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

[Vaalingrade]

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

And demanding answers to a constant slippery slope achieves this how?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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:

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.

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.

1. 
   
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.

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:

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.

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.

 

[Incenjucar]

As part of one of my projects, I've been doing some thinking on cinematic and true-to-life movement, and I think there is a lot of amazing stuff that could be added to the game, especially for monsters, monks, and druids. Being able to leap out of the water in a canal, climb a wall by jumping between buildings, and then gliding down on wings to deliver a flying kick would be amazing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Not "where does it end". I'm asking WHY does it end. Why only change this thing, and not the others.

And yeah, when you start talking about creatures needing to line up attacks, giving other creatures chances to dodge, and all that... it sounds like you want a different style of combat system. I've seen the proposal before, but taking a full action to wind up an attack is just always a bad idea.

If you want to telegraph attacks, then the better way to approach that is to tell the players at the end of the creature's turn what they are going to do. It has the same effect of giving the party time to react, without wasting a monster's turn just to give the warning.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

And demanding answers to a constant slippery slope achieves this how?

It isn't a constant slippery slope? And since I haven't gotten an answer, I'm hoping to still get the point across.

Of course, now it is starting to devolve into personal attacks against me, because I can't just imagine the perfect solution is already shadow-written into rules that are only constantly evolving because I keep challenging them. Am I to just assume that if I said nothing that all of these concerns and thoughts would have been addressed?

Look, I'm sorry I'm pissing people off by not jumping up and down for joy over this proposal, but it seems like it is a lot of effort to just create more effort, to reach a destination we could more easily reach by other means.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm just going to hit this part because I don't really feel the need to continually reiterate my points here, but I find value in hitting the more general sentiments:

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.

Because it feels like you are being unnecessarily obtuse in interpreting what I'm trying to say! Why change flight? Well, it's because I don't think it feels interesting or how I want it to be. It doesn't match my view of the fiction or how the fiction is generally portrayed in media. That is less of a problem with other forms of movements. I also feel like there is interesting design space to explore there!

Instead you keep asking "Why not this? Why not this? Why not this?" and it's because currently I'm having a conversation about flight. This whole conversation has been incredibly difficult because I feel like you are hounding me while I'm not hounding you. You seem fundamentally opposed to what I am proposing and that is your right, but I don't understand why you are questioning why I'm talking about this over and over and over and over.

If you are fundamentally opposed to what I'm putting forth, then just leave it at that. I feel I have adequately explained why I was interested in this method/solution. If you want me to look at other things to change, sure, I'd love to! But I am limiting myself to than doing my own 1D&D playtest because, well, this was already a tangent. It's not like the Fighter thread where the debate was about the conceptual nature of the fighter, this was about what I thought would be decent for flight. I felt I gave my answer rather clearly and have been getting more frustrated as I feel my answer is being missed in all this.

Not "where does it end". I'm asking WHY does it end. Why only change this thing, and not the others.

That is a distinction without a difference because it's still the same slippery slope. "Why do we end here?" and going on about why don't we end here or here or here feels like it is begging for an answer that is already given: We're ending here because we want to. Our problem was with this, not that or that or that or even that. Could I be convinced to change something else? Sure, but I was keeping to the conversation and not trying to expand it out on a larger tangent than it already was.

And yeah, when you start talking about creatures needing to line up attacks, giving other creatures chances to dodge, and all that... it sounds like you want a different style of combat system. I've seen the proposal before, but taking a full action to wind up an attack is just always a bad idea.

That is not a different combat system. It is engaging with new tactics in the same system. Encouraging different tactics doesn't suddenly redoing the whole system, it means trying to find new ways to engage with it, to make new situations while using the same basic foundations. Nothing about how combat is resolved changes at all with what I'm talking about. Putting some new restrictions on movement doesn't fundamentally change the action system, to-hit rolls, initiative spots, etc. Putting new restrictions on movement are meant to provide a new framework within that system.

If you want to telegraph attacks, then the better way to approach that is to tell the players at the end of the creature's turn what they are going to do. It has the same effect of giving the party time to react, without wasting a monster's turn just to give the warning.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It's not just telegraphing attacks as much as making it so certain attacks are telegraphed without me having to tell them, as well as giving the players time to actually act on that. Just telling the players what the dragon is going to do really isn't the same in form or function.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm just going to hit this part because I don't really feel the need to continually reiterate my points here, but I find value in hitting the more general sentiments:



Because it feels like you are being unnecessarily obtuse in interpreting what I'm trying to say! Why change flight? Well, it's because I don't think it feels interesting or how I want it to be. It doesn't match my view of the fiction or how the fiction is generally portrayed in media. That is less of a problem with other forms of movements. I also feel like there is interesting design space to explore there!

Instead you keep asking "Why not this? Why not this? Why not this?" and it's because currently I'm having a conversation about flight. This whole conversation has been incredibly difficult because I feel like you are hounding me while I'm not hounding you. You seem fundamentally opposed to what I am proposing and that is your right, but I don't understand why you are questioning why I'm talking about this over and over and over and over.

If you are fundamentally opposed to what I'm putting forth, then just leave it at that. I feel I have adequately explained why I was interested in this method/solution. If you want me to look at other things to change, sure, I'd love to! But I am limiting myself to than doing my own 1D&D playtest because, well, this was already a tangent. It's not like the Fighter thread where the debate was about the conceptual nature of the fighter, this was about what I thought would be decent for flight. I felt I gave my answer rather clearly and have been getting more frustrated as I feel my answer is being missed in all this.


That is a distinction without a difference because it's still the same slippery slope. "Why do we end here?" and going on about why don't we end here or here or here feels like it is begging for an answer that is already given: We're ending here because we want to. Our problem was with this, not that or that or that or even that. Could I be convinced to change something else? Sure, but I was keeping to the conversation and not trying to expand it out on a larger tangent than it already was.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to changing something. I'm digging to see if what you are changing actually accomplishes the goal you want.

You just said flight doesn't match your view of the fiction. Okay, so what is that view? Well, you've given two examples, that are basically the same thing. You want strafing runs. You want birds to fly past and enemy and hit with an attack, then keep zooming past. You want dragons to fly overhead in a line and spew fire.

And what were the rules you proposed to encapsulate that idea?

Two flight modes. One where you can barely turn but can use your normal speed. The other where you can manuever like normal, but must move at half speed. With an action to switch between them. This doesn't accomplish your goal. And so your answer to this was to design new monster abilities and alter the flight speed of monsters, to account for these two modes of flight and to give them the ability to go FASTER than normal.

And you keep insisting that an absolutely necessary first step in this process is to change flight... but why? The only answer you've given is "because that's how flight works", but DnD doesn't care to model "how things work". So why can't we go at this from a different angle. Why not change Flyby attack? Make it an attack, not a trait, and as part of the attack the creature moves X ft without provoking attacks of opportunity. Why not take flying snakes and give them an ability that grants disadvantage to attacks against them as long as they only move 40 ft a turn? Not sure what to call it, but that could simulate them moving in unpredictable bobbing and weaving patterns.

Every example you've given is "I want monsters to do X" but your process is to start by changing Movement rule number 3. But to me, it seems like your goal is much easier to accomplish by looking at monster abilities and making unique and interesting things for monsters to do related to their movement. It may only feel like I'm hounding you because you keep insisting that your path is the only possible path to your goal. And I'm trying to point out a shorter, easier, less disruptive path that gets the same end result.

That is not a different combat system. It is engaging with new tactics in the same system. Encouraging different tactics doesn't suddenly redoing the whole system, it means trying to find new ways to engage with it, to make new situations while using the same basic foundations. Nothing about how combat is resolved changes at all with what I'm talking about. Putting some new restrictions on movement doesn't fundamentally change the action system, to-hit rolls, initiative spots, etc. Putting new restrictions on movement are meant to provide a new framework within that system.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you meant by lining up attacks then. Like I said, I've seen proposals for things like that, where the enemy takes their entire turn to wind up a big attack, and the players know where it will hit, so they have time to react. And I've discussed proposals like that before, and they always seem like they are best served by either being an entirely new system, or by doing what I said in my last post and just announcing the monster's next move at the end of their turn.

It's not just telegraphing attacks as much as making it so certain attacks are telegraphed without me having to tell them, as well as giving the players time to actually act on that. Just telling the players what the dragon is going to do really isn't the same in form or function.

Then I don't understand what you want from this. Unless you are thinking that you can somehow telegraph an attack solely by the monster moving into range, which, frankly, the only way that happens is to be predictable.

Compared to games that tend to use these sort of monster tactics, DnD has perfect response times. If on a player's turn they need to get out of the way... then they perfectly get out of the way as long as it is possible for them to do so. Because they have infinite time to figure out where to move and infinite time to move there. Some limitations on the cinematic aspect are going to be insurmountable simply due to the turn-based nature of the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It isn't a constant slippery slope?

Maybe not constant, but frequent enough.

And since I haven't gotten an answer, I'm hoping to still get the point across.

We will see when a point comes out instead of just hammering on questions involving escalating from the actual proposal. Unless the argument is 'but someone could throw a slippery slope argument at this'.

Of course, now it is starting to devolve into personal attacks against me,

Attacking your arguments is not attacking you. It's called 'debating'. Which is supposed to feature way fewer fallacies like slippery slopes.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As part of one of my projects, I've been doing some thinking on cinematic and true-to-life movement, and I think there is a lot of amazing stuff that could be added to the game, especially for monsters, monks, and druids. Being able to leap out of the water in a canal, climb a wall by jumping between buildings, and then gliding down on wings to deliver a flying kick would be amazing.

Why could you not do this now?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Maybe not constant, but frequent enough.

Whatever that means.

We will see when a point comes out instead of just hammering on questions involving escalating from the actual proposal. Unless the argument is 'but someone could throw a slippery slope argument at this'.

Maybe you should re-read my posts? The point of "can't we just do what you want with monster redesign" has been stated multiple times. And again, no slipperly slope argument here. I'm not going "but where will it end!" I'm pointing out that the reasons given apply to the other three movement types, and yet those movement types don't seem to inspire any need to put restrictions on them or change them. So, if the reasoning is not applied equally, there is likely a reason for that. The reason being, it seems, that the true goal is more cinematic monster fights.

Attacking your arguments is not attacking you. It's called 'debating'. Which is supposed to feature way fewer fallacies like slippery slopes.

Oh really? Tell me, which of my arguments are these statements attacking?

I'm sorry, but your entire argument comes off as hysterics.

These are things that are eminently doable if you focus on trying rather than crying.

To answer this very inane question:

Now, maybe I'm just a precious little snowflake with thin skin, but I believe calling my arguments "hysterical" and saying that I need to stop crying over things, as well as labeling it as "inane" doesn't exactly address... the arguments. They are instead presented as judgements on me, my emotional state, and how my emotions are making my arguments unfit for consideration.

And, again, I'm not presenting a slippery slope. The closest I came to a slippery slope fallacy was misunderstanding what he wanted when he declared he wanted monsters to line up attacks and give players time to react. A statement I thought was referencing a proposal I've seen many times before for altering the DnD combat system, but that now seems like it is referencing something else entirely that I just don't understand. And that's not a slippery slope, that's miscommunication. In other examples, like "but you'd have to change the monster design" if it was a slippery slope, Justice would have said "no, that's not the case" but instead he said "Yes, exactly." So... no slope, just the plan.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Oh really? Tell me, which of my arguments are these statements attacking?

1. This is attacking the idea that you would have to create a completely new combat system, which is hysterics: we are talking about changing a specific type of movement and adapting creatures that use that type of movement to new rules. Yet you were talking about how we are essentially changing the entire system. That is a completely overblown response.
   
   
2. But that is attacking your argumentation. You're not actually engaging with what I'm saying, you're creating whole strawmen about how this would change the entire system. That to me is "crying" and that's not a personal attack as much as a commentary on your argument.
   
   
3. It's to your question, which is inane. That is not attacking you, it's attacking your line of attack, which is bad. The whole "Do elephants and horses move in the same manner?" is inane because it has no bearing on the actual discussion at hand, but is meant to draw the entire thing off into a tangential argument about debating making a change in the first place. That debate was already settled when some of us chose to engage with the idea of changing flight in the first place.

You keep saying how you aren't making slippery slope arguments, but that entire question and focus on "Why not other ones?" is very much a slippery slope, even if you want to deny. We are focusing on flying because that's what we are focusing on. I don't need a meta-discussion on why this instead of other things because that is a different topic and if you want to engage on it, feel free to make it.

However, given how you've wanted to draw this entire argument not into a discussion of how but into why despite me explaining very clearly my reasoning for why, I'm done with whatever discussion was here.