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

[Gorck]

I was finding that with the prior playtest surveys, so I have started saving the pdf and annotating them as I read and re-read to leave notes to myself for the survey. I found it really useful.

I started keeping a Word file of all my thoughts as I read and reread the document

 

[tetrasodium]

That's fair, but that's always been a problem with flying in general. Not sure how to really solve that.



No, when I say "turn", I mean in regards to changing your movement direction. Facing might be optional, but I'm specifying that you can only change your direction of movement once a turn and that you have to move at least one square/5feet before doing so on any turn.



Again, what kind of flight do we assume is magical? Do you need to use something to actually move your or...? I think it's easier to think and restrict flight for something like an Aarakocra because flapping makes for an easier restriction. But even then, they would likely be able to do some level of hover (or at least slow movement). The bigger thing would not being able to use your hands (though I think they can fight with their feet canonically?).



So you want more limits? I mean, I was trying to make something in the mode of what I think 5E works at, which is largely simple. If you want something more complicated, I think that can get hashed out. I figured that it would be an easy "Split the difference" sort of thing to give a few easy to remember rules. If you want something more complicated, I'd love to try that.

Your tone, however, feels unnecessarily aggressive for what we are talking about, and I don't understand why.

Don't assume anything & stop looking for GM reinterpretation of the default (and only) flight rules in 5e. Those rules pretty much assume that anything capable of flight can do so with the freedom of a star fury without the star fury's non-atmospheric capabilities or its need to counteract momentum.

Instead of going from there to justification on why/when it should be limited turn it around and justify how much of the star fury's capabilities are suitable for a flying creature in d&d. From there maybe start with what conditions justify a method of flight itself having more or less of those capabilities. Luckily we don't really need to because that was done in 2e it was with

