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

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I go analog with paper and pencil

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah, that's one of my core issues with 5e thinking: it doesn't see the need for depth or interaction in a lot of things.

Great, then show me the reasoning. Show me the need. Don't just declare "we need this" show why it would make things better and not worse. Just because I don't see it doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing it, but a lot of people are just stopping with "I think this will be better because it is more realistic" and not taking that line of reasoning to the other types of movement.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I like the super simple flying rules as they are.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I like the super simple flying rules as they are.

All it takes is for players to be on board with imagining what they are doing while flying, and moving their mini (if you are using minis) in a way that "feels" like they are flying. Play nice with others. Play nice with the game. Don't do anything stupid (and be open to anyone's expression of their part in the game).

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but trying to point out the logic train here. Sure, not all flight types are the same and you can make rules to make those different types of flight different.... but not all swimming types are the same either. Fish swim radically different than sea turtles do swim radically different than submersibles do. Why not make rules to make those different? On the ground four-legged animals with backward facing knees like dogs run very differently than bipedal animals which run very different than snakes which don't even have legs. Why not make rules for those differences too?

Why only flight? What makes flight deserving of these rules, but running or swimming not? That's the point I'm trying to get to. If making these rules makes flight better and makes the game more fun, why would it not be the same for running or swimming?

Why not only flight? I mean, there are a bunch of different kinds of flight, it's more likely to be encountered and is generally a bigger part of the game overall. You are more likely to encounter flying enemies than swimming ones, and typically speaking you are more likely to engage them while they are flying compared to enemies who swim. Plus with swimming the bigger issue is not the mechanics of movement but rather being in a substance that can potentially suffocate you.

But a strafing run can benefit you? The entire point of a strafing run is that you hit the enemy then get back out of reach. That's the point. It isn't because "that's how flight works" because you know what else works with flight? A divebomb. Hawks are quite famous for diving down, and hitting an animal with their talons, breaking its neck and killing it with a powerful single attack. You know what else works with flight? Flying in and battering the target with your wings while you peck at it, which is what many small songbirds to to drive off larger animals. Flight works in a lot of ways.

Literally the entire point of a strafing run is the mechanics of flight: you strafe because you can not stop and your weapons are pointed forward, hence why you continue through and strike a beaten path rather than continuing to focus on a single target. Contrast that with, say, a pylon run where you turn over an enemy because you have access to side-mounted or turnable weaponry, or how helicopters can maneuver and fire.

What you are running into isn't that the rules aren't pushing things, it is that the situation isn't giving an expected value, or it is giving TOO MUCH value. Again, many people I know don't have dragons do strafing runs because it gives the party little to no counterplay and is just "the dragon wins". And to be frank, neither of the rule sets put forth offer any benefit, they offer penalties that need to be avoided.

No, I'm running into shallow design. You can absolutely have counterplay in a game where a dragon is doing strafing runs, the problem is that 5E gives no mechanical assistance to many classes in that regard. Something for martials like, say, a Felling Strike of some sort.

But strafing runs aren't just for mechanical benefit as keeping a mechanical limitation on the dragon: If you are going to fly, you have a limited arc in which you can attack. @tetrasodium 's list goes into that. If a dragon is going to line up a strafing run, they only have so many options and spreading out limits damage. If you can just do whatever with flight, then there isn't that need to line things up, to give players a chance to react and limit damage, etc.

I'd rather redesign monsters with the intent of redesigning them to be better, than to redesign monsters because I put a penalty on flight movement that I now need to counteract. And not every monster with flight would benefit from redesigns focused on their flight abilities.

I mean, that's great because those things are not mutually exclusive. I would say that better-designed monsters would have different flight capabilities and that would show in how they moved.

Again, horses and elephants move differently, but we don't exactly need different ground movement rules to reflect this and make them "interesting". There are other, more interesting things we could do, like give elephants a grappling ability.

I mean, we do, though. Certain animals can trample while others can't. Certain animals can climb, pounce, etc, while others can't. Those differences are generally just easier to model compared to flight, but they definitely exist in there.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why not only flight? I mean, there are a bunch of different kinds of flight, it's more likely to be encountered and is generally a bigger part of the game overall. You are more likely to encounter flying enemies than swimming ones, and typically speaking you are more likely to engage them while they are flying compared to enemies who swim. Plus with swimming the bigger issue is not the mechanics of movement but rather being in a substance that can potentially suffocate you.

Okay, so flying over swimming because swimming is less common. Why not ground-based movement? There are a bunch of different types of ground-based movement, and it is even more common and even bigger in the game than flight. So it should absolutely be changed to reflect that then, since we must change the rules of flight.

But I find your last line interesting. You say the the "bigger issue is not the mechanics of movement but rather being in a substance.." Now, to me, that reads like for flight the biggest issue IS the mechanics of movement... but why is it an issue? I've been running these flight rules for nearly ten years without a single issue, so how is it an issue?

Literally the entire point of a strafing run is the mechanics of flight: you strafe because you can not stop and your weapons are pointed forward, hence why you continue through and strike a beaten path rather than continuing to focus on a single target. Contrast that with, say, a pylon run where you turn over an enemy because you have access to side-mounted or turnable weaponry, or how helicopters can maneuver and fire.

So a knight with a lance is also a strafing run, because of the mechanics of a galloping horse. You can't just stop, and your weapon is pointed forward. In fact, have you ever once seen a galloping horse charging in a straight line, then just immediately stop without slowing down? Now, have you ever seen that happen in a DnD game? In fact, you could have your horse dash and gallop, hit someone, then immediately take a 90 degree turn to avoid trampling an innocent child and continue moving at full speed. At least, in DnD, I wouldn't recommend trying it IRL.

But this whole argument misses the point. Again, strafing runs aren't the only possible thing you can do while flying. They are one of many techniques, and your rules do not offer any benefits for strafing that do not already exist, they offer penalties for not strafing.

No, I'm running into shallow design. You can absolutely have counterplay in a game where a dragon is doing strafing runs, the problem is that 5E gives no mechanical assistance to many classes in that regard. Something for martials like, say, a Felling Strike of some sort.

Two things.

1) If you can hit the dragon, then the strafing run was kind of pointless. The point of the strafe was to avoid being hit. If you can still be seen and hit after your strafing run, then you did something wrong.

2) Instead of forcing dragons to do strafing runs or they fall out of the sky... um... why not just have the Topple Weapon Mastery which is essentially that felling strike ability? I mean, an ability to knock the target prone with an attack is better than that feat. Also, it was a feat, so just design a feat!

But strafing runs aren't just for mechanical benefit as keeping a mechanical limitation on the dragon: If you are going to fly, you have a limited arc in which you can attack. @tetrasodium 's list goes into that. If a dragon is going to line up a strafing run, they only have so many options and spreading out limits damage. If you can just do whatever with flight, then there isn't that need to line things up, to give players a chance to react and limit damage, etc.

Do dragons need nerfed? Because that is what you are talking about here. You are talking about reducing the mechanical abilities of dragons. And this concept of "lining up" sounds to me like "take a turn to..." which means that the dragon is going to have entire turns of doing nothing. Monsters can't afford to waste turns like this. Not for normal combats. Maybe for a cinematic combat where the dragon is 10 levels higher than the party and it can survive that sort of showboating,

Really, it sounds to me like you just want an entirely different combat engine, which, I mean, good for you, but redesigning flight as a gateway into an entirely new combat system just seems like a lot of homebrew for little benefit for those of us who are quite happy with how flight is working.

I mean, that's great because those things are not mutually exclusive. I would say that better-designed monsters would have different flight capabilities and that would show in how they moved.

And I disagree, because every monster having unique movement mechanics sounds like a DMs nightmare.

I mean, we do, though. Certain animals can trample while others can't. Certain animals can climb, pounce, etc, while others can't. Those differences are generally just easier to model compared to flight, but they definitely exist in there.

And some creatures can flyby and others can't, and some can hover and others can't. So we have the same differences in flight. But you want more. If it was just giving dragons the ability to dash while they use their breath weapon, I'd be all for that. But you are talking about a rule set change, not giving them an ability like pounce or goring charge which is literally "move X ft, then make a special attack"

Also, horses and elephants can both trample. Do they both move in the same manner?

 

[Justice and Rule]

Okay, so flying over swimming because swimming is less common. Why not ground-based movement? There are a bunch of different types of ground-based movement, and it is even more common and even bigger in the game than flight. So it should absolutely be changed to reflect that then, since we must change the rules of flight.

But I find your last line interesting. You say the the "bigger issue is not the mechanics of movement but rather being in a substance.." Now, to me, that reads like for flight the biggest issue IS the mechanics of movement... but why is it an issue? I've been running these flight rules for nearly ten years without a single issue, so how is it an issue?

It's great that it's not a problem for you! Some people find it dull. Tastes vary. 5E right now is a game that lacks a lot of definition and I find putting different ideas onto how movement can work in different ways to be something interesting.

So a knight with a lance is also a strafing run, because of the mechanics of a galloping horse. You can't just stop, and your weapon is pointed forward. In fact, have you ever once seen a galloping horse charging in a straight line, then just immediately stop without slowing down? Now, have you ever seen that happen in a DnD game? In fact, you could have your horse dash and gallop, hit someone, then immediately take a 90 degree turn to avoid trampling an innocent child and continue moving at full speed. At least, in DnD, I wouldn't recommend trying it IRL.

I'd say that the smarter way to do model that would be to have the person take an Animal Handling check to either slip to the left/right (whichever is easier) or spend their Action to stop. In fact, I'd be pretty okay with doing something like "Gallop: If the creature has moved only in a straight line, they may spend a Bonus Action to Dash as long as they continue in that straight line". That would, in fact, be a way better way of modelling something like a horse's speed, where you could maybe slow them down slightly so they don't have massive, unfettered movement but instead have really fast straight line movement if you need it.

