Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9033413" data-attributes="member: 6801228">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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification