This would be as good a time as ever for WotC to give Dragonborn and PP that gives them wings, dontcha think?
Might also be a sort of racial destiny thing.
Dragonborn champ gets wings, why can't we get wings?!? We were promised wings!
Were we?
What would the wings do? So now dragonborn get two encounter powers or get to fly when no other race has this abilitiy yet?
I am not a subscriber but I have been told that one of the epic destinies in the last dragon magazine grants flight (although I don't know the name nor the exact terms of the flight)
What would the wings do? So now dragonborn get two encounter powers or get to fly when no other race has this abilitiy yet?
*whistles while pointing at Windsoul Genasi* :P
I am not a subscriber but I have been told that one of the epic destinies in the last dragon magazine grants flight (although I don't know the name nor the exact terms of the flight)
Yeah...by epic level the ability to fly or travel to other planes at will isn't so rare lol
*whistles while pointing at Windsoul Genasi* :P
But that is he one and only encounter power. Dragonborn already have a power. So if the option is to get flight like a genasi would they have to give up their breath weapon? Plus I meant flight as a speed.
@ Mirtek. The poster above me is right. At epic it is no biggie, but flight at lowe tiers may cause a bit of a problem.
But that is he one and only encounter power. Dragonborn already have a power. So if the option is to get flight like a genasi would they have to give up their breath weapon? Plus I meant flight as a speed.
@ Mirtek. The poster above me is right. At epic it is no biggie, but flight at lowe tiers may cause a bit of a problem.
Well I thought the discussion was directed towards a Dragonborn getting wings from a PP. As such I would imagine using them would be the PP utility power. Having flight as an encounter power is something that is already done at heroic tier, so having it at paragon tier would certainly work.
Clumsy flights imposes a -4 penalty to attack people! Come on!
@ Mirtek. The poster above me is right. At epic it is no biggie, but flight at lowe tiers may cause a bit of a problem.
Flight can be a problem, but there are ways to mitigate it, even unlimited flight. The easiest way to grant unlimited flight to PCs and maintain an amount of balance is to give them either clumsy flight and/or flight with an altitude limit.
Clumsy flight imposes a -4 penalty to attack and defense while flying. This makes it a useful way of getting up to a ledge or over a pit, but makes continuous flight largely a poor tactic during combat.
A limited altitude can restrict a PCs ability to use flight as a means of negating melee. With an altitude limit of 4 squares the PC has interesting tactical options, but is still a viable melee target to most larger or bigger creatures.
Even unlimited and fully unrestricted flight is not as broken as most people make it out to be. It just requires different kinds of encounters (involving flying enemies) and different kinds of obstacles (ones that don't involve jumping or climbing). Though as such changes must be made entirely dependent on the presence of a PC with flight it is more than understandable that WotC keep official means of low level flight limited. Still, given the level at which most magic items that grant flight become available, a paragon path that grants some form of flight as its level 16 ability does not seem entirely unreasonable.
It's really, really sad that people have been convinced that flight is sceeery and epic, and yet, it's totally okay that by early Paragon, eladrin can get enough items to make them Nightcrawler.
Clumsy flights imposes a -4 penalty to attack people! Come on!
First off, Flight is a daily wizard utility power.
Secondly, flying is really, really powerful, far more so than teleportation.
The ability to fly gives you infinite AC versus foes without ranged attacks who cannot themselves fly, simple as that. Once you have characters who can fly at-will, you can simply say "Rip out every epic monster from the MM who cannot fly, because they're worthless." It also means you cannot fight, say, an epic swordsman who cannot fly, because you can simply kill them effortlessly.
This is what people fail to understand about flying. It has to be heavily restricted, otherwise it is incredibly broken or you cannot use nonflying foes in places where flying is possible (though if the ceiling is low enough, some artillery/ranged nonfliers may be usable). The tarrasque has an incredibly contrived ability for this very reason.
Flight destroys terrain, by and large, and prevents people from fighting foes that they really would like to fight. People like fighting huge golems and the tarrasque and similar non-flying things, but if you can fly, you really can't fight them because they're completely trivial encounters.
Flying also hurts fighters, whose covered space drops dramatically. When you're in a 10 square by 10 square room, a fighter occupies 9% of it. If you're in a 10x10x10 square room, however, the fighter occupies a mere 2.7% of it. A 20x20 room, a fighter controls 2.25%, but a 20x20x20 room he controls 0.3375%. The same applies to all close burst effects, and it particularly hurts close burst 1 effects as it enables twice as many monsters to surround you without exposing themselves to it - only 4 monsters with reach 2 can attack you on the ground that way (and it is difficult to set yourself up that way), but in the air up to 8 can, and because characters control much less space, getting four in is much easier (as you can indeed do it on only one plane, the forward plane, whereas previously you had to actually move around the fighter and get around behind him to do so).
Flying also hurts the acrobatics and athletics skills.
Flight only becomes a problem if you've got a DM that can't build encounters and hasn't read the DMG. Not only hasn't read the DMG, but hasn't heard of these things we've got these days called 'rooms' or 'trees' or 'Dungeons'. All his encounters hpapen in wide open fields with a few uncreative terrain tiles.
Also, Fly 8 (not clumsy) is a wizard daily utility. There's plenty of room for lower maneuverability and slower speed.
And if you're going to try and say flying hurts fighters, how come monsters get to fly when most fighters we know are PC?
At epic level even more graceful flight should be avaible.
Um...if you want your Dragonborn Character to have wings, do what has always been the case with every edition of D&D...ask your DM. If he doesn't want to give you the ability to fly thats fine, just have him/her give them to you for cosmetics. Easy fix.
yes, it could be very easily written into the Dragonborn's background that their wings were severely injured in battle or something like that, so they can no longer fly. This would work for winged tieflings too.
How?
...He just told you. In the very post you just quoted.
How?
Because it ignores how the game and specifically encounter design works.
First, it expects everyone in the party to be flying. This is the only situation where terrain and skills could even possibly be obviated as the entire party needs to deal with these things, so it doesn't matter if one or two of the party fly; someone is still dealing. Further, it ignores the DMG's discussion on aerial terrain and other usages for Acrobatic and Athletics.
Second, it conveniently forgets that the game already notes 3d. Bursts and blasts effects the squares above and below them as well. The fighters in question can still nail a flier in the squares above him.
Which brings me to encounter design. For flight to be a problem and to get the 'infinite AC' thing, you need the encounter to happen on a featureless plain with the only terrain on the 2d 'ground'. It ignores the DMG's recommendation for aerial terrain and it ignores things like... rooms. How many rooms do you know of that are 15' tall? Granted, you could spend all your time in titan sized places, but I doubt it.
