D&D (2024) Flying fighter with Topple vs multiple flying enemies

[Kobold Avenger]

So the glossary has: "While flying, you fall if you lack the Hover trait and have the Incapacitated or Prone condition or your Fly Speed is reduced to 0" for the last few UAs.

Just made me realize that the best thing for dealing with a bunch of flying enemies, is to simply cast Fly on the fighter who happens to have the Topple weapon mastery. They might finish off all those flyers a lot quicker than having the rest of the party just shoot at them.

 

[mellored]

You could always cast fly on a fighter and have them try to knock enemies prone.

But now a fighter 9 can put topple on a longbow. No caster needed (though still some foresight).

Or brawler 3 can throw a longbow with topple.

 

[Stalker0]

Or brawler 3 can throw a longbow with topple.

Or a halfling holding a longbow....with topple

But yeah also keep in mind you can do this with the shove action as well, so flying combat at any kind of altitude is exceedingly dangerous.

 

[mellored]

Or a halfling holding a longbow....with topple

Hmm...

Bonus action grapple the cyclops.
Use the cyclops as a 1 handed improvised weapon.
Throw the cyclops 60'.

 

[Horwath]

Or a halfling holding a longbow....with topple

Ah yes, one on the dumbest rules in new playtest, small races using medium sized 2Handed Heavy weapons.

How can a halfling use a long bow as it do not have arm length to pull the longbow more than half way to full, hahaha.

sometimes I really miss 3E small races penalties.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Ah yes, one on the dumbest rules in new playtest, small races using medium sized 2Handed Heavy weapons.

honestly, i'd be more upset about it if being small actually mattered except for having to deal with the heavy property (which was terribly named anyway). but it doesn't, so frankly i'm more upset heavy existed in the way it did for so long.

sometimes I really miss 3E small races penalties.

it would be nice if being small as opposed to medium actually mattered, i have to agree.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Ah yes, one on the dumbest rules in new playtest, small races using medium sized 2Handed Heavy weapons.

How can a halfling use a long bow as it do not have arm length to pull the longbow more than half way to full, hahaha.

sometimes I really miss 3E small races penalties.

With all the other "realities of being a small creature" the game has always ignored and handwaved away to make playing 3 foot tall characters actually fun and useful via game mechanics, it's only now the longbow that is the big deal or you?

Shortbow gives 1d6 damage, longbow gives 1d8. This is precisely the reason why players take the longbow. But if the size of the longbow "in reality" is really such a problem... then just create in your mind any reason you want why a gnome can use a size-applicable bow and still get the step-up in damage die. I'm sure any of use can think of a dozen reasons why a gnome might be able to pull off that averaged extra point of damage. So the gnome uses a "short" bow that does 1d8 and has a longer range. Not a big deal at all.

 

[Horwath]

With all the other "realities of being a small creature" the game has always ignored and handwaved away to make playing 3 foot tall characters actually fun and useful via game mechanics, it's only now the longbow that is the big deal or you?

Shortbow gives 1d6 damage, longbow gives 1d8. This is precisely the reason why players take the longbow. But if the size of the longbow "in reality" is really such a problem... then just create in your mind any reason you want why a gnome can use a size-applicable bow and still get the step-up in damage die. I'm sure any of use can think of a dozen reasons why a gnome might be able to pull off that averaged extra point of damage. So the gnome uses a "short" bow that does 1d8 and has a longer range. Not a big deal at all.

or we should return real penalties for being small.
with real advantages.

 

[DEFCON 1]

or we should return real penalties for being small.
with real advantages.

And thus make small species have like two character concepts they can feasibly do, because every other gameplay mechanic would need to be "shrunk down" to being less-good but size applicable, and thus no one would ever play those characters.

3-foot character moves 25' and a 6-foot character moves 30'? Nope. Not realistic. 3-foot character's movement should be about half that. So they are now moving 15' per round. 3-foot character should only have STR scores that max out at like 8 based on size, weight, and balance alone compared to a 6-foot person. That drops all weapon damage, that drops carrying capacity. Perception needs to be lowered because they can't see over or around as many things as a 6-foot character can. All weapons ranges are dropped due to more obstacles that get in the way of the arrows.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. To make ANY attempt at simulating the "reality" of a 3-foot adventurer in a 6-foot world would mean having to create two entirely different mechanical systems, and assure us that playing 3-foot characters would suck. And that's exactly why WotC does not do that. Because it gains us nothing except make a few people happy that their "world-building" and mechanics align in their head alone.

If you are unwilling to rethink how the mechanics can be the same for all sized creatures... that's fine. You do you. But you have to just accept that the game isn't going to help you with it and will instead take simplicity and balance for all creatures over any sort of nods to "reality".

 

[James Gasik]

I'd rather have no disadvantages than no advantages (which is basically what we had in 2014- sure there's the occasional edge case of squeezing into small areas or entering the spaces of larger creatures, but that was far less common than "you do less damage because you can't realistically use a heavy weapon properly"). I mean, we can accept a medium-sized character is somehow a threat to a giant or a dragon in the game, so whether you're 3' tall, 5' tall, or 7' tall doesn't make a huge difference here.