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

[mamba]

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

which one? That encounter design can be improved? Sure it can, it can be with or without flying existing in game, it needs more of a change if it exists. I don't think any of this is exactly newsworthy or an excuse for why flying is no issue today.

Where did I say this?

you are not the only one in this thread, and you fall on the same side as those that do claim that there is no issue and encounter design does not need to account for fliers specifically. Stuff like

What adjustments are needed for flying that aren't needed for ranged attackers in general?

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.

basically this, keeping the 'properly' sufficiently vague so it can mean anything

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.

I never said they all do, but pretending that encounter design is not affected by having fliers in the party is just ridiculous.

I am not interested in continuing this, we disagree and no amount of you making claims without backing them up will change anything about that

 

[Emberashh]

I don't think any of this is exactly newsworthy or an excuse for why flying is no issue today.

Please quote me saying flying isn't an issue.

you are not the only one in this thread

I would have hoped you weren't the sort to stoop to such binary thinking; its really inappropriate to start accusing people of things they didn't say just because they aren't on some imaginary "side".

Stuff like

What Chaos said is true. There is no functional difference in how you'd counter a flying character versus a ranged weapon character.

And fyi, "properly" was defined in previous posts. You can't accuse someone of being vague because they're assuming you remember what they said previously.

but pretending that encounter design is not affected by having fliers in the party is just ridiculous.

And I never said otherwise. You really need to stop conflating users together just because they disagree with you.

without backing them up

Irony.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

So, under the correct circumstances, the power of ranged attackers is identical to the power of flight. I'm assuming then you either never have those circumstances, or ban ranged characters, as you have said repeatedly that you would ban flying characters?

Just to take your three points, every single flight example you have given assumes #2. All of them. That the flier is in range, but the enemy is not. But additionally, you must also assume #1. Because you always assume the rest of the party is safe. You have never once addressed the idea that the flier is safe, while the rest of the party isn't. I don't know about you, but most of my tables would not assume that a fight with a single surviving member was "successful". You have also always assumed #3. You have always assumed the enemy cannot take cover from the flier, or has no effective means to do so. Because you talk about the flight ruining the encounter, which can't happen if the enemy can take cover from the flier.

And, towards your last point... there are also many cases where flight DOESN'T make it possible. But you immediately shut down all of those examples, demanding we not speak of them as counter-points to your insistence that flight is somehow uniquely breaking the game.

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

I never said that... blink

Did you... did you seriously just take a 5 paragraph post, discussing spells, castles, cover rules, encounters being unbalanced by other factors in the game... and only respond to the very first sentence?

Am I to assume from this that you had no real combat scenario to discuss Find Familiar in, and therefore my point about exploration was completely valid?

Do you acknowledge that assaulting a castle with either a single flier or a single archer are both faced with almost identical challenges and counter-plays?

Do you agree that my assumptions for kiting were identical to your assumptions for flight? Or was that the entire part I just responded to above?

There seems to be an awful lot of discussion just... missing here.

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)

Have you ever looked at a battle map gone "oh... those people are starting in fireball formation" and changed the map?

Have you ever had a murder mystery and realized "oh wait... speak with dead"?

Ever dealt with a Changeling, and had to consider security measures that would keep them from simply waltzing where they please?

Yes, you have to take player abilities into account. All of them. And encounters are designed differently because of different abilities. You don't put mages with counter spell against a group without spellcasting. But Flight is not UNIQUE in this. It is not uniquely difficult to deal with, it is not uniquely game breaking, or uniquely powerful. But you keep vaguely asserting it is.

 

[mamba]

Please quote me saying flying isn't an issue.

you didn't, but the first person I responded to did, which I countered and which started this whole thing you joined

I would have hoped you weren't the sort to stoop to such binary thinking; its really inappropriate to start accusing people of things they didn't say just because they aren't on some imaginary "side".

there are two sides here, as far as I can tell. If you do not feel represented by the 'flying is no issue' side, then feel free to clarify what your position is, so far I did not see much difference, which is why I lumped you in on that side

What Chaos said is true. There is no functional difference in how you'd counter a flying character versus a ranged weapon character.

see, first you say I should not lump you in and then you agree with them. Make up your mind.

