Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6618167" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.  This makes about as much sense to me as a rock that the aaracokra dropped suddenly stops falling because the aaracokra got knocked unconscious/died. I'm pretty sure most DM's would rule that the rock is still going to be affected by gravity, even though the Aaracokra's "attack" action was foiled. So that begs the question...if the DM is going to "apply physics" to stuff when it's appropriate, why would it be not appropriate with regards to how natural flight works?  Now, 5e doesn't have the kind of detail that it would take to figure out all that lift vs. weight with regards to speed and air pressure and all that stuff. All of those fiddly-bits are handled by DM adjudication. Personally, I wouldn't let a flying character (via natural flight) get away with flying less than 50% of his movement before he would have to spend an action trying to remain aloft. So a player saying "Ok, fine, I fly 5' forward then...now I shoot" isn't going to cut it unless his normal movement rate was only 10'. N.B.: I also use the Maneuverability Class stuff from Hackmaster 4e (almost the same as the 1e AD&D rules)...it deals primarily with being able to start/stop, how much 'take off' space is needed and the sharpest angle the flyer can make in the air. Incidentally, the Hackmaster Aarakokra (called Ariandrathals in HM4) have a maneuverability class of C. So they can turn up to 90 degrees a round, and can become airborn after one round. Warning! The following is not an attack on you, it's just similar to stuff I see/hear all the time. Please don't take offense!  Y'see...your quote above there? That sounds like a power-gamer/munchkin trying to "game the system". I hear stuff like this all the time...where a player will insist that his plan will work because "that's how it would work in real life!". But as soon as a situation comes up that the DM rules against him and says so because "that's not how it would turn out in real life", the player whips out a book and points to a rule, feat, spell, ability or some combination thereof as if, suddenly, the letter of the rules is the only thing that matters. It reminds me of the Simpsons where everyone is licking toads and Marge asks Homer...Marge: Homer! Are you licking toads again!?Homer: Uh...I'm not...not licking toads...Anyway...my point was that, for me, having Flight doesn't mean you have Hover. If a DM says they are one in the same, then I guess they just ignore all the mentions and specifics of Hover when it's listed in the creatures description, because it's pointless; if all things that can Fly can Hover, why did the writers/designers even put "Hover" in the description of Flight and list it with some monsters but not others? Therefore, my contention stands: Having Flight does NOT mean you can Hover unless the description in the monster write up says "Hover" next to it's Fly movement rate.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification