not even an acknowledgement from you that I proposed a fix that introduces a middle ground between the rules you posted in that tweet and what we have in 5e.

Though there again acknowledging that means you can't accuse me of saying theres no problem so

Except you have blamed the gm

Spoiler: Right here...

As said, you cannot read a rule like this and then run it in a way that breaks the game.

5e in particular is a known quantity at this point. There is no excuse to run a crappy game just because some its rules are unclear and/or incomplete. You can just play something else if you're unwilling to address these problems with the game.

That is 100% shifting fault of any failure caused by the incomplete rule or the GM's efforts to complete it onto the GM. Convenient how the rules for flight themselves make it easy for a player to do so thanks to the way those rules even rely on the GM to complete them

As said, the fix is simple, and frankly I don't believe you're actually coming from a place of running the game strictly and obtusely RAW. I don't believe you believe anyone runs the game that way, and Id be incredibly incredulous to have you reply and confirm you're the one in a million DM who would refuse a simple fix just because its not explicitly written in the book.

Your "solution" doesn't really accomplish anything. Why should the gm need to finish such a basic rule for abilities that PCs have so many ways of accessing instead of just completing the rule in the first place? The omissions in flight rules impact how flight impacts encounters & encounter design. Flight gets a whole lot more powerful when you can fly at ground level without needing to use any movement getting in the air. Flight gets a whole lot more powerful when you can hover at any altitude. Flight gets a whole lot more powerful when you can fly up/down/forwards/backwards like a humming bird. Flight gets a whole lot more powerful when you can turn in place to face any direction like a helicopter.

 

[mamba]

So, if given optimum conditions for kiting... it is just as good or superior to flight, as no one will continue to pursue you.

that very much depends on the circumstances, here the theory was 1) the party can kite without the enemy ever being able to catch up, 2) the enemy is in range for the party but not the other way around, 3) the enemy cannot take cover while closing in (or close in to begin with), then yes, the enemy will not pursue the party indefinitely, they would be stupid to.

Also, most encounters are not so much the party running away from things, so the whole 'the party kites and kills everyone that way' does not work most of the time to begin with. The difference is that flying makes this an option in many cases where it would not have otherwise been possible.

More Im disputing that your solution is whats best for the game itself, particularly in regards to official adventure design, where your apparent viewpoint is "do nothing and warp all rules to ensure we do nothing to change adventure design".

yeah, not having fliers is 'warping all the rules'...

Keep in mind I went into the spiel about how best to design adventures for a reason. Its advice WOTC writers need to take to heart just as much as any common DM should. A well designed encounter doesn't have to go out of its way to provide a counter for a flying player, and not all encounters have to counter them at all.

not all encounters need to counter them, but many definitely will have to take them into account, pretending otherwise is just flat out false. You can call that part of good encounter design all you want, but it still means I have to design the encounter differently because of them (and potentially a lot more than just the encounters)

 

[mamba]

People are spreading misinformation that flight will break the game and being debunked.

You making a claim is not the same as you debunking anything.

I did not say it breaks the game, I said you have to account for it in adventure design and encounter design, and it trivializes several otherwise challenging things.

 

[Yaarel]

that very much depends on the circumstances, here the theory was 1) the party can kite without the enemy ever being able to catch up, 2) the enemy is in range for the party but not the other way around

A normal Longbow has a range that is far beyond most spell ranges.

For typical encounters where the hostiles are Humanoid or similar, they normally have bows at hand. (Why wouldnt they? The world is full of casters.) Also, these typical encounters include their own casters.

I am unsure how an entire party can kite from the distance, without the hostiles doing so as well.

In my experience, there is generally one character in the party who is kiting, while the rest of the party are locking the hostiles down in melee. Meanwhile the kiter is mostly "firefighting" to assist from the distance any party member who is getting into trouble.

 

[Emberashh]

Except you have blamed the gm

I don't blame the GM for the rule being what it is, I blame the GM for doing nothing to address it and then acting like its anyones fault but their own if the game doesn't work.

Why should the gm need to finish such a basic rule for abilities that PCs have so many ways of accessing instead of just completing the rule in the first place?

Because 5e already exists and isn't being updated. If you want to play 5e, you need to deal with its issues or stop complaining when the game, that you're running of your own free will, doesn't stack up.

This, again, is why I said you're crossing the streams. The train of thought on the unclear/incompleteness of the flight rules and how they should be written is a different train of thought from what a GM should be doing when confronted with such a rule in an already published game.

yeah, not having fliers is 'warping all the rules'...

Now continue the thought and address the actual point rather than just the hyperbole.

pretending otherwise is just flat out false.

Where did I say this?

You can call that part of good encounter design all you want, but it still means I have to design the encounter differently because of them

As said, if you're designing encounters properly you don't need to go out of your way or do anything differently in the first place.

In other words, stop designing identically blank white rooms.

If all your encounters have to be changed because a flying race is present, that directly says all of your encounters are way too samey in some aspect.

 

[mamba]

I am unsure how an entire party can kite from the distance, without the hostiles doing so as well.

don't ask me, I was not the one saying that because kiting like that is possible, flying is ok too