And fyi, "properly" was defined in previous posts. You can't accuse someone of being vague because they're assuming you remember what they said previously.

If you did define it somewhere, it was not in this thread, just checked.

 

[Emberashh]

you didn't, but the first person I responded to did, which I countered and which started this whole thing you joined

So again, stop conflating me with other people.

then feel free to clarify what your position is

I have done so and it is incredibly , and deliberately, disrespectful to act like I haven't been perfectly clear on what I think. Either you aren't actually reading my posts or you're just being dismissive. Whatever the case, Id step off.

see, first you say I should not lump you in and then you agree with them.

What Chaos said is not the same thing as saying the flying rules aren't a problem. They're a problem for the reasons me and Tetrasodium were arguing over (ie, the rules are poorly written and/or incomplete), not the one you're arguing over. (It fundamentally shouldn't exist)

If you did define it somewhere, it was not in this thread

Post #198 (https://www.enworld.org/threads/sur...st-5-unearthed-arcana-d-d.697775/post-9025573)

And you literally quoted and agreed with the post on post 207

(https://www.enworld.org/threads/sur...st-5-unearthed-arcana-d-d.697775/post-9025573)

 

[mamba]

So, under the correct circumstances, the power of ranged attackers is identical to the power of flight.

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.

I'm assuming then you either never have those circumstances, or ban ranged characters, as you have said repeatedly that you would ban flying characters?

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.

That the flier is in range, but the enemy is not. But additionally, you must also assume #1. Because you always assume the rest of the party is safe. You have never once addressed the idea that the flier is safe, while the rest of the party isn't.

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.

You have always assumed the enemy cannot take cover from the flier, or has no effective means to do so. Because you talk about the flight ruining the encounter, which can't happen if the enemy can take cover from the flier.

I assumed nothing, I replied to the scenario you gave me

And the ranged character can increase the distance. That is known as "kiting". And if you are doing solo play, and have the range to completely out range your opponent, you likely have the range to make multiple turns of attacks. Most enemies aren't major threats after you've had six free turns to shoot them.

I never said that... blink

I quoted where you said that...

Did you... did you seriously just take a 5 paragraph post, discussing spells, castles, cover rules, encounters being unbalanced by other factors in the game... and only respond to the very first sentence?

I am no fan of long quotes, I quote the pertinent part (feel free to disagree with my assessment). 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) ?

Am I to assume from this that you had no real combat scenario to discuss Find Familiar in, and therefore my point about exploration was completely valid?

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

Do you acknowledge that assaulting a castle with either a single flier or a single archer are both faced with almost identical challenges and counter-plays?

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

Do you agree that my assumptions for kiting were identical to your assumptions for flight? Or was that the entire part I just responded to above?

I found your kiting conditions unrealistic, and said that given these broken criteria, flight does indeed not make things worse

Have you ever looked at a battle map gone "oh... those people are starting in fireball formation" and changed the map?

is your new idea that any encounter should work, no matter what? There is a certain baseline competence that every encounter needs.

Have you ever had a murder mystery and realized "oh wait... speak with dead"?

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.

Ever dealt with a Changeling, and had to consider security measures that would keep them from simply waltzing where they please?

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.

Yes, you have to take player abilities into account. All of them.

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.

 

[mamba]

Post #198 (https://www.enworld.org/threads/sur...st-5-unearthed-arcana-d-d.697775/post-9025573)

And you literally quoted and agreed with the post on post 207

(https://www.enworld.org/threads/sur...st-5-unearthed-arcana-d-d.697775/post-9025573)

Here is what you wrote about encounters and I agreed with

• not every encounter needs to have counters for all player abilities
• you should have a mix of challenging and easy encounters
• set piece battles should be more carefully constructed than your run-off-the-mill encounters

Now please explain to me how any of that defines what you mean by a 'properly' designed encounter. Is that all you mean by that?

