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

[Emberashh]

I think its worth litigating whether or not is actually desirable to have crunch rules for flight.

It seems to me the want for this seems aimed squarely at making flying too unfun for players to bother with rather than more fun for everyone.

 

[Gorck]

So I've been talking about how 5e doesn't have sufficient guidance. So I went to look up what D&D even has to say about flying.

...

Well it turns out it basically has no rules at all:



That's it. That's the joke.

And what a joke it is.

That’s the design philosophy of 5e. Previous editions had so many rules set it stone that they felt it was too much for the DMs to keep memorized. So in 5e they put in less concrete rules and left the rest up to the DM to adjudicate as they see fit.

That philosophy has its pros and cons. Less rules for the DMs to keep track of, but less guidance for new DMs that might have difficulty making those judgments.

 

[tetrasodium]

That’s the design philosophy of 5e. Previous editions had so many rules set it stone that they felt it was too much for the DMs to keep memorized. So in 5e they put in less concrete rules and left the rest up to the DM to adjudicate as they see fit.

That philosophy has its pros and cons. Less rules for the DMs to keep track of, but less guidance for new DMs that might have difficulty making those judgments.

No not at all. It may have been the intent at first, but that intent got twisted at some point. Much of the system is designed around the assumption that the GM will houserule complete & use fiat as a check, but the dial is set all wrong. That's fine in a high lethality system with meaningful attrition like dcc or 2e because the GM is likely to be doing those things to empower players in being awesome, but 5e 5e is not high lethality or a system with meaningful attrition. When the dial has been set for the system to have such low risk & has minimized attrition to the point of being nearly removed the GM winds up needing to be the one constantly snatching awesome from the players instead of using fiat & houserule to empower awesome.

A good bit of discussion in the thread is about aarakokra & such., but much of that discussion misses the problems with flight in 5e. Given that I've run LMOP start to with a full party of aarakokra, I have some relevant experience about those problems.... Sure I can block flight with forwest canopy or whatever & frequently did so, but I still had to regularly say...

Spoiler: things like this

• You aren't flying, that terrain is going to slow/damage/etc you (think difficult terrain & web grease caltrops etc for a couple examples)
  • No bob you need to fly up because it's flight not hover, you can't fly with your feet on the ground
  • No you can't retcon in your movement just because I caught you
• No, you can't fly backwards
  • or upside down
• No you don't have hover & aren't a helicopter, you can't not move on your turn while flying.
  • You still aren't a helicopter & don't have hover, you need to move forward while turning too

There's no less for the GM to memorize with 5e, it's just that now the GM also needs to finish the rules and the players can't double check the rules text if they are uncertain about something so the GM needs to spend even more session time with it than any prior edition. Worse the GM needs to do that snatching awesome away from players rather than "well I don't think that's how it works, but I'm going to allow it this time because you guys are really on the ball in ways I approve of." or "I'm not trying to nerf you or take away your moment of cool, that's just not something the rules would allow"

Finishing the flight rules & keeping them in play was far more work than dealing with flight.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think its worth litigating whether or not is actually desirable to have crunch rules for flight.

It seems to me the want for this seems aimed squarely at making flying too unfun for players to bother with rather than more fun for everyone.

I agree, because honestly... I don't want maneuverability rules. I never delved into them with 3.X stuff, but this idea that you can fly well, or poorly, or whastever the categories were just... fundamentally makes it more annoying than it should be. After all, why is flight special? I can move on the ground (walking, running, crawling) in the same manner. After all, no one is going to be comparing the awkward gait of a massive ogre to the elegance of an Antelope and say that those should be the same thing. Or what about swimming, dogs can swim, but do so much more poorly than seals.

For, quite literally, every other type of movement, we represent this with speed. A penguin having a 10 ft walking speed but 60 ft swim speed tells the entire story. But for some reason, there was this idea of adding an entire sub-system to flight and flight only. And I don't think it is really better than just having all the speeds work the exact same way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure I can block flight with forwest canopy or whatever & frequently did so, but I still had to regularly say...

• You aren't flying, that terrain is going to slow/damage/etc you (think difficult terrain & web grease caltrops etc for a couple examples)

Um... so they didn't know the difference between when they flew and when they walked? I don't get how this is a problem for more than like... two sessions.

