NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9026315" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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.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.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? 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. 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. 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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification