The Flight Topic.

[Aenghus]

1) About when do you want Fly to show up in spell lists: low level, high level, or epic?

In a 30 level scale, levitate type effects about 5th, flight with concentration about 10th, and advanced flight about 16th, maybe 20th

2) When do you want Long term Flight spells and magic items to be suggested to appear (if at all)?

about 20th/epic, as casual flight for everyone eliminates so much content.

3) What is your preferred balancing factor for Fly spell (control, duration, speed, maneuverability, action economy)?

A combination with the emphasis on action economy, definitely. Lower level flight spells should require concentration, and not permit attacks.

4) Should Flight Magic even have a natural drawback?

Flying PCs and NPCs tend to draw all missile fire to them anyway like magnets, so no.

5) Should maneuverability return?

no, the 4e version was adequate.

6) How much should the DMG discuss and provide information on dealing with flight (wind charts and effect, falling rules, flight skill checks)?

It should retain the 4e warning on having instantly fatal falls in adventures, which applies double to fly spells

7) Should the game encourage mundane tactics to combat hostile fliers or should it just encourage DMs to hand out flight or don't use flight?

There should be viable options for combatting flying foes so people can play the way they want to play without being over-penalised for it. Low magic games can have flying foes without flight being a PC option, and it needs to be possible to engage flying foes who are using intelligent tactics without it being suicide.

Specifically, the rules shouldn't make it super difficult to pin down flying monsters, or monsters with ranged capability become too deadly (and boring) if they use "shoot'n'scoot" tactics and idiots if they move to engage and throw away their advantage.

Providing a variety of options for engaging a particular problem, and making them all viable, with none being so good they render the others moot, is a difficult design problem.

8)Mundane flight in core (war balloons, gliders, airships, and planes)?

No, this is exactly what optional modules are for.

As usual I am really opposed to catastrophic balance measures, which allow too much room for asshat refereeing, deliberate or accidental. I have often seen referees trapped by circumstances into either fudging the rules or saying "I suppose your PC plunges to their doom, then" when a fly effect is disrupted/dispelled.

To be viable in an RPG flight needs to avoid being russian roulette or an exercise in reading the referee's mind to avoid instant PC death. I'm also strongly against random durations for fly effects, and against sudden failure for fly spells. They should be fail-safe as they have been in later editions. Random durations are a callback to "gotya" style play, something I despise. Random durations I also find annoying in that they force an accurate time count for an extended period of the game.

 

[Tovec]

5) Should maneuverability return?
Yes. Did it leave? You can't have flight without maneuverability. Dragons and Djinni should fly differently.

In practice I don't really see them flying differently. I'm not saying they shouldn't be different but any existing rules I've ever seen (with the exception of niche circumstances) have them flying about the same and certainly over the party's head. Unless there is a tight hall that the dragon is trying to fly down I rarely see the issue with easing up this restriction.

8) Mundane flight in core (war balloons, gliders, airships, and planes)?
Blech. No. Too steampunk. Save it for some expansion down the road.

8) Mundane flight in core (war balloons, gliders, airships, and planes)?
Core as in assumed? No. Core as in the main three books? Yes. It's not usually my cup of tea, but it could lead to some very interesting stuff for some people, and it's not at of the realm of fantasy to have dirigibles or the like.

I like what JamesonCourage says here. It isn't my cup of tea but I wouldn't say that it is outside the realm of fantasy to have those things.
I remember seeing lazer cannons and handguns and whatnot in the 3.5 DMG. I never ended up using them, but if I had ever set my DnD game in the present or future settings then I'm sure those things would have been useful right in core.

3) What is your preferred balancing factor for Fly spell (control, duration, speed, maneuverability, action economy)?
Mainly action economy, but with a sprinkling of speed and duration. Make any ranged attack (spell or otherwise) take a full-round action (the hated full-round!) instead of a standard, and make it take at least a move action to stay in the air. That way, you can't do both (fly and make any ranged attack) unless you circumvent the restriction (Haste, special ability, feat, etc.).

I don't really want the restrictions on flight to be more spells. Especially when you consider that it is the fighter that loses out by not having Fly nor Haste.

If anything I would like flight to be a basic spell, preferably lower level. Then have higher forms (or combinations of spells) give different tricks instead of removing drawbacks.

To answer the OP.

Q1: When do I want it to show up?
A1: Low level, but with lots of drawbacks.

Q2: When do I want to see items (suggested)?
A2: Whenever I choose? I'm okay with level 10 (or even lower), as long as the solution is never "you pretty much need fly to beat this".

Q3: Balancing factor.
A3: Ah, yes this is what I wanted. For me the best balancing factors are a little of all the choices given. But with emphasis on action economy and duration. (I would also throw in a concentration component.)

If there is a limited number of things that you can do while flying while enjoying being able to fly next turn then I'll be happy.
If there is a fixed duration, so you aren't flying ALL the time, then I'll be happier.
If you have to spend a bit of effort, or can be otherwise knocked out of flight fairly simply then I'll be ecstatic. But I think you need a bit of all three.

I play 3.5 and the problems I partially see (but others seem to experience in spades) are as follows.
It assumes that you have flight to defeat some opponents but it doesn't balance things when those opponents don't have flight - like melee or grunts without flying.
It forces everyone to have flight because flight can override so many problems. Ie. climb checks, balance checks.
It is an automatic avoid all for casters with the right combination - usually when added with missile deflection and some form of greater invisibility.
It it always on. So you can just assume flying as a standard.

Now, if you put limits on it, like I put "landing" means it ends, then you can stop a lot of those minor problems. If they have to concentrate (meaningfully) or lose actions while flying then they'll use it sparingly.
Of course this only helps if flight is kept as a vancian spell, which they can or will run out of uses for. If not then I see no easy ways of balancing it.

Q4: Drawbacks?
A4: See above. I hope that applies.

Q5: Maneuverability?
A5: As I said earlier, I understand the need for it but I haven't seen very good application of it. I would prefer just to have a simplier form, with perhaps 3 forms of maneuverability. Then define one as not being able to do tight corners, and one as being able to fly perfectly straight up. IMO then have just terrible/poor, good/average, and perfect forms - I don't need anything else.

Q6: DMG Info.
A6: See 5. I need info on strong winds, or the other aspects of what happens when you are flying, but the flight aspect should be relatively easy to deal with. I would like the "in sky" equivalent of the "dungeon" or "city" terrain features.

Q7: Tactics
A7: Yes, certainly. Enough creatures fly that it would help if we knew the best ways of dealing with them. Even if it is just simple conversions of what a ground maneuver would look like against a sky creature, but preferably some minor instructions on how ground creatures can fight flying ones. I also want similar manterial dealing with burrowing creatures.
And Yes. I want it because I plan on letting my players fly at some point, and yes I want it because they're going to be fighting dragons and the "jumping off steeple" approach isn't always going to work. All that being said I do want tactics that work, because it is at least a minor part of the game and people who haven't played for 30 years may need some help.

Q8: War Balloons?
A8: Yes, sure. See above reply.
Air balloons can be cool, and once again, just because they haven't shown up in my game doesn't mean that I shouldn't have rules if I do decide to have them show up. In my setting I've had (and planned) nearly every kind of micosetting I can imagine, including a sky-realm. It just depends on if the party encounters it or not. I especially want rules on those kinds of things (just like I want rules for regular ships in the water [or below]) because trying to MAKE them is a pain. I know, I've tried. Having to come up with stuff like that from scratch is annoying to try and do correctly. I don't have a design team to come up with these ideas and I appreciate when my game does it for me.
--I couldn't care less what is 'Core' or what isn't as long as I get to play the game I want. So I ignored that part of the question.

 

[howandwhy99]

This thread is about how do you what flight to be handled in D&D Next/5E and your view on the special ability.

1) About when do you want Fly to show up in spell lists: low level, high level, or epic?

Flight isn't an all or nothing category. That's the most important point. I'd say come up with difference throughout all the levels. D&D has already done this for generations.

1. Feather Fall
2. Levitation
3. Fly
4. Improved Fly

That's only 4, but plenty to cover the basics for flight and still leave enough room for player ingenuity to create new custom flight spells for their character (or more culturally / racially specific ones for NPCs).

2) When do you want Long term Flight spells and magic items to be suggested to appear (if at all)?

Long duration? I love powerful spells and one of the ways to make spells actually useful outside of the dull 60 seconds of combat is to up their length and applicability. (P.S. it's also how we increase their creative use)
So I say have the option for different kinds of flight begin with long durations (but not absolute). A Feather Fall ring is a nice, cheap, powerful magic item that breaks my rule of "no absolutes" and is great for low levels.

3) What is your preferred balancing factor for Fly spell (control, duration, speed, maneuverability, action economy)?

Drop Control. The last thing I want to have to do is make flight checks, if I'm trained at flying. Improved skill should come with increased options. Longer durations, increased speed, better maneuverability, and so on.
Also, the action economy should be dropped for flight outside of the Move action. Performing a 360 spin or a full forward loop should not cost an action or require a check. That's boring game design as any flight game can show. Leave the Action portion of the action economy to casting spells, swinging swords, using magic items, and other actions which allow everyone to show off their class abilities. Do not make another "you lose because you didn't take this mini-game's feats" game where only the related feat abilities matter because of the situation.

4) Should Flight Magic even have a natural drawback?/B]

It depends on the magic. Are you flying on a broom? That has drawbacks. Are you flying on a living creature? Different, but yes again. How about growing wings from your back? Okay, but not space and facing matter as do clothing and fatigue comes up more often. Yeah, it's all going to matter as magic without drawbacks is more infinite at-will design that removes the game element from play.

5) Should maneuverability return?

Good question. I imagine most folks who know AD&D's aerial movement and maneuverability class rules would say N.O. immediately as it is very complicated and very time consuming as written.
- However, I beg them to listen for just a moment. The original flight rules were based off of the great Mike Carr's "Fight in the Skies" game (as "Battle in the Skies" in the OD&D booklets), who may be better known in D&D circles for B1 "In Search of the Unknown". If you don't know F.I.T.S. is basically the game Dawn Patrol, which is still one of the best flight games around all these years later.
- In terms of high end aerial battle modules, this is not only one of the best WotC could offer, but also one of the most true to D&D. It can be quick, highly detailed, fast paced, allow for plenty of non-aerial action within it, finish a whole combat in under an hour, and work with ground battles. Needless to say, it has a very customizable means of defining maneuverability.

6) How much should the DMG discuss and provide information on dealing with flight (wind charts and effect, falling rules, flight skill checks)?

A basic, light, quick and easy set of rules for flight should be in the core game - unless they want to drop flight and other non-surface movement throughout the game. Weather is more in the campaign and magic realm of design, but I can understand the inclusion of some basic wind direction and speed rules. And yeah, falling everything that goes into that.

7) Should the game encourage mundane tactics to combat hostile fliers or should it just encourage DMs to hand out flight or don't use flight?

Mundane is really just well known magic. So it is the baseline. Everyone having flight means it does quickly become mundane. Starting the game as D&D does, within a practical human set baseline, we would want to account for mundane counters to flight before adding in magic and fantasy elements.

8) Mundane flight in core (war balloons, gliders, airships, and planes)?

Birds in core? Yeah. Flying mounts? Why not? Irrelevant to genre? I'd say no. I know gunpowder and ray guns get included in the "expanding the campaign scope" section, but let's keep that stuff for later inclusions. I like it, but a trim core book could do without 'em. Magical airships? Heck yeah! We could use some good vehicle combat and movement rules, if only to start with wagons and carriages at first. Magic castles and ships cost $$$.

