Why is flight considered a game breaker?

[Crothian]

Hm, let's think about this.

Most of those are not D&D though. You have classic faerie tale, pun filled worlds, demi god, asian themed wuxia, but not much D&D.


The biggest problem with flight is probably that modules don't take flying into account. Even the higher levels ones were flying should be more common I've seen Cs with flight dominant encounters that were supposed to be tough.

 

[Aeolius]

People fail to remember that one need not resort to magic or flight, to explore a three-dimensional realm. One need only dive underwater. Granted, when I was dreaming of undersea adventures, I knew that the world of liquid space was one of freely explored three-dimensional travel.

Envision a realm where shallow-dwelling aquatic races freely interact with the surface. Many have deified the waves as Synsaal, the Barrier Between Worlds. Those who freely swim in the sun-lit waters seldom encounter those who dwell in the chill and pressure of the deep abyss below. In essence you have three worlds; the shallows, the open ocean, and the depths, each with it’s own ecosystem that may or may not interact with its neighbors. Going a step further, there are regions inhospitable to others; hydrothermal vents (black smokers), undersea lakes (cold seeps) and the like where specialized species might dwell.

Granted, just as magics allow drylanders to fly, there are ways that one born to the shallows may endure the pressures of the deep.

Yes, it takes a different mindset, to be part of an adventure where foes can approach from above and below. Dungeons take a bit of retooling as well. While characters can swim over a pit trap, let’s see how they handle a swarm of jellyfish clogging a passageway or a tunnel lined with stinging anemones.

 

[CleverNickName]

...your flying wizard just got backstabbed by my invisible flying assassin, or jumped by a half dozen orc wyvern riders, or chompped by a really big dragon.

(snip)

flying being a problem is bad DMing only. If your players always just fly across the chasm, they dont want to deal with the chasm, so dont put them in your adventures. If the monsters dont have a way to retaliate, give them one...

One could also argue that (a) giving the PCs an ability that will eventually require you to (b) sucker-punch them for using, is equally "bad DMing." Some DMs prefer to nip the problem at the bud.

@Celebrum & Herschel: I really need to spread some XP around.

 

[billd91]

3) Long duration always on items are generally underpriced in 3e. In particular, you are much more likely in my games to find an item that lets you cast a spell on yourself X times per day, than you are to find an item that grants you unlimited access to that spell. A 'ring of invisibility' that lets you be invisible all the time and has no drawbacks is IMO, something that shouldn't be showing up at all before very high level and should be priced under the item creation guidelines accordingly. In particular, the 3e item creation rules don't take into account balancing factors of the spell like the normal length that the spell lasts when determining what the spell should cost when made effectively 'permanent'. There is relatively greater advantage in making a spell that lasts rounds last 24 hours compared to making one that lasts hours last 24 hours. At lower levels, a 'ring of invisibility' or 'ring of flight' that let the wielder use a spell once or thrice per day is much less abusive and more likely to be balanced with the rest of the campaign.

I take it you weren't keen on 1e's ring of invisibility either? How about the 1e invisibility spell?
I can see what you're saying, but one area where I disagreed with the 3.5 revision was turning the invisibility spell from a spell with some good non-combat utility into a short duration combat spell.

 

[Dausuul]

I take it you weren't keen on 1e's ring of invisibility either? How about the 1e invisibility spell?
I can see what you're saying, but one area where I disagreed with the 3.5 revision was turning the invisibility spell from a spell with some good non-combat utility into a short duration combat spell.

Can't speak for Celebrim, but IMO invisibility falls into the same category as flight. It's okay as long as it a) is not available to all PCs and b) has some form of limits on usage - which may mean limited duration, limited charges, high cost, or what have you.

And yes, I thought the 1E invisibility spell was a problem.

 

[Leatherhead]

So the problem that keeps coming up is with the metagame, having to customize the game to challenge the PCs?

Maybe this is why I don't see it as a problem, I always take my players abilities into consideration when making a campaign (and use tons of custom monsters). I don't consider it any different than any other ability that the PCs may or may not have. It's just like framing a campaign around not having a cleric in older editions of DnD.

 

[Azgulor]

Can't speak for Celebrim, but IMO invisibility falls into the same category as flight. It's okay as long as it a) is not available to all PCs and b) has some form of limits on usage - which may mean limited duration, limited charges, high cost, or what have you.

And yes, I thought the 1E invisibility spell was a problem.

Ditto this whole post. I also think Haste, Teleport, and Raise Dead were too low level for the results they produce.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I would say two things:

(1) On a strategic level, the problems with fly disappear if you stop designing your adventures in a reactive, linear fashion. If there's an encounter that "needs" to happen, design the adventure so that the PCs will seek out that encounter in a proactive fashion.

If you design encounters that "need" to happen by placing them in a dungeon room or along a road that the PCs will be forced to pass thru to get to their actual goal, then teleportation, flying, pass through stone, and abilities like them will all pose problems.

Re-analyze whether such an encounter is really necessary in the first place. (If it's just a trap or a combat encounter designed to grind away their resources you can probably start by making it more interesting in the first place.)

Then look at how you can make the encounter more flexible. For example, let's say that you want the PCs to see evidence of the tyrant's cruel reign by seeing some of his soldiers roughing up a young lady. Rather than locking that encounter into "this will happen as they walk down the road", make it a flexible module that you can plunk down at any dramatically appropriate time: They teleport into Nulb and find the young lady being harassed; or hear her cries as they're flying over; etc.

And I'll admit that this isn't easy: Part of the appeal of the dungeon crawl adventure structure is that you don't have to think too hard about how to get the players into Room 15. You can just force them to follow the hallways and -- bam! -- there's Room 15. But I think you'll find your adventures becoming more interesting in general if you don't rely on railroading or define every railroad-avoidance technique in the game as a "problem".

(2) On a tactical level, if the PCs ever figure out a combat tactic that you can't figure out how to counter, there's always a simple solution: Have NPCs use the same tactics on them. Either the players will show you exactly how to counter it, or they'll realize it's not particularly fun for any of you and agree that it should be removed.

 

[Garthanos]

i think the issue is that flying doesnt fit the 4e rules very well (where everything is assumed to be on a flattish, battlemat)

Nyeh... its pure genre crash to have cheap flying... A War Wing drake at level 4 in 4e or a Hypogriff ... the mounts are there and as available as the DM wants them. Its just pure genre issues.

I can have flying brooms for my witches that require a mounted combat feat to fight off of... works great.

 

[Dausuul]

So the problem that keeps coming up is with the metagame, having to customize the game to challenge the PCs?

Not exactly. The problem, metagame-wise, is that certain abilities rule out whole categories of challenges and thus eliminate a big chunk of the DM's adventure design toolkit. The question is, is it worth making that sacrifice so the players can have access to cheap-and-easy flight magic? That will depend on how badly the players want that type of magic, how much fun it adds to the game, how much the DM relies on the tools that will be eliminated, and how much fun it will be for the DM to work without said tools.

And as others have said, genre and theme also come into it. The ability to fly at will is quite rare among fantasy protagonists, and clashes badly with the lower-powered sword-and-sorcery style that many ENWorlders (including me) favor.