D&D (2024) Survey Launch | Player's Handbook Playtest 5 | Unearthed Arcana | D&D

[mamba]

Ember tells you what the post is communicating and you assert an opposite reality in response.

no, I assert actual reality in response

I am not saying you intended to communicate something else than you said, I am letting you know what your post actually says. The actual content of your post and your claim about its content are what is in opposition.

I quoted you the relevant part and again you assert an opposite reality where nothing is good enough because reasons.

yes, those reasons are ‘this is not how language works’

Words mean things. Calling something "vague" so you can justify dismissing it is a gross misuse of the word.

vague is an accurate to generous description of your ‘guidelines’, calling them a definition of proper encounter building fails hard at ‘definition’ and also at the encounter building part. You did not provide any guidelines at all, let alone for what can be considered a proper encounter

Yes you said that. I look forward to your reply

here it is No need to keep dragging me in again, this continues to not be productive for me and I doubt you learn anything from it either

And don’t tell me you posted this because you and others continue the discussion about fliers, this has nothing to do with that

 

[Emberashh]

The actual content of your post and your claim about its content are what is in opposition.

Let me correct this:

The actual content of your post and my claim about its content are what is in opposition.

You did not provide any guidelines at all, let alone for what can be considered a proper encounter

I described what I meant, here:

But even then, theres nothing saying that goblin duo can't be played in a way that can still challenge a flier; thats why the battle map itself is important. A flier with a longbow doesn't have that big of an advantage in a tiny cave that happens to have a cieling within the goblins shortbow range, but even then, different environmental objects can be used to even the odds, and the choices both sides have to make to try and tip the odds in their favor are what you actually want anyway.

A longbow flier that has to make considerations of where they place themselves in a tiny, crevice filled cave is better than them automatically winning because you put the battle in a blank white room.

I didn't provide "guidelines" because I assumed you can connect the dots between the above bolded segments and what I'm saying when I say you should be designing encounters properly.

Frankly, I don't believe you're actually this obtuse and need this spelled out for you. More likely is that you want it spelled out so its easier for you to go in and tear apart each individual part with contrived criticisms so you can, ultimately, still disagree with me on principal. Its internet arguing 101, and frankly, I've spent far too much time on the internet to not recognize your behavior for what it is.

No need to keep dragging me in again,

I'm not the one making you reply. You also have an ignore button if you really want to save the last word for yourself.

 

[Remathilis]

The difference you neglected to note, however, is that if we follow that logic and simply plug in the issue at hand relativel to 5e, then we'd be maintaining flight as is.

Which I doubt is the stance you take in this matter.

Not exactly. ESO has both attempted to minimize its impact (light attacks do less than a 10th of total damage output) and provide alternatives (heavy attack builds in recent patches have been buffed to allow for simpler play viability.) My point is that removing all the "bugs" can fundamentally destroy a game as much as fix it, and the sometimes you have to learn to live with bugs (or work around them) rather than remove them.

See also @Bardic Dave 's comment of Fighting Game combos.

 

[tetrasodium]

Good to see we are back to all "tiny caves" and Darién gap style wilderness all the time encounter design as the reason why abilities in no way made for such a game are fine. Amusingly this time with a hypothetical PC wielding a weapon with six hundred feet of range while flying against "goblins". Those goblins are totally known for deific level magic capable of creating forests & snapping caves into reality like Q might.

 

[Emberashh]

My point is that removing all the "bugs" can fundamentally destroy a game

But again, you're not actually following through on the logic.

People like what results from your examples. Unless you're on the side here that thinks flight is fine (if not ideal or even essential), the logic you're using doesn't actually apply.

Good to see we are back to all "tiny caves" and Darién gap style wilderness all the time encounter design

A strange and arbitrary either/or to die on, for sure.

 

[tetrasodium]

But again, you're not actually following through on the logic.

People like what results from your examples. Unless you're on the side here that thinks flight is fine (if not ideal or even essential), the logic you're using doesn't actually apply.



A strange and arbitrary either/or to die on, for sure.

"people" as in you.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Emberashh]

"people" as in you.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Okay so you need to go back over what Remath and I were talking about and try this again.

Reach post, in sequence, slowly.

You have missed the mark dramatically so please don't kneejerk react.

 

[Remathilis]

But again, you're not actually following through on the logic.

People like what results from your examples. Unless you're on the side here that thinks flight is fine (if not ideal or even essential), the logic you're using doesn't actually apply.

Some people like what results. It's actually a rather contentious part of the game. Much like flight, you have people who embrace it, some people who lament it (and work around it), and some who learn to live with it.

I don't consider flight super-awful game breaking, but my adventures are rarely based on exploration and overland (my current game set in Ravenloft reduces overland travel to "you step though the Mists"). Many of the adventures are in confined spaces (aka "dungeons") as well. Flight (and swimming/water breathing) is powerful, but I don't feel the game needs to be rewritten to accommodate or eliminate the aarakroca.

 

[Emberashh]

Some people like what results. It's actually a rather contentious part of the game.

If thats the case then theres a gap in the argument between that, and the game being "ruined" if removed.

With this clarification, the conclusion would be that the game would be "ruined" only from the perspective of people who like what the bug provides to the game, and as such whether or not removing the bug is a good idea comes down to a popularity question.

Though the analogy also tends to be missing parts anyway. In a video game, bugs like what you've pointed to tend to highlight a desire on part of the players for a more involved mechanical gameplay than the game is actually meant to provide, which is why those players actually like the bug.

But for something like 5e, flights problems don't really result in the same response. Surely there are players that enjoy exploiting it and would bemoan its fixing, but the relative minority of these players has to be balanced against the vast bulk that likely don't care, and the more important subset of players that are DMs, who are not only disproportionately affected in the negative by such bugs, but are a lot more vital to the game's longevity than non-DMs.

Ultimately, theres better avenues to satisfy the type of players that want these sorts of things (the same such avenues that are already consistently asked for to begin with), and shoring up flight rules so they're better balanced results in a better overall game.

So all that leaves is the, so far, two people who have a strange vendetta on flight in principle being a thing in a high fantasy game that regularly features all sorts of flying creatures alongside all kinds of high octane magic.

One can Wish an entire universe into existence and do it again after a nap, but flying around is, apparently, just a step too far.

Suffice to say, this practically nonexistent minority opinion can simply be disregarded.

 

[Maxperson]

they should not, they recover per long rest, that is the premise for all of this

I disagree with this. Moving the game closer to cookie cutter is not better than having interesting and unique mechanics for a class. They should be moving towards making more classes interesting that way, not getting rid of the most interesting class they have.