Spoiler: maneuverability classes

from high and in front, low and to the right side, high and
from the rear, and even straight down from above. Clearly,
standard methods of defense and attack that work on the
ground are going to do him little good here.
There are two ways of running aerial battles: the Tourna-
ment rules and the Optional rules. The Tournament rules
can be used in any situation, but rely on the descriptions of
the DM and the imaginations of the players for much of
their effect. The Optional rules provide a more detailed sys-
tem for fighting aerial battles with miniatures. The Tourna-
ment rules begin below.
Maneuverability Classes
How tightly a creature is able to turn is an important
factor in aerial combat. To measure this, all flying crea-
tures have a maneuverability class ranking from A to E
(with A being the best). In general, creatures with a better
maneuverability class can attack more often and more
effectively.
Class A creatures have virtually total command over their
movements in the air; it is their home. They can maneuver in
the air with the same ease as a normal person on the ground,
turning at will, stopping quickly, and hovering in place. For
them, flying is the same as walking or running.
Class A creatures can face any given direction in a round,
and are virtually impossible to outmaneuver in the air. Fight-
ing in the air is no different from fighting on the ground for
them, so they can attack every round. This class includes
creatures from the elemental plane of Air and creatures able
to fly magically, without wings.
Class B creatures are the most maneuverable of all
winged creatures, although they lack the utter ease of move-
ment of class A creatures. They are able to hover in place,
and so are the only winged creatures that do not need to
maintain forward movement in a battle.
The creatures can turn 180 degrees in a single round
and can make one pass every round. This class includes
pixies, sprites, sylphs, and most giant insects.
Class C includes most normal birds and flying magical
items. Forward momentum must be maintained by moving
at least half the normal movement rate (although some
magical items are exempted from this). Creatures in this
class can turn up to 90 degrees in a single round and can
make one pass every two rounds. Gargoyles and harpies fall
into this class. Dragons, although huge, are amazingly
maneuverable and also fall into this class.
Class D creatures are somewhat slow to reach maxi-
mum speed, and they make wide turns. Forward movement
equal to at least half the movement rate is required. Turns
are limited to 60 degrees in a single round. Class D crea-
tures make only one pass every three rounds. Pegasi, pter-
anodons, and sphinxes fall into this class.
Class E is for flyers so large or clumsy that tight maneuver-
ing is impossible. The creature must fly at least half its move-
ment rate, and can only turn up to 30 degrees in a single
round. Thus, it can make just one pass every six rounds. This
class includes rocks and other truly gigantic creatures.
Levitation
Levitating creatures don’t truly fly, and their movement is
generally limited to up or down. Levitating creatures that are
able to move freely are assumed to be class A. Otherwise,
the power does not grant any maneuverability and so is not
assigned a class.
Altitude
The relative elevation of combatants is important for a
variety of reasons, but as far as combat goes, it has little real
effect. If flying creatures wish to fight, they must all be flying
at approximately the same height. If one of the creatures
flees and the others do not pursue, he gets away. Simple.
Altitude affects the action. The DM should keep the fol-
lowing guidelines in mind as he listens to what players want
to do and decides how creatures and NPCs will react.
Creatures cannot charge those above them, although
those above can dive, gaining the charge bonus.
Only creatures with natural weapons or riders with “L”
weapons, such as a lance, can attack a creature below them.
Attacks from below suffer a –2 penalty to the attack roll, as
the reach and angle make combat difficult.
Combat Procedure
Aerial combat is based on maneuverability. When flying
creatures fight, compare the maneuverability classes of the
different combatants. If these are all identical, the combat is
conducted normally. When maneuverability classes differ,
creatures with the better class gain several advantages.
For each difference in class, the more maneuverable
flyer subtracts one from its initiative die rolls. Its maneuver-
ability increases its ability to strike quickly and to strike areas
that are difficult to protect.
Breath Weapons are more problematic in aerial combat
than on the ground. Creatures using breath weapons find their
fields of fire slightly more restricted, making the attack harder
to use. Dragons, in particular, find it difficult to use their breath
weapons to the side and rear while flying forward.
Those within a 60-degree arc of the front of the creature
roll saving throws vs. breath weapons normally. Creatures
outside this arc save with a +2 bonus to the die roll.
Missile Fire is also difficult in aerial combat. Those
mounted on a flying creature or magical device suffer all the
penalties for mounted bowfire. Hovering is the same as
standing still and incurs no penalty.
Characters using missile fire while levitating suffer a –1
cumulative penalty for each round of fire, up to a maximum
of –5. Levitation is not a stable platform, and the reaction
from the missile fire creates a gradually increasing rocking
motion. A round spent doing nothing allows the character to
regain his balance. Medium and heavy crossbows cannot be
cocked by levitating characters, since there is no point of
leverage.
Air-to-Ground Combat
When attacking a creature on the ground (or one levitat-
ing and unable to move), the flyer’s attacks are limited by
the number of rounds needed to complete a pass.
A dragon flies out of its cave to attack the player char-
acters as they near its lair. On the first round it swoops
over them, raking the lead character with its claws. Since
its maneuverability is C, it then spends a round wheeling
about and swooping back to make another attack on the
third round of combat. Of course, during this time, its flight
will more than likely take it out of range of the player
characters.
Escaping
When a creature tries to break off from combat, its ability
to escape depends on its maneuverability and speed. Crea-
tures both faster and more maneuverable than their oppo-
nents can escape combat with no penalties. The free attack
for fleeing a combat is not allowed, since the other flyer is
also in motion (probably in the opposite direction).
If a creature is faster, but not more maneuverable, it can
break off by simply outrunning its opponent. The other can-
not keep pace. In this case, a free attack for fleeing is
allowed.
If the creature is slower, regardless of maneuverability, an
initiative roll must be made (modified by the maneuverabil-
ity of the flyers). If the fleeing creature’s initiative roll is lower
than that of the pursuer, the creature has managed to flee,
although suffering the usual attack for fleeing.
Damage
Any winged creature that loses more than 50% of its
hit points cannot sustain itself in the air and must land as
soon as possible. The creature can glide safely to the
ground, but cannot gain altitude or fly faster than half its
normal movement rate. If no safe landing point is avail-
able, the creature is just out of luck. Since the circum-
stances of a crash landing can vary greatly, the exact
handling of the situation is left to the DM. The falling rules
may come in handy, though a vivid imagination may be
even more helpful
Aerial Combat
(Optional Rule)
These optional rules provide more preci-
sion about just what is happening in an aerial
battle. However, these battles require the use
of miniatures or counters and generally take
longer to resolve. All of the aerial combat
rules above remain in effect except where
specifically contradicted below.
Movement
Movement is measured in inches (1 inch
= 10 feet of movement) and the pieces are
moved on the tabletop or floor. The maneu-
verability classes determine how far a figure
can turn in a single round. A protractor is
handy for figuring this. Turns can be made at
any point in the round, provided the total
number of degrees turned is not exceeded in
the round and there is at least 1 inch of
movement between turns.
Climbing and Diving
Players keep track of the altitude of their
flyers by noting the current altitude on a slip
of paper. Like movement, this can be
recorded as inches of altitude. A creature can
climb 1 inch for every inch of forward move-
ment.
Creatures of class C and worse have a
minimum air speed, and they must spend at
least half their movement rate going forward.
Thus, they cannot fly straight up and can only
climb at a maximum of 1⁄2 their normal move-
ment rate.
Diving creatures gain speed, earning an
additional inch to their movement for every
inch they dive, up to their maximum move-
ment rate. Thus, a creature able to fly 12 could move 24 by
diving for its entire movement, since each inch of diving
adds one inch of movement.
A diving creature must fly the full distance it gains div-
ing, although it need not fly its full normal movement. A
creature with a movement of 12 could not dive 9 and fly
only 6 forward. It must move forward at least 9, the dis-
tance it dove.
Attacking
Since the exact positions of the flying units are marked by
miniatures, several abstractions for aerial combat are not
used. Die roll modifiers for maneuverability are ignored
These simulate the ability of more acrobatic creatures gain-
ing an advantage over clumsier flyers. When playing with
miniatures or counters, this task is left to the players.
Likewise, the number of rounds required to make a pass
are not used, as this becomes evident from the position of
the pieces.
When a diving creature makes an attack, it is considered