And let's not forget, there's a bunch of character classes that don't even have ranged powers, creating a need to close with the enemy anyway.
Given that you can obtain a griffon mount by app. lvl 9 flying in paragon/epic isn't introducing something entirely new anyway
Knocking people off flying mounts is great fun. :P
...He just told you. In the very post you just quoted.
Yeah, I was preparing a longer response but then decided I wasn't going to bother but then accidentally hit the post button anyways apparently.
I still disagree. I'm just not getting into this is all...
Besides, a Dragonborn with wings shows up in the Monster Manual, and there were early 4E previews that stated that Dragonborn would eventually get the ability to fly. They are supposed to have wings at some point.
If they give this as a paragon path, I'm so going to make a female Dragonborn named Tampaxia - Now with wings!
Doubtless, a Bravaura warlord partial to her fire Breath Weapon?
Knocking people off flying mounts is great fun. :P
As TD is (among other things) complaining about ground-bound foes who can't reach the flyers it shouldn't be a problem.
It is the most common use, but WotC tested other uses.
Here's a list of things I've seen in roughly the order of power.
- Bonus to jump and balance checks.
- Negate falling damage.
- Controlled descent.
- Glide speed.
- Limited flight.
- Full flight.
The ability to fly the number of rounds equal to your Constitution modifier (or a set number per tier) between each rest along with a glide speed could prove interesting without being overpowered.
So... Racial Paragon Paths are going to be in the PHBII.
This would be as good a time as ever for WotC to give Dragonborn and PP that gives them wings, dontcha think?
Better solution racial power feat based on the heritage bloodline feats from Dragon Magazine.. basically you'd be rewording it as something evolved or whatever have you and simply write up Dragon Wings as a racial feat utility power of 10th level or higher, you'd swap said class based utility power or one of a higher level and use the feat granted power instead.
Wings ≠ Flight
In a kind and just world, it would be.
I think its just too much trouble for more munchkinin'
In a kind and just world, it would be.
Thus proving the world isn't kind or just... Just ask the ostrich! :D
Again, there are many items which allow for constant or near constant flight in the PHB and AV. There are boots which allow for unlimited teleportation at your speed, and these are far more problematic than flight.
each of my concepted characters tend to carry 3 weapons( sometimes more).
a primary weapon
a back up weapon
a ranged weapon.
so facing off with a flying pc or npc wouldnt be much a problem.
neither would be able to hit the target, but not much a problem.
You know why I wouldn't want flying PC? Flight is a PAIN IN THE BEHIND to manage during an encounter. I did an encounter with two flaing skull and that was annoying enough to DM...throw in someone who can do that every encounter? Seesh.
I think its just too much trouble for more munchkinin'
....But there is already a race that can fly every encounter and that gets a paragon path allowing them greater control of flight(even allowing other PCs to benefit from it).
One move action every five minutes is not even remotely the same as being able to hover out of reach of 75% of the MM. Sorry, I'm with Titanium Dragon (sort of). I'd be okay with using the PP Utility to give flight at-will as a Standard action. I just understand the reasons why PC unlimited flight prior to Paragon is an utterly stupid idea.
Exactly. Its also far less of a hassle if it forces the player to land at the end of the move. Not need to pull out the 3D chess set --
The Tiefling Hellborn Shadow, a Tiefling Ranger paragon path, has a utility that allows it to fly its speed and then land. They also gain concealment at the end of that movement.
I would have no problem with that kind of power on a Dragonborn Champion Paragon path. After all its really just a special move.
The problem comes when the PC can sustain that flight.
Aside from me not having any particular problem with flight, why the hell would a dragonborn spontaneously grow wings? They're not dragons. They're not dragon wannabes or dragon imitations. They're the D&D equivalent of Klingons. Warriors, not "LOLICANFLY."
I don't think they would sponteneously grow them... they would just become strong enough to provide flight by the time you reach Paragon level (or Epic level) :p
If they give this as a paragon path, I'm so going to make a female Dragonborn named Tampaxia - Now with wings!
Doubtless, a Bravaura warlord partial to her fire Breath Weapon?
I would make her a defender, it's better at ABSORBING damage...
(I couldn't help it)
You'd totally have a point if fly x (hover) was even on the table.
Hover was a shorthand, dude. Try not being disingenuous in the future.
Flight only becomes a problem if you've got a DM that can't build encounters and hasn't read the DMG. Not only hasn't read the DMG, but hasn't heard of these things we've got these days called 'rooms' or 'trees' or 'Dungeons'. All his encounters hpapen in wide open fields with a few uncreative terrain tiles.
If the dungeon is sufficiently short that flying doesn't do anything, then you aren't really capable of flying. It is important to understand this. If flying is useless, then you cannot fly, even if you technically have a form of movement called flying.
Every good DM knows this. If you give something to someone, and then make it so it doesn't matter, then you haven't given it to them at all. It is far better not to pretend to give players something you cannot give them.
And if you're going to try and say flying hurts fighters, how come monsters get to fly when most fighters we know are PC?
Because monsters are capable of doing things PCs are not, because monsters are not PCs.
All NPCs must be able to fight all PCs. Not all NPCs must be able to fight all NPCs.
That's the fundamental difference.
What is fair in the hands of a PC is not necessarily fair in the hands of an NPC, and vice-versa.
Just ignore TD as far as this topic is concerned. He irrationally hates flying so he won't listen anyway.
I do not irrationally hate flying. I understand flying on a level many people do not.
You simply cannot use nonflying foes if players can fly at will.
This is why flight must be heavily controlled.
First, it expects everyone in the party to be flying. This is the only situation where terrain and skills could even possibly be obviated as the entire party needs to deal with these things, so it doesn't matter if one or two of the party fly; someone is still dealing. Further, it ignores the DMG's discussion on aerial terrain and other usages for Acrobatic and Athletics.
You don't understand.
Say there are some orcs over the next hill, and most of the party cannot fly, but one character can fly at will. What should the party do?
The correct course of action is for the flying guy to fly over the hill and slaughter the monsters, with the monsters having no chance to attack back. The rest of the party does nothing.
Anytime this is the correct course of action, you have a major problem.
Second, it conveniently forgets that the game already notes 3d. Bursts and blasts effects the squares above and below them as well. The fighters in question can still nail a flier in the squares above him.
You did not read my post, you did not understand my post.
2.7% vs 9%. About 2% vs much less than 1%.
These are not inconsiderable differences in space covered.
Area -> volume causes things to go from square to cube, and cubes progress much more rapidly than squares. A 3x3 square is over a third of the area of a 5x5 square; a 3x3x3 cube is barely more than a fifth of a 5x5x5 cube.
Which brings me to encounter design. For flight to be a problem and to get the 'infinite AC' thing, you need the encounter to happen on a featureless plain with the only terrain on the 2d 'ground'. It ignores the DMG's recommendation for aerial terrain and it ignores things like... rooms. How many rooms do you know of that are 15' tall? Granted, you could spend all your time in titan sized places, but I doubt it.
No.
A 15' tall room says "PCs cannot fly".
If your solution is "Don't let the PCs fly", and let's be honest, that IS your solution, then you've just shown why you're wrong.
This is the reality of the situation.
I understand this. You do not understand this.
If you cannot allow PCs to fly, then don't pretend to give them flight. Its that simple.
All you do is set a trap for DMs who do not know you cannot allow them to fight outside anymore against foes who cannot fly. All you do is frustrate players constantly when they cannot fly all the time, because it is necessary for the game to function.
I don't use codewords. I use reality.
If by flight you mean "Never allow the players to use it", then you don't mean flight at all. You mean screwing DMs who don't understand what flight means for combat, and screwing players who don't understand what you mean and think they're actually meant to fly.
Don't give players something you cannot allow them to use.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Clumsy flight applies a -4 penalty to attacks and defenses, a larger penalty than the flying carpet has. I suggested earlier giving any flying race a clumsy fly speed and then encounter options for limited, non-clumsy, flight. I didn't receive any comments directly on it, so I'd like to bring it to the forefront.
As for "spontaneously growing wings" to whoever it was that asked, the Dragonborn Champion in the MM got its wings from somewhere. This was a worry of mine when the designers stated that 4E was going to use unique humanoid monsters rather than following the same rules players do. Because of that, we have a winged dragonborn, and two of my players (plus me makes three) have been discussing either making it a feat or a paragon path. Hopefully WotC has done it for us.
... and a serpentine tail!
In real-life archetypes, the flavor of a dragon tail is always like a snake, deriving from earlier concepts of a sea-serpent.
Brainstorming. Perhaps, the option to sprout a tail can grant a swim speed, like an aquatic snake? Andor, perhaps this counter-balancing tail could improve speed while moving empty-handed on all fours like a lizard? The dragon tail is virtually never prehensile (thus distinct from the D&D Tiefling tail which can be prehensile). There are dragon archetypes that use the tail to strangulate prey, deriving from stories about the python.
TD, I honestly mean this to foster discussion. What do you think of the flying carpet magic item, a 20th level wondrous item that effectively gives a character a fly speed of 6 but comes along with a -2 AC and Reflex penalty?
It also has a ceiling on its flight height, which is important to consider because it limits some of the shenanigans you can do with flight. If you can fly only 10 squares in altitude, it means that ground-based artillery monsters can hit you. It also (probably) means that a huge or gargantuan creature can jump and hit you. Its also worth noting that if you fight someone who flies, they could potentially get on the carpet with you and cause you to fall for 5d10 damage, and could bull rush you off the carpet for the same.
The carpet is not the best of ideas, but they tried to make it balanced by giving it major limitations which prevent it from being as abusive. The flight ceiling limit is a very important one, and limits its abuse (though it is still potentially abusive against many creatures, namely medium and large ground-based monsters without ranged attacks; it simply no longer is abusive against artillery).
Clumsy flight applies a -4 penalty to attacks and defenses, a larger penalty than the flying carpet has. I suggested earlier giving any flying race a clumsy fly speed and then encounter options for limited, non-clumsy, flight. I didn't receive any comments directly on it, so I'd like to bring it to the forefront.
See above.
As for "spontaneously growing wings" to whoever it was that asked, the Dragonborn Champion in the MM got its wings from somewhere. This was a worry of mine when the designers stated that 4E was going to use unique humanoid monsters rather than following the same rules players do. Because of that, we have a winged dragonborn, and two of my players (plus me makes three) have been discussing either making it a feat or a paragon path. Hopefully WotC has done it for us.
Uh, worry?
I'm sorry, I think you missed something. I'm going to tell you this point blank:
NPCs are not built with the same rules as PCs, and this is entirely intentional. PCs will not be able to do everything NPCs can do. This was an explicit, and stated, design decision.
There's nothing wrong with monsters being able to do things PCs cannot do, and the idea that there is something wrong with it is grounded in lack of understanding of game design. It was one of the major issues of 3.x that PCs could do everything monsters could do, because it meant monsters couldn't do cool things which were fun to fight against, but which are horrendously broken if players have access to them.
If the dungeon is sufficiently short that flying doesn't do anything, then you aren't really capable of flying. It is important to understand this. If flying is useless, then you cannot fly, even if you technically have a form of movement called flying.
Every good DM knows this. If you give something to someone, and then make it so it doesn't matter, then you haven't given it to them at all. It is far better not to pretend to give players something you cannot give them.
This line of thought only works if the only benefit of flying is the 'infinite AC' you keep talking about. Except it's not. Never has been.
Flying gives you more movement options regardless of how 'tall' the room you're in is. While completely surrounded, or hemmed in by 2-d blocking terrain, the flying PC can got 'up' where a non-flier can't, for example.
Because monsters are capable of doing things PCs are not, because monsters are not PCs.
This does not explain why it is 'fair' to the fighter to have a monster that the fighter 'can't fight'. Unless of course, the encounter is designed so the fighter can fight him, which is the assumption and advice given in the DMG. Again, as I said, the problem here with flying is not reading the DMG
All NPCs must be able to fight all PCs. Not all NPCs must be able to fight all NPCs.
So... no sharks or mermen, right? They can't get to PCs with things like boats or... continents.
I do not irrationally hate flying.
Yeah, you kinda do.
I understand flying on a level many people do not.
And apparently me and the guy that wrote the flying section of the DMG understand it on a level above yours.
You simply cannot use nonflying foes if players can fly at will.
This is why flight must be heavily controlled.
You better tell the guy who wrote the DMG. And the one that listed hippogriff prices in the AV.
You don't understand.
Oh, but I think I do.
Say there are some orcs over the next hill, and most of the party cannot fly, but one character can fly at will. What should the party do?
The correct course of action is for the flying guy to fly over the hill and slaughter the monsters, with the monsters having no chance to attack back. The rest of the party does nothing.
Anytime this is the correct course of action, you have a major problem.
One day, Fey Talon clan learn 'rock' technology, and get good enough at defenses so not hit so easy at -4 to attack.
This, of course, is an example of blind monkey encounter design. Why are the orcs over there? Why are none of them smart enough to pick up a rock or to have mastered a bow?
You don't even need a flier to defeat such a stupidly designed encounter. You can use a tree. Therefore, Athletics checks should be tightly controlled.
You did not read my post, you did not understand my post.
My eyes glazed over when you started rambling on with booring numb---
2.7% vs 9%. About 2% vs much less than 1%.
These are not inconsiderable differences in space covered.
ZZZZZZZ -- wha? Sorry, you were saying something?
Area -> volume causes things to go from square to cube, and cubes progress much more rapidly than squares. A 3x3 square is over a third of the area of a 5x5 square; a 3x3x3 cube is barely more than a fifth of a 5x5x5 cube.
This doesn't actually matter to the fact that you still 'defend' the same space in 3d. And unless the DM is using poor encounter design, you'll still be effective.
A 15' tall room says "PCs cannot fly".
I'm confused as to what those two extra squares of vertical movement mean.
If your solution is "Don't let the PCs fly", and let's be honest, that IS your solution, then you've just shown why you're wrong.
Let's be honest, that's not my solution and you know it. The PCs are clearly capable of flight anywhere with a clearance of more than 5'. That's, you know, kind of what the whole 'flying' thing means.
This is the reality of the situation.
I understand this. You do not understand this.
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So basically, my solution, which is the DMG's solution, is wrong and some guy on the internet's solution, who hates flight so very, very much has come up with some bad encounters and insists that flight can only occur within them.
Sure, okay.
If you cannot allow PCs to fly, then don't pretend to give them flight. Its that simple.
Except they're totally flying. You're telling me that moving around on wings, skimming the ceiling isn't flying?
All you do is set a trap for DMs who do not know you cannot allow them to fight outside anymore against foes who cannot fly. All you do is frustrate players constantly when they cannot fly all the time, because it is necessary for the game to function.
Nope, I bring hope to DMs who can build encounters and fear to those who cannot. I'm Flight's Batman.
I don't use codewords. I use reality.
Or the dime store version. One what 'flying' doens't mean 'flying'.
There are so many different ways to nerf flight to ensure gaming balance (running hop, downward glide, slow speed, poor maneuverability, etc.).
I ran through the options when working on the two flying races in my campaign. to name a few:
- weight limit
- clumsy flight
- overland flight
- sustain standard
- treated as large and cannot squeeze (due to wings)
- susceptibility to pushes/auto crash on push
Vaal: I ran through options [for nerfing] when working on the two flying races.
Also, it would seem easy to disable wings by dealing normal damage - thus preventing takeoff or forcing a crashlanding, until wingwounds fully heal.
Simplest default mechanic: 'bloodied' means wings are disabled.
Simplest default mechanic: 'bloodied' means wings are disabled.
Ding.
This line of thought only works if the only benefit of flying is the 'infinite AC' you keep talking about. Except it's not. Never has been.
It isn't the only benefit. It is the largest, and the most significant, as far as game balance goes.
I might add that the other benefits are largely bad things - terrain is a good thing, and fliers ignore most of it.
This does not explain why it is 'fair' to the fighter to have a monster that the fighter 'can't fight'. Unless of course, the encounter is designed so the fighter can fight him, which is the assumption and advice given in the DMG. Again, as I said, the problem here with flying is not reading the DMG
The fighter can indeed fight a flier. Its called "knocking prone".
So... no sharks or mermen, right? They can't get to PCs with things like boats or... continents.
I'm moderately certain neither are in the MM.
And you can indeed fight them, but fighting them typically will take place in the ocean.
Yeah, you kinda do.
No. My stance is, in fact, rational, and yours, well, isn't.
And apparently me and the guy that wrote the flying section of the DMG understand it on a level above yours.
Actually, he didn't mention the problems with flying at all.
Oh, but I think I do.
Of course you do. That's the problem.
You better tell the guy who wrote the DMG. And the one that listed hippogriff prices in the AV.
I believe I have.
This, of course, is an example of blind monkey encounter design. Why are the orcs over there? Why are none of them smart enough to pick up a rock or to have mastered a bow?
This is, of course, an example of "what a DM who is like you would do".
It doesn't have to be orcs.
What about the tarrasque? Did you read its aura?
Do you understand why it has it?
No. Clearly not.
You don't even need a flier to defeat such a stupidly designed encounter. You can use a tree. Therefore, Athletics checks should be tightly controlled.
No. Orcs can climb and, perhaps more to the point, they don't have to go near the tree.
This doesn't actually matter to the fact that you still 'defend' the same space in 3d. And unless the DM is using poor encounter design, you'll still be effective.
Wrong. It actually matters a great deal.
The larger the battlefield, the more maneuverability people have. The more maneuverability, the weaker the fighter becomes.
Too much maneuverability and the fighter has a hard time doing anything really useful other than latching onto one monster.
I'm confused as to what those two extra squares of vertical movement mean.
That terrain doesn't matter.
Let's be honest, that's not my solution and you know it. The PCs are clearly capable of flight anywhere with a clearance of more than 5'. That's, you know, kind of what the whole 'flying' thing means.
They aren't flying. They're ignoring pressure-sensitive traps and they're ignoring ground-based terrain.
So basically, my solution, which is the DMG's solution, is wrong and some guy on the internet's solution, who hates flight so very, very much has come up with some bad encounters and insists that flight can only occur within them.
You don't have a solution. Putting the PCs in a 15' room is not a solution, it is removing their ability to use flight meaningfully.
Except they're totally flying. You're telling me that moving around on wings, skimming the ceiling isn't flying?
Is it meaningful?
Hmmm, Vaal makes a good point: aerial combat is mechanically the same as underwater combat.
Its not the same for one crucial reason:
Anyone in an underwater combat can swim. Not everyone in an aerial combat can necessarily fly.
This is the fundamental problem, and why Vaalingrade Ashland does not understand what flying means.
Once you have unlimited flight, all monsters must be able to fly, or all rooms must be no taller than the monster's reach, thus completely negating flying as a means of doing anything but standing on someone else's shoulders and negating a lot of terrain, neither of which are particularly "good" things.
I ran through the options when working on the two flying races in my campaign. to name a few:
- weight limit
- clumsy flight
- overland flight
- sustain standard
- treated as large and cannot squeeze (due to wings)
- susceptibility to pushes/auto crash on push
Dragon Flight Utility 12
You soar on your wings like the dragon ansestors
At-Will Move Action
Effect: You fly upto your movement rate and remain in the air until the end of your next round
Sustain Standard: If you move atleast 1/2 your movement you may remain in the air until the end of your Next turn.
Dragon Flight Utility 12
You soar on your wings like the dragon ansestors
At-Will Move Action
Effect: You fly upto your movement rate and remain in the air until the end of your next round
Sustain Standard: If you move atleast 1/2 your movement you may remain in the air until the end of your Next turn.
Better wording on the bold part would be:
Sustain Standard: Move up to your speed. If you do not move at least half your speed, you crash.