• No bob you need to fly up because it's flight not hover, you can't fly with your feet on the ground

Okay, so if they fly up 3 ft and then across 27ft... is that okay? What do you mean by "fly up"? Like, if you just mean they have to ascend some distance... okay? Again, not something that really is that big of a deal.

• No you can't retcon in your movement just because I caught you

Um... why not? Like, this doesn't have anything to do with flight rules at all. If they aren't able to do what they thought they could do, then why not retcon? It isn't like this is some "i stepped on a trap, so let me retcon" you are talking about things like webs and caltrops that are clearly visible and known to the player. Their character knows how to move. Just like I would be able to run without slamming face first into a house that I can clearly see. This just seems... pointless?

• No, you can't fly backwards
  • or upside down

Why not? You can walk backwards, run backwards, swim backwards, and climb backwards, so why can't you fly backwards? That just seems like a very arbitrary distinction.

• No you don't have hover & aren't a helicopter, you can't not move on your turn while flying.
  • You still aren't a helicopter & don't have hover, you need to move forward while turning too

Okay, I move up 1 ft, then forward 1 ft. Like, again, these aren't actual rules of the game, this is you just making things up. Again, I can stay in a single square while swimming, but you know that if you don't move while swimming you either rise or fall. I can turn without moving forward while swimming too. Or I could just fly in a circle if you really really need to dictate this.

This really just reads like "I liked the old rules, because they were my first introduction so I decided they made sense, and now expect everyone to just agree with me and follow these rules." Which, I mean, fine if you want to homebrew, but you have to actually lay out the rules to the players before they all pick a flying race and make sure they are all aware of your house rules. Which, according to this post, you clearly didn't do because you had to constantly keep telling them.

And, actually, remembering an earlier conversation. You run AP games at a local store, which means you had players who didn't agree to your houserules beforehand, that you then tried to enforce. So... yeah. Obviously that wasn't going to work out.

There's no less for the GM to memorize with 5e, it's just that now the GM also needs to finish the rules and the players can't double check the rules text if they are uncertain about something so the GM needs to spend even more session time with it than any prior edition.

Those are called houserules. And if you are going to enforce them, you should write them down for your players. Not just expect them to memorize your verbal rule set.

 

[tetrasodium]

Responding to fisking is tiresome since I need to put in the thing each bit was responding to...

"You aren't flying, that terrain is going to slow/damage/etc you (think difficult terrain & web grease caltrops etc for a couple examples)"

Um... so they didn't know the difference between when they flew and when they walked? I don't get how this is a problem for more than like... two sessions.

They didn't state what they were doing & left it to the GM to sort out when they are flying & when they are walking as a quantum best of both. Something problematic on the ground? "Oh I'm flying". strong wind or something? "Well I wouldn't be flying". The GM should not need to unpack quantum actions for players and the system should not go to such lengths inviting players to make them.

"You aren't flying, that terrain is going to slow/damage/etc you (think difficult terrain & web grease caltrops etc for a couple examples)

• No bob you need to fly up because it's flight not hover, you can't fly with your feet on the ground"

Okay, so if they fly up 3 ft and then across 27ft... is that okay? What do you mean by "fly up"? Like, if you just mean they have to ascend some distance... okay? Again, not something that really is that big of a deal.

You are kinda proving the point about being unreasonable to the GM here. What the heck edition of d&d are you playing where a player can move three feet on a five foot grid? There's also the fact that this tends to come up after being told about an obstacle of some form at ground level that they want to simply ignore without consuming any movement to do so or being out of reach of their target after doing so.

"You aren't flying, that terrain is going to slow/damage/etc you (think difficult terrain & web grease caltrops etc for a couple examples)

• No bob you need to fly up because it's flight not hover, you can't fly with your feet on the ground
• No you can't retcon in your movement just because I caught you"

Um... why not? Like, this doesn't have anything to do with flight rules at all. If they aren't able to do what they thought they could do, then why not retcon? It isn't like this is some "i stepped on a trap, so let me retcon" you are talking about things like webs and caltrops that are clearly visible and known to the player. Their character knows how to move. Just like I would be able to run without slamming face first into a house that I can clearly see. This just seems... pointless?

are you serious? web caltrops grease & so on are literally traps. You're really going all in on demonstrating the problems these incomplete rules create for the GM here.