 

[steenan]

1) About when do you want Fly to show up in spell lists: low level, high level, or epic?

Low-to-mid level, about 6. But it should be a severely limited version, with low speed, high risk and required concentration.

2) When do you want Long term Flight spells and magic items to be suggested to appear (if at all)?

Around level 15 in 20-level scale. At this point, there are more interesting things to do than climbing and walking.

3) What is your preferred balancing factor for Fly spell (control, duration, speed, maneuverability, action economy)?

1. It should require concentration. That means no spellcasting or other forms of attack during flight.
2. If the concentration is disrupted (a check that may be forced by taking damage, heavy wind etc.), the spell ends - and the fall may be dangerous.
3. Speed is comparable to normal walking.

4) Should Flight Magic even have a natural drawback?

Not being able to cast while flying and risking a fall is a significant drawback, I think.

5) Should maneuverability return?

No. It's an unnecessary complication and it's hard to use when not playing on a grid.

6) How much should the DMG discuss and provide information on dealing with flight (wind charts and effect, falling rules, flight skill checks)?

I prefer this kind of things in the PHB. Not a lot, keep the rules simple, but they should be there.

7) Should the game encourage mundane tactics to combat hostile fliers or should it just encourage DMs to hand out flight or don't use flight?

Definitely encourage mundane tactics. Characters should be able to switch to ranged weapons with only a small decrease in efficiency, and there should be other ways of fighting flyers, too (wounding wings, grappling to keep down, decreasing visibility).
There should be very few items that allow long-term flight and they definitely shouldn't be something one can buy.

8)Mundane flight in core (war balloons, gliders, airships, and planes)?

Not in core. They are not a part of typical fantasy genre and it's what D&D typically aims for. But I would love a setting with such vehicles.

 

[jrowland]

This thread is about how do you what flight to be handled in D&D Next/5E and your view on the special ability.

1) About when do you want Fly to show up in spell lists: low level, high level, or epic?

Mid-High level as a ritual.

2) When do you want Long term Flight spells and magic items to be suggested to appear (if at all)?

High level.

3) What is your preferred balancing factor for Fly spell (control, duration, speed, maneuverability, action economy)?

Cost. They should be rituals.

4) Should Flight Magic even have a natural drawback?

Yes. Cost to cast.

5) Should maneuverability return?

It should as a module.

6) How much should the DMG discuss and provide information on dealing with flight (wind charts and effect, falling rules, flight skill checks)?

Very little...falling rules is about it.

7) Should the game encourage mundane tactics to combat hostile fliers or should it just encourage DMs to hand out flight or don't use flight?

Mundane tactics like ranged weapons and spells will be covered under combat. no need to call out fliers.

8) Mundane flight in core (war balloons, gliders, airships, and planes)?

No. Optional module.


As far as combat and flight, many of the same issues occur with underwater fighting: 3D environment (the enemy is down - Ender), maneuverability (Hover vs Forward-momentum), and sever penalties when unconscious (ie you fall or drown)

 

[am181d]

Unaided flight for spellcasters is pretty genre breaking. Wizards in fantasy literature don't generally fly (even the really powerfuly ones). I'm OK with flying carpets, airships, mounted flight, etc. but (in my opinion) flying unaided should really be discouraged by the rules, particularly in combat.

I feel the same way about invisibility in combat. There's a reason that the last Harry Potter book isn't 10,000 invisible flying wizards hurling meteor swarms on each other.

(I do make an exception for the occasional winged creature as PC. Again, my concern is less about balance than it is about respecting the genre. And I understand that this is a matter of personal taste. For instance, I'm OK with at will blaster wizards, which I know some folks object to for similar reasons.)