But that was drawn from wargaming roots most likely & more involved than needed so 3.x reduced it to a table that kept the important parts as they are relevant to d&d's gameplay down to...

Spoiler: about a page

Some bits highlighted because linking the same tweet that got linked earlier here

5e left that out and made the flight rules so much of a shield against the GM someone in this very thread felt justified in askiing why arakokra can't fly backwards or upside down. That question is entirely justified too because 5e built the rules for flight & many other things as if the GM is generally going to be a hostile killer GM the players need protection from.

 

[Justice and Rule]

@tetrasodium No, I understand what you are saying about maneuverability and such. I personally wouldn't mind more detailed flight rules like those because they are more my style: I'm way more into doing that sort of detail for special movement and such to make it feel different.

Maybe a new thread would be a good place to have this discussion? I think we are kind of taking up too much space in here at this point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If this is suggesting I'm doing anything for verisimilitude, I'm going to have to ask you to take that back.

I just want some semblance of depth and interaction. I know 5e hates that, but they're supposed to be pretending to improve things.

I don't see this as an improvement. I don't see the need for depth and interaction on how things move on the map. You'd do just as well to do the same thing with moving on land, but no one wants something like that. Not all complicated systems are better than simple ones.

So why would we want this for flying? Why would I want certain creatures and flight powers to move in specific manners, instead of allowing me to move them like I move everything else?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I was largely doing it as a thought experiment, though I don't think adding a few rules is necessarily a problem as much as making things easier on edge cases and making the act itself feel different than just, say, walking on air.

But why would we want the act to feel different than walking on air? We don't seem to want swimming to be different than walking in water.

Also I don't know what you are talking about with "down".

Meant "done" was just typing quickly and didn't notice the error.

I think you mean hovering? And people would use that if they didn't have the room to swoop around, if they needed fine maneuvering, or if they simply wanted to stay in place.

But they won't, because it takes an action. Or more accurately, they will only use the hovering version, because it allows them plenty of control, and if you have to pick one, the one that doesn't force you to constantly move in nearly straight lines is better.

Sure they can. If they are swarming, they are just hovering, which makes sense. If they are swooping past, they are soaring and using their attacks as they fly by. Hell, you can even make a sort of "pounce" attack that stops your movement immediately as you put all the force of your movement into an attack.

So, I have a group of Griffons that up on a cliff above the party, let's say they are 60 ft away. What happens?

Well, the Griffons could use the Hover speed you created. That allows them to move 40 ft. Which means that they won't reach the party, and will be helpless. Or they can dash and get next to the party... and still be helpless this turn. So they will use the soaring rules right? Except... that forces them to use their full movement, so they will have to use 80 ft of movement, which means they will be forced to trigger opportunity attacks. Also, they can only turn once, so they dive past the party, take attacks of opportunity, and then use their one turn to go up and avoid crashing into the ground. Next turn they can either lose their action to change speeds (wasting their turn) or they can move full speed and turn once. It will take them about three to four turns (time and movement) to get back to the party, leaving them vulnerable to multiple turns to be attacked.

How is ANY of this desirable? All I'm doing is creating a scenario where the griffins are utterly helpless before the party, wasting turn after turn just to manuever, while the party rips them apart.

Right now? Right now they can dive bomb 60 ft, attack the party, and then make choices. They could disengage and fly away if they needed to, or stay around the party harrassing them. But they are never wasting their turns.

