Chaosmancer
Legend
no one is talking about always, nice strawman.
Oh joy. Now we get to play this game. Okay, fine it isn't "always" it is just often enough that you'd rather ban fliers, while making no special considerations for any other similarly challenging feature.
All I said is that encounters need to be adjusted for fliers and they trivialize certain things. That has by now been essentially accepted, but somehow you insist on shifting the goalpost to show that I was wrong when I said so. Now they have to always be an issue that cannot be countered for fliers to be an issue at all.
Earlier nothing else was allowed to also be problematic, because if anything else is, then that apparently means fliers are ok, as if two wrongs do make a right somehow, instead of the obvious ‘more than one thing can be a problem’.
Right. Encounters need to be adjusted for sharpshooting archers, and they trivialize certain things. Ecounters need to be adjusted for ritual casting wizards and they trivialize certain things. Encounters need to be adjusted for darkvision races and they trivialize certain things. Encounters need to be adjusted for Wildshaping druids and they trivialize certain things.
We've accepted your statement because it is, on the whole, rather meaningless. All it ends up being is a statement that flight is impactful. But so are the VAST majority of PC abilities. my argument is that flight is no worse than many of these abilities. Because often people declare something that flight "breaks" only for it to quickly be a trivial thing to solve, or not even actually being a practical problem, or it is something that an ability they don't consider game breaking also solves.
that was not my example, it was yours. You said a solo flier and a solo archer both can accomplish nothing. I showed one way how the flier can theoretically be a problem in a way that is much harder to impossible for the archer.
No, this was YOUR example. I said that flight is very comparable to just having an archer. You said flight trivalizes barricades. I expressed doubts, you brought up castle walls and arrow slits. But this all goes back to you and your insistence that flight trivializes barricades. And since you seem to have a hard time remembering who said what, here is that quote. Heck, can I do a nesting quote here?
What adjustments are needed for flying that aren't needed for ranged attackers in general?
Barricades are not a problem for fliers
But they are for the rest of the party. And if you have sharpshooter a barrier is only effective if it is total cover. And if your enemy has total cover from you... you have total cover from them.
Additionally, Roofs are a thing. Those are barriers to the sky. As are trees. Or are we assuming a perfectly flat plain with only grass and a wall.
But they can have close to full cover while you have none. Ever seen these narrow slits in castle walls? They exist to shoot arrows from while being essentially in full cover.
Ah, so not "a barricade" but "a castle wall with arrow slits". Now, here is a question. Can a single archer with range safely assault a castle by themselves? No. Can a flier? Also no. Because the flier is in the exact same situation. The enemy has 3/4 cover, you have none. So this isn't a difference at all between the two.
So, this all started with your example. Barricades are "not a problem" for fliers. Which has now morphed into you talking about castle walss and how how arrow slits are "essentially" full cover (which they aren't, they are 3/4 cover, which was addressed with the sharpshooter comment I had already made)
And, I had forgotten this, but I did open my response to your barricade example with "but they are a problem for the rest of the party" which... dispels the whole "solo archer vs solo flier" thing anyways. Because I have ALWAYS brought it back to the fact that one of the biggest limiters on flight is that the entire party can't fly. A point that is often ignored when declaring fliers utterly broken.
I also did not say the flier is uniquely disruptive or the only thing that can be. Nice strawman again.
You never used those words, but that is clearly the position. Because low-level flight is treated like it is game breakingly powerful, when in reality... it isn't.
I am not interested in continuing this. Basically everyone agreed to what I said initially but still wants to prove me wrong by showing cases where there is no problem, but I never said that fliers always are, so this proves nothing
Okay, I am interested in continuing this, because you still seem to fundamentally misunderstand my point. For example, flight is a problem because they can turn invisible and fly into a castle according to you, but you don't acknowledge at all that a person who is invisible can also climb into a castle. The exact same end result, without flight needed at all. So is flight the problem? I'd argue it isn't.
well, I considered both a problem, so there is that![]()
Okay, so if both are a problem, then we must either have the game designers ban both Disguise Self as a 1st level spell and flying races. Remember, this entire discussion started with this idea that the game designers have to reign in flight, because it is too powerful. If both of these things are equally problematic, then they should receive the same response from the game designers.
But if they attempted to scale back disguise self... people would be furious. Flight is given special (bad) treatment, and I want to show that it doesn't deserve that treatment.