I expected something more 'profound' (and actionable) here, that is why I never even thought that this could be the definition for 'properly'

 

[Emberashh]

Here is what you wrote about encounters and I agreed with

• not every encounter needs to have counters for all player abilities
• you should have a mix of challenging and easy encounters
• set piece battles should be more carefully constructed than your run-off-the-mill encounters

Now please explain to me how any of that defines what you mean by a 'properly' designed encounter. Is that all you mean by that?

I expected something more 'profound' (and actionable) here, that is why I never even thought that this could be the definition for 'properly'

So, in answer to my previous question, you just aren't actually reading what I post in reply to you:

But even then, theres nothing saying that goblin duo can't be played in a way that can still challenge a flier; thats why the battle map itself is important. A flier with a longbow doesn't have that big of an advantage in a tiny cave that happens to have a cieling within the goblins shortbow range, but even then, different environmental objects can be used to even the odds, and the choices both sides have to make to try and tip the odds in their favor are what you actually want anyway.

A longbow flier that has to make considerations of where they place themselves in a tiny, crevice filled cave is better than them automatically winning because you put the battle in a blank white room.

 

[Argyle King]

It is indeed a take to assert with a straight face that official adventure design is both desirable, good, and the baseline that the game should revolve around.

Seems to me that you have an irrational hatred for flying PCs and have no qualms engaging in cognitive dissonance to assert that hatred.

You may clutch thine pearls at being accused of all that but I simply cannot believe you can be as interested in DND as you are and simultaneously believe that official adventure design is even remotely good when its universally panned, and deservedly so. Either you're carrying an extreme minority opinion (doubtful) or, as said, you're jumping through hoops to attack something you don't like for whatever reason.



And as it happens, you instead missed (re: ignored) the point, which was that worrying about having perfect counters to all PC abilities in every single encounter is a waste of time, particularly given that doesn't really make for satisfying adventures anyway.

You want a healthy mix of encounters that challenge and don't challenge, and any mix inbetween. Variety matters, as does the need for players to actually feel that they aren't on a pointless treadmill. Those set piece battles are where you want to put that effort in, because those are going to be the ones that you aren't going to be resolving in half a round.

But even then, theres nothing saying that goblin duo can't be played in a way that can still challenge a flier; thats why the battle map itself is important. A flier with a longbow doesn't have that big of an advantage in a tiny cave that happens to have a cieling within the goblins shortbow range, but even then, different environmental objects can be used to even the odds, and the choices both sides have to make to try and tip the odds in their favor are what you actually want anyway.

A longbow flier that has to make considerations of where they place themselves in a tiny, crevice filled cave is better than them automatically winning because you put the battle in a blank white room.

Something I like to point out is that even lowly bandits can put up a threat against level 20 characters with the right battlemap, and if played with intelligence you can even make such an encounter just as consequential as 6 ancient whites in a blank room.

When you approach encounter design this way, you don't have to throw out PC abilities like flying, because it fundamentally isn't a given that those abilities negate all of the encounters difficulties.

Both can be (and I believe are) true.

D&D Adventure design can be kinda meh.

At the same time, flying (and additional modes of movement in general) is something that's worth more than what many people seem to believe.

The fundamental functions of a combat unit are to shoot, move, and communicate. Flying increases one of those -moving- in an exponential way, by providing 18 more possible dsquares into which to move with every square of movement.

In turn, that also acts as a force multiplier by enabling being able to attack (shoot) from more directions.

Even ignoring flying, it's weird to me that 5E encounter and creature design places so little value on increased speed and movement.

 

[Incenjucar]

D&D design tends to center around foiling mundane, non-magical beings, like everything supernatural is a strange alien unlike anything seen before.