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: 9033298" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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?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.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.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.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.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.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?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.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?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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification