Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6580601" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!I find this reasoning...perplexing. On one hand, you're saying &quot;they can just fly back and forth, shooting&quot; (basically ignoring things like speed to maintain lift, general gravity effects, amount of space needed to turn around to even go back, etc). And then on the other hand you're saying &quot;the rules ignore some stuff, but the DM should come up with adjudications for those situations&quot;, like dropping stones and such.There are &quot;no rules&quot; for the old 1e Maneuver Class stuff, and there are no rules for dropping stones from various heights. In both cases, it should fall on the DM to decide exactly how those things will work in his/her game.IMHO, the beauty of 5e's writing style (and &quot;design&quot;) is in how much is left up to the individual DM to decide. If the aacokra are &quot;breaking your game&quot;...it's not that the aaracokra is &quot;broken&quot;. It's simply that the DM has decided to let it be/get broken by not applying common sense for his campaign world. This is completely the DM's problem and &quot;fault&quot;, as far as I'm concerned.I know in my game I'll be adapting a lot of the flying rules from Hackmaster 4th Edition if and when it becomes a necessity. In general, that means Maneuverability Classes A to E, maximum climbing of 1/2 their move rate, maximum diving of twice their movement rate, and can not fly slower than half their movement rate. With these guidelines, no, you can't just &quot;fly back and forth&quot;, because your movement rate would be less than half when you want to &quot;turn back&quot;...ergo, you fall. Of course, in your game, decide what you want and don't want...but don't blame the rules if things suddenly &quot;go south&quot;.^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pming, post: 6580601, member: 45197"] Hiya! I find this reasoning...perplexing. On one hand, you're saying "they can just fly back and forth, shooting" (basically ignoring things like speed to maintain lift, general gravity effects, amount of space needed to turn around to even go back, etc). And then on the other hand you're saying "the rules ignore some stuff, but the DM should come up with adjudications for those situations", like dropping stones and such. There are "no rules" for the old 1e Maneuver Class stuff, and there are no rules for dropping stones from various heights. In both cases, it should fall on the DM to decide exactly how those things will work in his/her game. IMHO, the beauty of 5e's writing style (and "design") is in how much is left up to the individual DM to decide. If the aacokra are "breaking your game"...it's not that the aaracokra is "broken". It's simply that the DM has decided to let it be/get broken by not applying common sense for his campaign world. This is [I]completely[/I] the DM's problem and "fault", as far as I'm concerned. I know in my game I'll be adapting a lot of the flying rules from [I]Hackmaster 4th Edition[/I] if and when it becomes a necessity. In general, that means Maneuverability Classes A to E, maximum climbing of 1/2 their move rate, maximum diving of twice their movement rate, and can not fly slower than half their movement rate. With these guidelines, no, you can't just "fly back and forth", because your movement rate would be less than half when you want to "turn back"...ergo, you fall. Of course, in your game, decide what you want and don't want...but don't blame the rules if things suddenly "go south". ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]

Verification