Better wording on the bold part would be:
Sustain Standard: Move up to your speed. If you do not move at least half your speed, you crash.
that is what was ment...but you worded it better....then agian the benfit of house rules is I can explain the intent when people go crazy...
for the record the intent is to duplicate overland flight and a tactcal flight (Like the air genissi) in one power
that is what was ment...but you worded it better....then agian the benfit of house rules is I can explain the intent when people go crazy...
It's what these boards are for, my man!
for the record the intent is to duplicate overland flight and a tactcal flight (Like the air genissi) in one power
I used that for one of my races. The reason I didn't keep it though was I gave them overland flight to start. This is perfect for non-fliers who suddenly become fliers.
Word of warning though: base speed can be very fast. Should make it 6 squares flat.
Once you have unlimited flight, all monsters must be able to fly, or all rooms must be no taller than the monster's reach, thus completely negating flying as a means of doing anything but standing on someone else's shoulders and negating a lot of terrain, neither of which are particularly "good" things.
This isn't true at all.
It would be much better to say "once a character has flight, then in most battles the DM should have at least one or two monsters that can attack a flying creature, or some terrain that interferes in flight." Having the PCs run into an enemy group with a few ranged attackers or flying monsters in the mix is more than enough even in an completely open battlefield (and with a flier among the PCs, it would just make things more interesting). I really don't think this is unreasonable at all.
Under no circumstances do I think the "lone flier defeats every enemy single-handedly" is a valid situation. There is always a way for an enemy group to deal with a flying foe, even if that option is to run away and attack again when more advantageous circumstances present themselves. This is particularly true since PCs don't have any guarantees of having greater range then their foes. If the flying PC is a melee-oriented character (and many would be), then the "infinite AC problem" doesn't even emerge as a possibility. There are other factors that mitigate that "problem" too, such as 4E's heavy reliance on formation and tactical positioning.
Flight certainly does transform the game a bit, but it is the kind of thing that adds more to the game than it takes away. Trying to deny all of that potential simply because a single scenario (a battle between flying, ranged PCs against a group of nothing but melee-oriented foes in completely open terrain) seems foolish to me.
Under no circumstances do I think the "lone flier defeats every enemy single-handedly" is a valid situation. There is always a way for an enemy group to deal with a flying foe, even if that option is to run away and attack again when more advantageous circumstances present themselves. This is particularly true since PCs don't have any guarantees of having greater range then their foes. If the flying PC is a melee-oriented character (and many would be), then the "infinite AC problem" doesn't even emerge as a possibility. There are other factors that mitigate that "problem" too, such as 4E's heavy reliance on formation and tactical positioning.
Clerics are really the only ones who can't attack, and some swordmages. To not have a ranged attack, you must:
Not have good strength
Not have good dexterity
Not have inherent class ranged attacks with range > 5
Anyone with strength or dexterity has a range of at least 20 (javelins) or 30 (crossbows). Clerics probably have to fly too close to the ground to use their at-wills.
It would be much better to say "once a character has flight, then in most battles the DM should have at least one or two monsters that can attack a flying creature, or some terrain that interferes in flight." Having the PCs run into an enemy group with a few ranged attackers or flying monsters in the mix is more than enough even in an completely open battlefield (and with a flier among the PCs, it would just make things more interesting). I really don't think this is unreasonable at all.
Thing is, what happens once they kill the ones who can attack the fliers?
The rest are helpless.
I'm moderately certain neither are in the MM.
Right, but sahuagin are, and both sharks (SRD) and (judging from the art) merpeople are in the MMII.
Simplest default mechanic: 'bloodied' means wings are disabled.
Wow, that's an awesome idea. I'll have to use it.
Right, but sahuagin are, and both sharks (SRD) and (judging from the art) merpeople are in the MMII.
It doesn't surprise me.
Incidentally, Sahuagin can walk, which makes Sahuagin vs ship combat pretty workable even if you include the water.
Of course, I made an encounter with a sea serpent as well who has a long enough neck he can reach half the deck, and can swim back and forth underneath (or surge over the deck) so he can reach the other half the next round. I don't know how it will go, but it seems like it should be interesting.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Clerics are really the only ones who can't attack, and some swordmages. To not have a ranged attack, you must:
Not have good strength
Not have good dexterity
Not have inherent class ranged attacks with range > 5
Anyone with strength or dexterity has a range of at least 20 (javelins) or 30 (crossbows). Clerics probably have to fly too close to the ground to use their at-wills.
That isn't enough. You are talking about fighting with nothing but unoptimized basic attacks for the majority of classes. That doesn't cut it in 4E combat. I mean, under such limitations it isn't even really possible to use a Rogue's Sneak Attack, because it is almost impossible to gain the benefits of stealth or flanking, and it would be almost impossible to inflict special conditions like prone or dazed under such circumstances. Classes are simply not built to fight this way.
Thing is, what happens once they kill the ones who can attack the fliers?
The rest are helpless.
I think you are continuing to make a flawed assumption that every PC is flying. That was not part of the assumptions I stated in what you are responding to. If there is a mix on both sides, then everyone has someone to fight. If the party kills the ones who pose a threat to the PC fliers, then the ones who can't attack the fliers can still deal damage to the grounded PCs.
Seriously, if your complaint about flying is that a dedicated team of nothing but skilled ranged combat classes like the Ranger and Warlock who happen to all have flight would be invincible against a team of nothing but grounded melee monsters so long as they fight in completely open and featureless terrain, then you are simply arguing a corner case. For any situation short of that one flying has drawbacks and balancing elements that prevent it from being guaranteed "infinite AC". And honestly, giving Dragonborn the ability to grow wings doesn't even add that situation to the game, since Hippogriff mounts already make your nightmare scenario possible. But, as I just mentioned, it is a corner case, so I see no problem with it.
That isn't enough. You are talking about fighting with nothing but unoptimized basic attacks for the majority of classes. That doesn't cut it in 4E combat. I mean, under such limitations it isn't even really possible to use a Rogue's Sneak Attack, because it is almost impossible to gain the benefits of stealth or flanking, and it would be almost impossible to inflict special conditions like prone or dazed under such circumstances. Classes are simply not built to fight this way.
If you cannot be attacked, it doesn't matter how you kill them; you cannot lose.
I think you are continuing to make a flawed assumption that every PC is flying. That was not part of the assumptions I stated in what you are responding to. If there is a mix on both sides, then everyone has someone to fight. If the party kills the ones who pose a threat to the PC fliers, then the ones who can't attack the fliers can still deal damage to the grounded PCs.
Its not, though.
Once I've killed the anti-fliers, the party runs away save the flier. The rest of the monsters have no ability to attack the flier, so are doomed. That's the correct thing to do. Its the optimal thing to do.
You don't think it will happen? It will. And it will be frustrating.
It doesn't work.
Once I've killed the anti-fliers, the party runs away save the flier. The rest of the monsters have no ability to attack the flier, so are doomed. That's the correct thing to do. Its the optimal thing to do.
And why aren't the grounded enemies giving pursuit to the grounded PCs. Presuming those PC were engaged in melee they would need to shift then walk or run away. Neither option is likely to put them out of range of walk+charge by the enemy. If the grounded PC double move then they'll provoke an opportunity attack and likely still be in range of move+charge (or at least a double run) so they'll still likely take an attack every round until there flying friend finishes off the pursuing enemies. Oh, and since the battle is constantly moving the flying ally will have to be able to keep pace, unless the grounded PCs simply intend to run in circles.
Furthermore, why don't the grounded enemies have ranged attacks with which to deal with the flying PC?
Furthermore, why don't the grounded enemies have ranged attacks with which to deal with the flying PC?
Because not all enemies do.
You're saying players should not be able to fight the tarrasque, or ankheg, or bulettes, or sorrowsworn (or whatever they're called), or golems, or... the list goes onwards. Mummies, swordsmen, animals, swarms, the list goes on. There are many enemies which may well lack ranged attacks.
Because not all enemies do.
You're saying players should not be able to fight the tarrasque, or ankheg, or bulettes, or sorrowsworn (or whatever they're called), or golems, or... the list goes onwards. Mummies, swordsmen, animals, swarms, the list goes on. There are many enemies which may well lack ranged attacks.
If the PCs choose tactics that make fighting certain kind of enemies impossible then they have no one to blame but themselves. It's really no different then any other abusable mechanic. A group of PCs that loads up on fire based attacks should not be surprised when the DM no longer includes many ice based monsters. The DM is expected to craft a game that is challenging to his players based on heir preferred tactics.
The DM should give them a chance to shine, to make their choices mater, but at the same time it's okay to force them to fight in less then ideal conditions. High wind conditions might impair fly speed (imposing the slowed condition or worse) or even require athletics checks to remain airborne. If knocking a flier prone works for PCs then it can work for monsters to. A couple enemies with ranged attacks that knock the flying PC to the ground can remind said PC that gravity is a harsh an vengeful mistress and provide the opportunity for other enemies to pounce on the PC and grab them before they take to the sky again. Even a low dungeon ceiling isn't removing flight, or at least know more than the cramped confines of a dungeon limit any character that relies on ranged attacks and/or mobility.
If the PCs choose tactics that make fighting certain kind of enemies impossible then they have no one to blame but themselves. It's really no different then any other abusable mechanic. The DM is expected to craft a game that is challenging to his players based on heir preferred tactics.
Bzzzt.
Its not the PC's "fault" the system is broken. It isn't the DM's job to balance the game. Its the game designer's fault they included something abusive.
So given that you're the one who is saying it'd be good to include at-will flight, it is YOUR fault that those players are unable to have fun fighting what they want to fight.
It is at your feet. Not the DM's, not the PC's. Yours. You are the one who made those people unhappy.
Its not the PC's "fault" the system is broken.
But it is if the PCs capitalize on it.
It isn't the DM's job to balance the game. Its the game designer's fault they included something abusive.
God forbid game designers aren't able to find every damn little thing that could be abused.
If the game had to be 100% perfect so that no one could abuse anything ever I bet we would not have even had 1st edition D&D.Its not the PC's "fault" the system is broken. It isn't the DM's job to balance the game. Its the game designer's fault they included something abusive.
So because the pyro wizard and a tielfing with a flaming weapon make all creatures vulnerable to fire into pushovers, the game designers are at fault when the DM decides not to include any more ice themed dungeons in his campaign?
And don't you dare try and bring up the existence of fire resistant monsters. That's know different then low ceiling indoor environments are to fliers.
Seriously. There will always be abusive strategies and DMs will always have to adapt their adventures to compensate.
The issue here, I think, is that TD believes that the reason people *want* flight is so they can be abusive jerk players. I, as a player and a DM, want flight because I find 3D combat to be a lot of fun and have gotten a taste for it playing HERO.
Speaking of HERO, a little story about fliers vs ground pounders, if I may:
Show
I was the only groudpounder in our longest running HERO game and the DM was a smart guy that knew how to mix up encounters so everyone got to shine and have fun, or be challenged.
This meant, occasionally, I would be in the position of those orcs or we'd be against all ground based enemies. Let me tell you now: 'Infinite AC' means crap.
Flying guys got you down? Unless you're on a featureless plain, there *will* be things to throw at him and he *will* be taking penalties to attack you. Grab something to get some cover and he's about as useless as soap in a nerd factory.
And if you do have some varied terrain, pull him into the trees, lasso him with something (combat tentacles help, obviously...), or taunt him and got to ground in the sewer. The point is, there's very few situations (one where you're in a featureless plane with an enemy being hyper accurate and/or capable of physically destroying cover) that a flier in an RPG can totally skunk a groundpounder.
Plus, there's nothing more satisfying then seeing the look on his face as a manhole cover impacts it. ^_^
This meant, occasionally, I would be in the position of those orcs or we'd be against all ground based enemies. Let me tell you now: 'Infinite AC' means crap.
Flying guys got you down? Unless you're on a featureless plain, there *will* be things to throw at him and he *will* be taking penalties to attack you. Grab something to get some cover and he's about as useless as soap in a nerd factory.
And if you do have some varied terrain, pull him into the trees, lasso him with something (combat tentacles help, obviously...), or taunt him and got to ground in the sewer. The point is, there's very few situations (one where you're in a featureless plane with an enemy being hyper accurate and/or capable of physically destroying cover) that a flier in an RPG can totally skunk a groundpounder.
Plus, there's nothing more satisfying then seeing the look on his face as a manhole cover impacts it. ^_^
Its similar to adventuring to a new plane. The players will encounter new kinds of monsters that adapt well to the new environment, and wont encounter some of the old monsters that they got accustomed to in the old environment.
An aerial campaign usually has aerial encounters with aerial opponents. This is a legitimate way to play D&D.
If a party has some players who cant fly, then monsters that are Artillery, Debuffer (Controller), Teleport Jumper (Lurker), or Teleport Sender (Leader) are easy solutions to keep most encounters challenging for those who can fly.
Besides, a DM can easily require indoor or underground encounters (for example, in floatng land motes) where flight becomes less of an advantage.
By design, most Epic campaigns should be able to handle the possibility of flight.
Flying is too important of an archetype to remove from a fantasy game.
But it is if the PCs capitalize on it.
Nope. Its not the PCs' fault. Its the game designers' fault.
God forbid game designers aren't able to find every damn little thing that could be abused. If the game had to be 100% perfect so that no one could abuse anything ever I bet we would not have even had 1st edition D&D.
It doesn't have to be 100% perfect, but when you see something like this, you should know better.
Also, that's what errata is for.
And it isn't unreasonable as a customer to expect a game which isn't broken. Indeed, it is an entirely reasonable thing to want. Is Settlers of Catan broken? Is Starcraft?
So because the pyro wizard and a tielfing with a flaming weapon make all creatures vulnerable to fire into pushovers, the game designers are at fault when the DM decides not to include any more ice themed dungeons in his campaign?
Yes. Because guess what?
They shouldn't make them into pushovers. It should make them somewhat easier, but it shouldn't make them massively so, just as having a cleric or paladin in the party shouldn't make undead trivial foes.
And don't you dare try and bring up the existence of fire resistant monsters. That's know different then low ceiling indoor environments are to fliers.
Not at all. Because, guess what?
Its not the same thing at all. There's a fundamental difference between the two, in fact, and here's why:
There is no downside to flying. There is a downside to focusing on one element to the exclusion of all others - namely, that things are also resistant to elemental damage.
A lot of the things that can't use ranged attacks likewise can't climb trees. So once more, we're back to this theory making trees equally as 'terrible' as flight.
There is absolutely nothing incapable of climbing a tree.
Also, as I pointed out, there is a fundamental difference between flying and a tree - a tree confines the character in it. If the monsters don't go near the tree, the character is completely worthless unless he leaves the tree, at which point he's vulnerable.
The issue here, I think, is that TD believes that the reason people *want* flight is so they can be abusive jerk players. I, as a player and a DM, want flight because I find 3D combat to be a lot of fun and have gotten a taste for it playing HERO.
Then play HERO and quit trying to mess up other games.
And its not being "abusive jerk players". Its playing optimally. Its not wrong to play optimally, and indeed, most players play optimally as far as they know. They don't play truly optimally, but generally they don't make intentionally bad decisions.
If you can fly, and you can simply rain death down on something, why wouldn't you do so? Its incredibly obvious and not at all clever.
Punishing people for playing intelligently is the mark of a really bad DM.
The game should not allow for abuse.
Besides, a DM can easily require indoor or underground encounters (for example, in floatng land motes) where flight becomes less of an advantage.
I think you mean "where you can't really fly".
Flying is too important of an archetype to remove from a fantasy game.
Not really.
when you have the option between removing flight and removing foes who cannot fly, which is better?
I'm going to go with removing flight, because guess what? Foes who cannot fly are a lot more important as far as fantasy archetypes go.
And honestly, its not that important of a fantasy archetype. How many heros actually can fly? In how many books does the hero float around while fighting the BBEG? How about in video games, how often do characters fly in them?
Short-term, limited flight stuff is okay, but if you can fly all the time, you just ruin the REAL fantasy archetypes - perilous footing, fighting ground-based enemies, storming castles, fighting dragons (seriously, how many people who fight dragons fly?), climbing cliffs, ect.
Nope. Its not the PCs' fault. Its the game designers' fault.
Nah it's your fault for having such unrealistic expectations that any and all loopholes are closed. People will cheat or exploit. There will always be something someone will find.
It doesn't have to be 100% perfect, but when you see something like this, you should know better.
Also, that's what errata is for.
And it isn't unreasonable as a customer to expect a game which isn't broken. Indeed, it is an entirely reasonable thing to want. Is Settlers of Catan broken? Is Starcraft?
And isn't errata made by those same horrible game designers? And I thought you wanted those evil horrible game designers to get it right the first time? If they got it right the first time there would be no need for errata. It's not unreasonable but it is unrealistic to expect a game like D&D to have absolutely nothing that could be exploited ever. Don't care about Settlers of Catan, it's not as complicated as D&D for one. Starcraft is a computer game with set codes and limits. Doesn't apply here. Not even. D&D is a pencil and paper RPG.
There is no downside to flying. There is a downside to focusing on one element to the exclusion of all others - namely, that things are also resistant to elemental damage.
Sure there are down sides. It's often harder to find cover while flying, especially in those flat open fields you seem to believe all combat occurs in. High wind speeds are also usually more hazardous for flying character then ground based ones. In case of fire there may very well be thick choking clouds of smoke up high while the ground is comparatively safe Seriously just because a character is flying doesn't not mean he's immune to terrain effects, it only means he'll face different kinds of terrain effects.
If you can fly, and you can simply rain death down on something, why wouldn't you do so? Its incredibly obvious and not at all clever.
Again, why do the monsters not have ranged attacks. Against humanoids the DM can easily add a bow or crossbow to all the enemies that don't otherwise have ranged attacks as part of his encounter planning. Baring that any intelligent enemy would at least start throwing rocks. Non-humanoid enemies are a little screwed, but almost any creature has enough sense of self preservation to run and hide from something they can't fight against
Even better, any enemy humanoid or other wise can fall back to more favorable terrain. A forest is an outside environ that doesn't disallow flight, but the flier will likely have to keep below the canopy if they expect to participate. Given that there are plenty of trees to climb up, it wouldn't be hard for a few enemies to climb up said trees and then jump out of branches to grab the flier mid air and try to slam them down to the ground. Heck if the PCs have been using this tactic long enough they might even find "trip" wires strung between the trees by sufficiently clever opponents.
Besides, a DM can easily require indoor or underground encounters (for example, in floatng land motes) where flight becomes less of an advantage.
I think you mean "where you can't really fly".
Excuse me but this is Dungeons & Dragons were talking about. Last time I checked more than half of all encounters are expected to be inside or underground.
The macetail behemoth can climb trees? Wolves? Bulletes? Boars?
I would certainly love to see a mumy climb a tree.
What about useing your knowladge of optimazation to help find a way to limit flying without removing it. A way to balance it.
Now I don't belive anyone here is looking for heroic teir flight...so lets take that off the table...Lets focus on upper half of the game 15+ levels, so late paragon into epic.
First NO PC SHOULD HAVE HOVER...atleast no till 26th level +
Second Oveland flight should be used as if it were longrange teleport... just diffrent fluff, both ignore terrain and get you from A to B faster
So what else do we need? How about the clumsy speed that applies -4 attack...what about hight limits...can't fly higher then 20 ft...what else dowe need....
Come on T Dragon we all know yo could do this if you put your mind to it...just focus on how to make it work instead of why it wont work...
If you cannot be attacked, it doesn't matter how you kill them; you cannot lose.
Wait...wait wait wait wait wait wait
So, if my whole party is dead, whoever were protecting is dead, whatever I'm protecting has been stolen, no matter what the situation as long as I'm up in the air alive I win?