Plus creating some guidance and such for mounts and mounted combat feels like it might actually be good given how little is there.

But this whole argument misses the point. Again, strafing runs aren't the only possible thing you can do while flying. They are one of many techniques, and your rules do not offer any benefits for strafing that do not already exist, they offer penalties for not strafing.

I mean, for certain creatures they are! Not for all, but why not let some creatures have some level of restricted flight, while others have a more open form? Also the benefit to strafing in my rules would be to actually fly through the air fast while attacking, compared to

Two things.

1) If you can hit the dragon, then the strafing run was kind of pointless. The point of the strafe was to avoid being hit. If you can still be seen and hit after your strafing run, then you did something wrong.

Two things:

1. The point of strafing is not "to avoid getting hit", you strafe because the mechanics of flight dictate that's how you have to attack with certain craft. Getting hit with a strafing run happens and isn't a failure as much as a possibility given how they actually work. I'm not sure how else to explain this.
   
   
2. The defensive part of it is the speed at which you fly past, which still can work. There's nothing that really stops you from modeling that; you could make it so flying creatures can make fast, slashing dives and get more speed because of it. You can make it more difficult to hit them as they go past if you want (I might say they count as being in Half Cover, so as to not immediately turn to Advantage/Disadvantage). There's plenty to do there if you want to. You just have to, you know, want to.

2) Instead of forcing dragons to do strafing runs or they fall out of the sky... um... why not just have the Topple Weapon Mastery which is essentially that felling strike ability? I mean, an ability to knock the target prone with an attack is better than that feat. Also, it was a feat, so just design a feat!

lmfao, those abilities aren't the same. Felling Strike just works, it doesn't require a test. Further, you can use it on any weapon, while Topple is largely restricted to weapons that aren't going to reach.

That's not to say you couldn't want a test on such a technique in 5E (Hitting is typically easier given armor values are lower, plus you get more attacks with fewer restrictions), but at the least you'd want that technique to work with weapons that could actually reach out and touch a dragon flying past beyond 15 feet in the air.

Do dragons need nerfed? Because that is what you are talking about here. You are talking about reducing the mechanical abilities of dragons. And this concept of "lining up" sounds to me like "take a turn to..." which means that the dragon is going to have entire turns of doing nothing. Monsters can't afford to waste turns like this. Not for normal combats. Maybe for a cinematic combat where the dragon is 10 levels higher than the party and it can survive that sort of showboating,

Well, the dragon would have to put distance between itself and the party. If you start doing things like allowing them more straight-line speed, that's not a hard fix: the dragon can fly in and out of range.

Really, it sounds to me like you just want an entirely different combat engine, which, I mean, good for you, but redesigning flight as a gateway into an entirely new combat system just seems like a lot of homebrew for little benefit for those of us who are quite happy with how flight is working.

Uh, you really don't need a "new combat engine" for this sort of thing. Making movement more defined in 5E honestly would be an easy way to provide a bunch more definition while not actually changing how most things work. This is more about having better monster design than anything.

And I disagree, because every monster having unique movement mechanics sounds like a DMs nightmare.

It doesn't need to be every monster, it just needs not be "Every monster flies the same way, just with different speeds".

And some creatures can flyby and others can't, and some can hover and others can't. So we have the same differences in flight.

I'm sorry, those are barely powers. Flyby is dull (it's applied whether you're going 60 feet or 5 feet :-\) and poorly applied to make Owls slightly different compared to Hawks.

Hover does have a limited effect, but it doesn't actually change how a creature flies, which it really should.

But you want more. If it was just giving dragons the ability to dash while they use their breath weapon, I'd be all for that. But you are talking about a rule set change, not giving them an ability like pounce or goring charge which is literally "move X ft, then make a special attack"

I'm sorry, but your entire argument comes off as hysterics. Talking about putting rules into flight and fitting flying animals to those rules won't change the entire rules set. And what we'd be changing are things that need to be changed in 5E: monsters. Easily one of the weakest aspects of 5E is monster design, and creating more avenues for differences beyond hit points in monster feel.

Also, horses and elephants can both trample. Do they both move in the same manner?

To answer this very inane question:

1. No, but that's not really modeled in 5E anyways.
   
   
2. You could model that easily, by allowing one to "Gallop" and the other not to. These are things that are eminently doable if you focus on trying rather than crying. That they haven't done things like make it so that there are "fast animals" that can use a bonus action to dash straight ahead is mind boggling.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The fallacy here is the idea that if you model rules one step deep, you need to model them twenty steps deep.

This is not the case.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The fallacy here is the idea that if you model rules one step deep, you need to model them twenty steps deep.

This is not the case.

I'm not engaging in a fallacy, I'm trying to find the real reason for the changes.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm not engaging in a fallacy, I'm trying to find the real reason for the changes.

People have given you those, but your argument against has been "Where does it end?" and saying we're going to redo the whole combat system.