Well, that's because I didn't come up with rules for moving up and down. Was just kind of shooting from the hip, but I could come up with some if I wanted. I don't think this is really indicative of actual problems with my rules as much as pointing out something I made in 5 minutes doesn't cover everything.

Edit: But y'know, they could just switch an Action to Hover and land if they wanted to land nearby (they're basically actively slowing themselves down because they are coming in too hot). Or they just use the full movement and land a bit further away. Nothing wrong with forcing players to make some decisions about how they move, as well as not just letting them move however they want.

The other thing you didn't consider in your five minutes is that flying rules aren't only for players. This applies to EVERY flying monster in the book. And it cripples them. Flying monsters become the easiest thing to deal with, because they are either consistently triggering AO's or wasting actions slowing down to actually get in range to fight,

 

[Justice and Rule]

But why would we want the act to feel different than walking on air? We don't seem to want swimming to be different than walking in water.

I mean I think swimming is too easy as is, either, but that's just kind of how 5E's movement goes.

But they won't, because it takes an action. Or more accurately, they will only use the hovering version, because it allows them plenty of control, and if you have to pick one, the one that doesn't force you to constantly move in nearly straight lines is better.

I mean, not if it requires you to move slowly. Plus I feel like the "Dragon does a strafing run" is a classic image but never actually gets seen in play because there's just no reason to actually move like that in the rules.

So, I have a group of Griffons that up on a cliff above the party, let's say they are 60 ft away. What happens?

Well, the Griffons could use the Hover speed you created. That allows them to move 40 ft. Which means that they won't reach the party, and will be helpless. Or they can dash and get next to the party... and still be helpless this turn. So they will use the soaring rules right? Except... that forces them to use their full movement, so they will have to use 80 ft of movement, which means they will be forced to trigger opportunity attacks. Also, they can only turn once, so they dive past the party, take attacks of opportunity, and then use their one turn to go up and avoid crashing into the ground. Next turn they can either lose their action to change speeds (wasting their turn) or they can move full speed and turn once. It will take them about three to four turns (time and movement) to get back to the party, leaving them vulnerable to multiple turns to be attacked.

How is ANY of this desirable? All I'm doing is creating a scenario where the griffins are utterly helpless before the party, wasting turn after turn just to manuever, while the party rips them apart.

Right now? Right now they can dive bomb 60 ft, attack the party, and then make choices. They could disengage and fly away if they needed to, or stay around the party harrassing them. But they are never wasting their turns.

But this is largely a result of putting on new rules that haven't been integrated at all with the monsters. You're saying "Look at how bad this would be!" and yeah, it might be bad because they weren't originally built with this in mind. If you were to modify them so that they were, you could give them a divebombing attack, a flyby attack, etc. You are pointing out that this does not work well with the rules as written and I would agree, largely because these rules would necessitate changing how some of the monsters work.

The other thing you didn't consider in your five minutes is that flying rules aren't only for players. This applies to EVERY flying monster in the book. And it cripples them. Flying monsters become the easiest thing to deal with, because they are either consistently triggering AO's or wasting actions slowing down to actually get in range to fight,

Or you change how they work, give them new actions and such to make them work better. I never intended it to be just a drop-in fix as much as a concept to work around.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Don't assume anything & stop looking for GM reinterpretation of the default (and only) flight rules in 5e. Those rules pretty much assume that anything capable of flight can do so with the freedom of a star fury without the star fury's non-atmospheric capabilities or its need to counteract momentum.

I can have a 1 ton rhino charge forward on the ground and just stop. No need to counteract its momentum! It has all the freedom of some random thing called a star fury and doesn't need to worry about slopes or anything. It can charge downhill and just choose not to run off a cliff. Or it could spin in a tight 5 ft circle with no issues.

In fact, even more amazingly, that Rhino could be in a 10 ft wide tunnel, and decide to turn around and run out of the tunnel. That is some spine-breaking stuff there, since the Rhino can't even fit in the tunnel diagonally, let alone turn around.

And yet, only flight is a problem for movement in DnD?

5e left that out and made the flight rules so much of a shield against the GM someone in this very thread felt justified in askiing why arakokra can't fly backwards or upside down. That question is entirely justified too because 5e built the rules for flight & many other things as if the GM is generally going to be a hostile killer GM the players need protection from.

This has not a single thing to do with protecting players from the GM. It is AS a GM that I want these rules to be simpler. Do you not understand how uncommon flight is for PCs compared to monsters? I want my monsters to be able to effectively move and attack, not be bound by some esoteric rule set meant to make things far harder than needed to be, with me having to memorize different types of flight and how they work, all so that someone somewhere doesn't have bird-people that offend their sensibilities about momentum, when nothing else in the game CARES about momentum.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I mean I think swimming is too easy as is, either, but that's just kind of how 5E's movement goes.

