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.
None of this addresses the actual questions I asked. Sure, tastes vary, that doesn't explain why you want to change flight to improve it towards your taste, but nothing else. You've said you find putting different ideas for movement to be interesting, but that's not true, because you absolutely won't put different ideas for anything except flight on the table.
So why specifically and only flight?
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.
See this sort of thing is exactly why I'm challenging you on your reasoning.
For flight, you wanted to have a new system, two different modes of flight that you can switch between for an action. One slow and controlled, the other fast and uncontrolled. Because "that's how flight works".
But when I point out the exact same laws of physics that are in your "soaring" rules should apply to an easily envisioned situation, you want to focus on the fact it was a mounted knight, make it a skill check, or spend an action to stop moving when you want. Then you offer a unique ability for horses to do something that is true for the majority of ground-based movement.
But have you stopped to consider the physics here in regards to the Fantasy genre? A mounted knight and a centaur have little difference between them. Does a centaur need an animal handling check to slip left or right? No, that'd be ridiculous, so why is all the focus from this ground-based movement on the mounted rider? Or, have you considered what happens if you have a mounted flier? You've created these two sets of flight but then are you going to create mounted rules that can break that? Will the mounted rules need to have different clauses for your mount running, swimming, or flying?
You keep looking at only a single piece and designing only for that piece. "This rule makes flight for winged creatures make more sense, and then I'll redesign creatures with flight". "This rule works well for mounted combat, and then I'll redesign mounted combat". And then you aren't yet realizing that those lines cross.
Can mounted combat rules be improved? Probably. There are a lot of things it seems to do poorly. But you are fast approaching a situation where you are going to have a rule set that has different rules for every single type of movement combination. And the majority of players are just going to ignore it and keep movement consistent across the board. While a better solution for the complexity and story you want might just be found in a few special abilities for key monsters, instead of rewriting movement for everything.
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
No?
Unless you made different rules, your Soaring rules simply state you must move up to your full speed and you may dash or attack. Right now a creature can move up to their full speed and either dash or attack. Moving their full speed is still flying "fast". You've changed nothing except you have forced them to move their full speed whether they want to or not.
You current rule set has only two things in it. Lose speed to retain maneuverability, or lose maneuverability to retain speed. Both are penalties, you have offered no boons.
Two things:
- 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.
With certain craft, like aircraft? Yeah, but we aren't talking aircraft. So, let me reframe this for you.
Dragon flies into the village, breathes fire as it flies by, and does a strafing run.
Dragon flies into the village. LANDS. Breathes fire, and flies back up into the air.
Both of these work with the mechanics of flight. The mechanics of flight dictate that both sets of actions are completely feasible. So why would an intelligent creature choose to strafe, rather than to land? You keep citing the "mechanics of flight" but you also keep ignoring the OTHER mechanics of flight.
- 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.
But their speed has not increased. Your rules are not increasing their speed. Your rules did not give disadvantage to hit them or give them half cover. The only thing your rules did was reduce their ability to turn if they wanted to go full speed.
Yes, if you make different rules, then different things apply, but if your response to every criticism is "I could have made better rules" then you have to admit that the rules you made were bad.
And for me to "want to" make better rules, I need to have some reason to want rules other than what we have. And, to date, every proposal for flight rules has been to limit flight and make it worse. There has been no benefits given to flying creatures to make it worth it, as a DM, to deal with these rules.
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.
Yeah, Felling Strike just works, and does zero damage. Meanwhile, knocking prone causes damage. And if you want the ability to work with ranged weapons... again, it was a feat before, why can't it be a feat now? Make a feat for ranged characters to interfere with flying enemies. That isn't a difficult thing to do, and doesn't require this soaring and hovering business AT ALL. Topple was just an example, because as a Weapon Mastery it already exists as an option, and it can be put on Heavy Crossbows and Longbows, exactly the types of weapons that make sense to knock a creature out of the sky. Or you could use the common magic item Walloping Arrows. There are options here.
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.
So your previously stated rules need even more changes, because now you are needing to increase monster speed to account for the changes you've made. Should I have responded to your rules as they will exist in the future when you've solved every problem, or how you presented them in the concrete terms I can see?
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.
You are changing how so many things work. You are creating an entire sub-system with new types of actions. This isn't definition, this is redesign.
It doesn't need to be every monster, it just needs not be "Every monster flies the same way, just with different speeds".
And why is that a problem when it isn't a problem that every monster swims the same way, just with different speeds, and every monster runs the same way, just with different speeds.
You keep pointing to flight as though it is unique, but it isn't. Flight, swimming, and running are all being treated identically in the game. But you only want to address flight. Why?
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.
And trample or pounce any better? They are identical. Move at least 20 ft, hit with an attack, enemy makes a save vs prone, if they fail, you get a bonus action attack. Elephants, warhorses and Panthers are using the same mechanics here, do they move the same way at all? And why does it matter that flyby works the same regardless of the number of feet you move? How is it even poorly applied?
And your rules are WORSE, unless I assume they have been edited to perfection and every flaw addressed in a future update.
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.
But you aren't changing monsters. You are changing the movement rules, then making changes to monsters (in theory) to deal with the problems you just created in the movement rules.
Why is just giving dragon's an ability that says "When you take the dash action, you can use your breath weapon as part of that action" bad, while creating a ruleset with different flight modes that take an action to switch between, then giving different monsters different abilities to react to those flight modes... good?
I agree that monsters can be changed, but changing them via simple abilities and building rules into the monsters makes more sense to me than creating an entire subsystem I'm going to have to remember whenever anybody ends up flying.
To answer this very inane question:
- No, but that's not really modeled in 5E anyways.
- 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.
Wow, hysterical, inane and crying. You know, usually I enjoy speaking with you, but you just are getting nasty for no reason. Because, that first point, #1... yeah, that's my point. It isn't modeled in 5e.
And again, look at your solution here. For ground animals you just want a bonus action to dash in a straight line. That's it. For flying creatures you want an entire subsystem with new rules and interactions. Why are we treating flight DIFFERENT than running? Why not just give special actions to the flying creatures instead of creating this subsystem that makes it all way more complicated than it needs to be?
This isn't me hysterically wailing on the ground, unable to make any changes, this is me looking at your proposal and saying "Why go this route instead of a much simpler and easier route that give the same end result" because the end result you say you want is "monsters feel different" which we can do without needing to change the movement rules for flight.