 

[Tovec]

Unaided flight for spellcasters is pretty genre breaking. Wizards in fantasy literature don't generally fly (even the really powerfuly ones). I'm OK with flying carpets, airships, mounted flight, etc. but (in my opinion) flying unaided should really be discouraged by the rules, particularly in combat.

Not that I particularly disagree but.. It depends on what you mean by unaided. And what you mean by fantasy literature.

How often does transmutation to give somebody wings show up? Or to transform them into a creature with wings. Both would be acceptable variations on the "fly" spell to me and both are fairly common. If anything "fly" would be more understandable if only because I wouldn't have to use all the other parts that come with transmuting into a creature with wings/transmuting to give myself wings.

I feel the same way about invisibility in combat. There's a reason that the last Harry Potter book isn't 10,000 invisible flying wizards hurling meteor swarms on each other.

That we see, they may all be invisible (or wizards and we are muggles). More seriously, HP is one example where they DO have wizards flying under their own power - voldemort did it. It isn't a common spell but it is one that apparently existed. Plus HP isn't the greatest example of spells or magic in fiction either.

(I do make an exception for the occasional winged creature as PC. Again, my concern is less about balance than it is about respecting the genre. And I understand that this is a matter of personal taste. For instance, I'm OK with at will blaster wizards, which I know some folks object to for similar reasons.)

I completely agree here. I just think that it would be better for the rules to try and cover a situation instead of ignoring them completely and forcing us to NOT have flight until high levels.
I can understand waiting for higher levels to give a spell like wish or plane shift. I don't understand why something that is basically an extension of levitate has to be introduced at the same point.

For ME, I want flight but I want limits so it doesn't become gamebreaking. If the rules don't give me some form of flight I'll be very dis-satisfied.

 

[Li Shenron]

1) About when do you want Fly to show up in spell lists: low level, high level, or epic?

2) When do you want Long term Flight spells and magic items to be suggested to appear (if at all)?

3) What is your preferred balancing factor for Fly spell (control, duration, speed, maneuverability, action economy)?

4) Should Flight Magic even have a natural drawback?

5) Should maneuverability return?

6) How much should the DMG discuss and provide information on dealing with flight (wind charts and effect, falling rules, flight skill checks)?

7) Should the game encourage mundane tactics to combat hostile fliers or should it just encourage DMs to hand out flight or don't use flight?

8) Mundane flight in core (war balloons, gliders, airships, and planes)?

1) Never. I would rather have spells like Levitate or Jump for the exploration phase, but I have become quite intolerant of magical flying especially when used for fighting. It makes the game feel like Marvel Superheroes or Dragonball, but I don't like my D&D games to feel like that.

2) Never. Generally I dislike seeing long-distance travel skipped with one spell, but if that should be so I'd prefer teleporting. I don't think mythological heroes could fly. I realize this is for me mostly a matter of image / flavor, because I would definitely like high-level heroes to travel on magic carpets or the back of giant eagles, it's just when they fly like superman that the idea gives me the creeps.

3) Manouverability and control would be the easiest way to make me accept self-flying capabilities, but the problem is that they are always too complicated rules.

4) Could be a way to make magic fly less attractive, but doesn't solve my problem with the fact that I just hate the concept and the image of it.

5) Don't care much, but definitely optional.

6) I think the DM should only tell the basic beforehand, i.e. whether dispelling causes you to fall or glide safely. Everything else should better be hidden not to confuse players unnecessarily. [edit: I read DM instead of DMG... well the DMG can definitely provide as many info as the DM may use to make the circumstances more interesting]

7) I think fighting against flying monsters comes with great tactical differences, and should definitely be part of the game. The tactical difference is there both if the PCs can fly or not (and these are very different from each other as well). Given the fact that inevitably flying rules will be more complicated, I'd try not to give the PCs any flying facilities until very high levels (I still mean flying on a "vehicle" tho, not a cheap spell).

8) I'm undecided... If the rules are simple enough (1 page max) then yes, otherwise no.