Okay, so we make flying more difficult, swimming more difficult, then walking more difficult and that leads us to a more fun game? I don't really think so.

I mean, not if it requires you to move slowly. Plus I feel like the "Dragon does a strafing run" is a classic image but never actually gets seen in play because there's just no reason to actually move like that in the rules.

Okay, but you don't need to make rules to force people to have iconic moments. If you want a dragon to strafe, then strafe. Nothing prevents it, it just isn't really something people tend to do, because the strafing run is usually a death sentence for players.

But this is largely a result of putting on new rules that haven't been integrated at all with the monsters. You're saying "Look at how bad this would be!" and yeah, it might be bad because they weren't originally built with this in mind. If you were to modify them so that they were, you could give them a divebombing attack, a flyby attack, etc. You are pointing out that this does not work well with the rules as written and I would agree, largely because these rules would necessitate changing how some of the monsters work.


Or you change how they work, give them new actions and such to make them work better. I never intended it to be just a drop-in fix as much as a concept to work around.

Right. Yes. Exactly. If I take these rules, and apply them to the game, then to make every single flying monster not a laughingstock, then I need to redesign every single flying monster. Or have multiple different rulesets so that animated swords aren't facing the same restrictions as Hawks. All for... what? Making flying player's lives more difficult? This isn't about interplay, because flying PCs are just going to... stop bothering. And it will only be the DMs who have to deal with this ruleset.

I don't see the value in rewriting every single monster with flight, ability that gives flight, and flying item, for little to no gain. Flight has all the same interactions as swimming and running on the ground does. There is no reason to make everything more complicated just to add a little bit more where it isn't needed.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Okay, so we make flying more difficult, swimming more difficult, then walking more difficult and that leads us to a more fun game? I don't really think so.

Let's not put words in my mouth. I think there's something to say about making flying feel at least a bit different because not all flight types are the same. The examples that @tetrasodium has in that 3E chart kind of nails how different things should fly differently and how to do that. Sometimes putting rules on things adds options rather than removes them because it means that you don't just need to use one tool for everything.

Okay, but you don't need to make rules to force people to have iconic moments. If you want a dragon to strafe, then strafe. Nothing prevents it, it just isn't really something people tend to do, because the strafing run is usually a death sentence for players.

But why if it doesn't actually benefit you? It's not that you force the rules to make iconic moments, but have the rules push things to feel like they should: dragons do big straight passes because that's how flight works, not just because "Well, the GM wants it to look like that". If the mechanics aren't making things do what you'd expect, that feels like it's a bad thing, just like having s&@#y underpowered fighters.

Right. Yes. Exactly. If I take these rules, and apply them to the game, then to make every single flying monster not a laughingstock, then I need to redesign every single flying monster. Or have multiple different rulesets so that animated swords aren't facing the same restrictions as Hawks. All for... what? Making flying player's lives more difficult? This isn't about interplay, because flying PCs are just going to... stop bothering. And it will only be the DMs who have to deal with this ruleset.

I don't see the value in rewriting every single monster with flight, ability that gives flight, and flying item, for little to no gain. Flight has all the same interactions as swimming and running on the ground does. There is no reason to make everything more complicated just to add a little bit more where it isn't needed.

I mean, I feel like a lot of 5E monsters should be redesigned in general, so I don't see the disadvantage. Putting more detail into flying means that you can create different kinds of tactics so that different kinds of creatures feel differently when they move around via flight, rather than just being walking in the air. I think that's kind of cool and interesting rather than a hindrance, but I also prefer a rules set that is a bit more crunchy. To me, the gain is to actually get some definition in how the monsters work and allows you to create differences in that space where there were none.

 

[Azzy]

I am having a real rough time with this survey. There is simply too much stuff in this playtest packet for me to process. I realize they are probably pressed for time, but my quality of feedback is way below what it usually is for these things and even though we are trying to actually playtest it, there is simply too much stuff to actually get a feel for. I am almost thinking that at this point, my feedback is going to be worse than useless. They really need to rethink how they do this whole playtest process unless they want a bunch of half redigested hot takes from Reddit and YouTubers.

I feel you. I keep a word document open as I read the playtest packets and jot down my notes and impressions as I go along I save it and keep it available so I can update my notes as a read the pdf again as well as participating in online discussion. I refer to it (and sometime copy and paste) when I fill out the survey.