Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6617612" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!I'd rather err on the side of caution than open that can of worms wide open. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; By interpreting Flight this way, it's MUCH easier for me as a DM to give out exceptions for certain creatures than it is for me to do it the other way...especially when it comes to PC's. Basically I think of the most likely scenario that a power-gamer would try and &quot;interpret&quot; something and I decide if that's going to be a good or bad thing for my campaign. If it's the later, I take steps to fix it. So, with the Aarakocra, a power-gamer may decide that he'll be able to bypass the whole &quot;concentration&quot; problem that wizards have with Fly by taking Aarakocra as a race. Now he has just overcome a HUGE balancing factor for wizards and the fly spell. No other wizard can do this, for a reason; game balance. And, if the PC can do this...why haven't NPC's? Why haven't entire countries tried to get flying creatures on their side? (or capture, raise, train....griffens, pegasus, etc). The only reason is simple: it's not worth it, overall. Maybe for special, select situations, but overall, it has to be &quot;not worth it&quot;. By having flying creatures not be able to, by default &quot;hover&quot;, that criteria is satisfied.Of course, some DM's like more &quot;fantastical&quot; campaign settings where this kind of thing is the norm. For my current D&amp;D game campagin, however, this is definitly not the case. So...F&quot;ly != Hover&quot; for me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 6617612, member: 45197"] Hiya! I'd rather err on the side of caution than open that can of worms wide open. ;) By interpreting Flight this way, it's MUCH easier for me as a DM to give out exceptions for certain creatures than it is for me to do it the other way...especially when it comes to PC's. Basically I think of the most likely scenario that a power-gamer would try and "interpret" something and I decide if that's going to be a good or bad thing for my campaign. If it's the later, I take steps to fix it. So, with the Aarakocra, a power-gamer may decide that he'll be able to bypass the whole "concentration" problem that wizards have with Fly by taking Aarakocra as a race. Now he has just overcome a HUGE balancing factor for wizards and the fly spell. No other wizard can do this, for a reason; game balance. And, if the PC can do this...why haven't NPC's? Why haven't entire countries tried to get flying creatures on their side? (or capture, raise, train....griffens, pegasus, etc). The only reason is simple: it's not worth it, overall. Maybe for special, select situations, but overall, it has to be "not worth it". By having flying creatures not be able to, by default "hover", that criteria is satisfied. Of course, some DM's like more "fantastical" campaign settings where this kind of thing is the norm. For my current D&D game campagin, however, this is definitly not the case. So...F"ly != Hover" for me. :) ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification