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="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 9033315" data-attributes="member: 6778210">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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification