I Believe I Can Fly With Average Maneuverability

[Cadfan]

I'd love a system for aerial dogfights on dragonback. That would rock.

I don't think the D&D rules can adequately encompass a system for that without tons of bookkeeping, which would make aerial dogfights stop being fun.

Therefore I recommend playing Aerodrome as a mini-game if or when you get into an aerial dogfight.

 

[Imp]

Honestly, every time I've run aerial D&D combat on a battlemat, any edition, it's completely overloaded the system and become a total headache. Tagging vector and height to battle markers: ok, fine for a duel, much bigger than that and aaaargh. What I'd rather have is a system that keeps the maneuverability classifications and simply prioritizes them: average maneuverability is "better" than poor is better than clumsy, lists some maneuvers that each maneuverability class is capable of, and describes a few scenarios of how they interact – ways a fast, clumsy flier and a slower, agile one would fight in the air, for example – so the DM can come up with good descriptions of aerial combat. It's just too much for minis and grid – especially in 4E with its emphasis on more, weaker enemies.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Mercy. Is there any earthly reason to have five different qualities of aerial movement with twelve dimensions of difference?

Matching them up on eHarmony?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I hope they make it easier.

I think we never used the table. Because we hadn't had many airborne battles. But just in case, that that will change in 4E - I want the rules to be at least easy to apply, if not to remember.

 

[RangerWickett]

"My target is 40 ft. away and 100 ft. up, what's my distance to it?"

Claudio, I need to introduce you to my good friend Pythagoras.

My problems with flight are:

1. Dragons are too F'ing fast. Seriously, something bigger than an albatross shouldn't be able to fly at 60 miles an hour. Their speed makes combat against them irritating. Thankfully 4e won't have iterative attacks (probably), so it won't suck as much if you want to ready an action to attack when the critter comes close.

2. A more maneuverable flying critter should gain a benefit against a clumsier one. Maybe just make it Dexterity-based, but somehow, I want my archer riding a giant eagle to be able to better avoid the attacks of a huge, slow dragon. This is also a problem with D&D's lack of a chase mechanic in general.

As an aside, once we had an encounter with a goblin on a worg, and me on my horse. The goblin fled and shot at me, but my horse was faster, so I chased after it and reached it (shooting an arrow as I went). Then on the goblin's turn it ran away again, and I had to chase after it again. It was a really odd initiative sort of thing to have him go a long distance, then have me be far enough away that I could get fireballed and he wouldn't be hurt, and then to have me get up to him again.

If nothing else, there should be some concept of momentum in the game. If you're double-moving in one direction, the next round you should not be able to move backward or sideways without some sort of Dex check or something.

I am amused how, in flying, there is no facing, so you can be flying east, but if someone comes at you from the west you can turn around and bite him, apparently flying backwards as you fight.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

"My target is 40 ft. away and 100 ft. up, what's my distance to it?",

The square root of 40^2 + 100^2. Sqrt(11600). 107.7ish.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

1. Dragons are too F'ing fast. Seriously, something bigger than an albatross shouldn't be able to fly at 60 miles an hour. Their speed makes combat against them irritating. Thankfully 4e won't have iterative attacks (probably), so it won't suck as much if you want to ready an action to attack when the critter comes close.

Actually dragons fly far too slow. A Large dragon should stall at just under 34 knots and a Huge dragon should stall at 48 knots, beyond that size it's too difficult to get decent wing area/weight figures. But either way within the Large to Huge range where at least theoretically the math works out they should be cruising in the 50-60 knot range and topping out just under a hundred with optimum conditions.

EDIT: In my games I rule that winged flying creatures of greater than medium size need to make three consecutive run actions in order to take off. Which leads to the side-effect that dragon lairs are near large open flat areas, strongholds of griffon-riding paladins look somewhat like WW1 aerodromes. Of course the skywhales don't have any of these limitations and generally carry much more, but they're flammable.

Otherwise I agree about the wonkiness of no-facing in flight, the need for chase rules, and need for maneuverability to adjust aspects of aerial combat. Regarding the last part at least there are some rules from M&M2e that might serve with a little twisting.

 

[Cadfan]

I was being tongue in cheek, but I wasn't kidding. Way back in time, D&D used to embrace what were essentially mini-games as an aspect of gameplay. Instead of working out a battle between armies using D&D rules, for example, it was suggested you go use a separate system, or better yet, play a wargame.

Dogfighting is an odd thing to try to run using D&D movement and initiative, and the rules you'd want for a full dogfight are just going to be a headache when the party gets divebombed by some harpies. Seriously, go find a dogfighting game and replace the airplane miniatures with dragons.

 

[Simplicity]

Yeah, those rules are crazy, and I just don't believe anyone ever uses them.

The rules should just be something like:

Good maneuverability: may move your speed in any direction at any time (can you "run" while flying?).

Average maneuverability: must move your speed each turn. may change course up to 90 degrees once.

Poor maneuverability: must move your speed in a straight line each turn.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I was being tongue in cheek, but I wasn't kidding. Way back in time, D&D used to embrace what were essentially mini-games as an aspect of gameplay. Instead of working out a battle between armies using D&D rules, for example, it was suggested you go use a separate system, or better yet, play a wargame.

Dogfighting is an odd thing to try to run using D&D movement and initiative, and the rules you'd want for a full dogfight are just going to be a headache when the party gets divebombed by some harpies. Seriously, go find a dogfighting game and replace the airplane miniatures with dragons.

I'd love to see a series of minigames as a core design principle! Have you been reading my mind, Cadfan? My ideal in my own games is a series of little games that each feel different and fun, while still maintaining a D&D feel, and I'd love for D&D to embrace that idea. Stormwrack's narrative combat rules are a perfect, elegant example of this.

I think aerial movement will be part of the core rulebook, though, so whatever system they end up using should be both simple and fun.