"No, you can't fly backwards

• or upside down"

Why not? You can walk backwards, run backwards, swim backwards, and climb backwards, so why can't you fly backwards? That just seems like a very arbitrary distinction.

Name five common birds other than hover capable hummingbirds that can fly backwards tail in front head in back or upside down

Okay, I move up 1 ft, then forward 1 ft. Like, again, these aren't actual rules of the game, this is you just making things up. Again, I can stay in a single square while swimming, but you know that if you don't move while swimming you either rise or fall. I can turn without moving forward while swimming too. Or I could just fly in a circle if you really really need to dictate this.

Again, what game are you playing where you use a one foot grid rather than the 5 foot grid used by d&d?

Water is a liquid where swimmers are buoyant & capable of floating. Air is a gas that provides very few creatures the level of buoyancy needed to do those... name five common birds other than hover capable humming birds that can fly backwards or upside down, I'm genuinely curious.

This really just reads like "I liked the old rules, because they were my first introduction so I decided they made sense, and now expect everyone to just agree with me and follow these rules." Which, I mean, fine if you want to homebrew, but you have to actually lay out the rules to the players before they all pick a flying race and make sure they are all aware of your house rules. Which, according to this post, you clearly didn't do because you had to constantly keep telling them.

And, actually, remembering an earlier conversation. You run AP games at a local store, which means you had players who didn't agree to your houserules beforehand, that you then tried to enforce. So... yeah. Obviously that wasn't going to work out.

No it reads like "hover is a thing and you are subject to the same restrictions on flight as an average bird if you lack it. You have seen how birds fly right?

Those are called houserules. And if you are going to enforce them, you should write them down for your players. Not just expect them to memorize your verbal rule set.

If only there were a published document bound between two covers that everyone at the table could reference without dumping it on the GM or giving players excuses like "oops I lost that sheet" & "you have so many house rules & a lot of them are nerfs" . Something like that kind of publication seems like a logical place for wotc to include completed rules for flight that do not automatically grant hover & magneto style flight with any form of flight.

 

[Yaarel]

Regarding flight without Hover. Maybe: must travel at least at Slowed Speed, or else Fall Prone.

 

[Maxperson]

Or what about swimming, dogs can swim, but do so much more poorly than seals.

Once my wife and I were eating at a place called Duke's in Malibu. We had a window table overlooking the ocean and while we were eating, I saw a man on a paddle board out on the water. On his board was a golden retriever. A few seconds after seeing him, a seal popped its head up right off the front of the man's paddle board. Instantly the retriever started barking and jumped into the ocean after the seal. Of course by the time the dog splashed down the seal was gone. Then the dog had to swim back to the paddle board and climb back on. As soon as he got on, the seal popped its head back up and that poor dog jumped back into the water after it. I counted 8 times that the dog jumped in after that seal in the short amount of time it took for the man to paddle out of my vision. Who knows how many times it had jumped in before I saw him.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Once my wife and I were eating at a place called Duke's in Malibu. We had a window table overlooking the ocean and while we were eating, I saw a man on a paddle board out on the water. On his board was a golden retriever. A few seconds after seeing him, a seal popped its head up right off the front of the man's paddle board. Instantly the retriever started barking and jumped into the ocean after the seal. Of course by the time the dog splashed down the seal was gone. Then the dog had to swim back to the paddle board and climb back on. As soon as he got on, the seal popped its head back up and that poor dog jumped back into the water after it. I counted 8 times that the dog jumped in after that seal in the short amount of time it took for the man to paddle out of my vision. Who knows how many times it had jumped in before I saw him.

I hope for the dog’s sake that seals are nicer than otters!

 

[Yaarel]

Once my wife and I were eating at a place called Duke's in Malibu. We had a window table overlooking the ocean and while we were eating, I saw a man on a paddle board out on the water. On his board was a golden retriever. A few seconds after seeing him, a seal popped its head up right off the front of the man's paddle board. Instantly the retriever started barking and jumped into the ocean after the seal. Of course by the time the dog splashed down the seal was gone. Then the dog had to swim back to the paddle board and climb back on. As soon as he got on, the seal popped its head back up and that poor dog jumped back into the water after it. I counted 8 times that the dog jumped in after that seal in the short amount of time it took for the man to paddle out of my vision. Who knows how many times it had jumped in before I saw him.

Heh, I guess that is difference between "Swim skill" and "Swim speed".