>>There is absolutely nothing incapable of climbing a tree.
The macetail behemoth can climb trees? Wolves? Bulletes? Boars?
I would certainly love to see a mumy climb a tree.
So the guy with no arms can climb a tree?
Sure there are down sides. It's often harder to find cover while flying, especially in those flat open fields you seem to believe all combat occurs in. High wind speeds are also usually more hazardous for flying character then ground based ones. In case of fire there may very well be thick choking clouds of smoke up high while the ground is comparatively safe Seriously just because a character is flying doesn't not mean he's immune to terrain effects, it only means he'll face different kinds of terrain effects.
Let's not forget the -4 penalty to attack rolls and defenses while flying clumsy. I really can't stress that enough. While flying, you suck more at hitting and are easier to hit.
Then again, to know this, one would have had to read the DMG flight section instead of snarling 'fly bad' at it and ripping those pages out. So, yeah.
Nah it's your fault for having such unrealistic expectations that any and all loopholes are closed. People will cheat or exploit. There will always be something someone will find.
No, its not an unrealistic expectation.
Do you not expect your products to function?
And isn't errata made by those same horrible game designers?
Yes.
And I thought you wanted those evil horrible game designers to get it right the first time?
I do. But getting it right the second time is better than not getting it right at all.
And I never said they were evil. Projection much?
See, the reality is that sometimes, you do make mistakes. I don't like it, as I don't like purchasing flawed products. Conversely, if I did purchase a flawed product, I'd rather it get made to work, than for it to never work.
It's not unreasonable but it is unrealistic to expect a game like D&D to have absolutely nothing that could be exploited ever.
Its not unrealistic at all.
tarcraft is a computer game with set codes and limits. Doesn't apply here. Not even. D&D is a pencil and paper RPG.
Starcraft does indeed apply here. Just because its a computer game doesn't mean it isn't comparable.
It's often harder to find cover while flying, especially in those flat open fields you seem to believe all combat occurs in.
They don't have to be featureless plains to be problematic, and the idea that they do is something you made up.
Its problematic in a very wide variety of circumstances.
Indeed, in many rooms, flying grants you better cover if you want - you can go fly up on top of those statues on the wall and rain down death.
And, again, you don't need cover if they don't have ranged attacks.
Seriously just because a character is flying doesn't not mean he's immune to terrain effects, it only means he'll face different kinds of terrain effects.
And fewer.
Again, why do the monsters not have ranged attacks.
Because not all monsters have ranged attacks. I'm sorry if this is a difficult concept for you, but not every monster is a humanoid with a ranged weapon. Look at the monster manual.
Excuse me but this is Dungeons & Dragons were talking about. Last time I checked more than half of all encounters are expected to be inside or underground.
Not necessarily in ten foot high rooms though. I love putting rooms with arched cielings, tall caves, ect. into adventures.
The macetail behemoth can climb trees? Wolves? Bulletes? Boars?
They can all climb trees with an atheltics check.
So, if my whole party is dead, whoever were protecting is dead, whatever I'm protecting has been stolen, no matter what the situation as long as I'm up in the air alive I win?
Sure.
Because, let's face it, you aren't protecting someone for fifteen levels in any sort of normal campaign.
Then again, to know this, one would have had to read the DMG flight section instead of snarling 'fly bad' at it and ripping those pages out. So, yeah.
I've already explained to you that a -4 penalty to attacks and defenses doesn't matter if they can't attack you in the first place.
But of course, that would require you to actually read my posts, something you are apparently incapable of doing.
I love where he says that if your up in the air raining death down on people it's so horrible. So what about having the high ground then for archers? That should be taken out too cause it's not very thoughtful or original for archers to get up in a tower and shoot arrows down on me! Those horrible nasty archers. How dare they do that! They should stand out in the open in front of me!
If the PCs are on top of a 100 foot high tower, and I put orcs moving towards them from 200 feet away, that's really not going to be a challenging encounter.
If I put the orcs on top of a 100 foot high tower, and the PCs are 200 feet away, it could be either an interesting or a really stupid encounter, depending on how plausible it is for the PCs to attack the orcs.
But a 30 foot tall tower with archers on top of it? That could be interesting.
If you put them in an unassailable position, it isn't fun.
You ever see and ankylosaur or a pig or a wolf for that matter climb a tree? Just because they can make Athletics checks doens't mean they can climb. Unless the DM is really desperate in his fear of the PCs 'raining death' on them.
So lets re-rail this thread. I for one think that Clumsy flight as a 16 level Daily Utility is fine.
Given a list of same-level powers, is the flight power more desirable (overpowered), less desirable (underpowered), or equally viable as an option (balanced).
If players are just as likely to choose other 16th-level powers over it, then Clumbsy flight at 16th seems fine.
So lets re-rail this thread. I for one think that Clumsy flight as a 16 level Daily Utility is fine.
See also: Fly.
Its the at-will flight which is the issue.
Say there are some orcs over the next hill, and most of the party cannot fly, but one character can fly at will. What should the party do?
The correct course of action is for the flying guy to fly over the hill and slaughter the monsters, with the monsters having no chance to attack back. The rest of the party does nothing.
And how is this different from the one PC who saved to buy a griffon or an ebon fly doing this? As early as 9th level nonetheless
It was one of the major issues of 3.x that PCs could do everything monsters could do, because it meant monsters couldn't do cool things which were fun to fight against, but which are horrendously broken if players have access to them.
Oh yes, how could we forget about this horrible system that no-one ever played and that almost killed D&D
terrain is a good thing, and fliers ignore most of it.
Once I am paragon and especially epic it's not a good thing anymore. I feel disgraced if I have to endure such petty obstacles like common riffraff. Maybe rarely when exceptional circumstances are making other modes of travel impractical, but as a rule of thumb I don't want to walk/climb when I am a freaking demigod/archmage/whatever
If you cannot be attacked, it doesn't matter how you kill them; you cannot lose.
It means it can't kill you, but that doesn't have to be the same as cannot lose. The whole lot of time you need to take it down it can destroy the object/place/people you want to protect. Or reach cover to come back annother day.
If neither of these applies: then the monster deserves to die. Simple as that, as a flyer you just show the ground-based foe his place in the food-chain.
There are many enemies which may well lack ranged attacks.
So they should avoid hunting out in the open without means to get cover.
Its the at-will flight which is the issue.
Which can be obtained as early as 5th or 9th level (depending on whether the mount is leveld based in it's monster level or it's market price)
No, its not an unrealistic expectation.
Yes it is. This is a book pal, it's not a computer game. It doesn't "function".
I do. But getting it right the second time is better than not getting it right at all.
Yet you still seem to despise and hate them for not getting every little thing right the first time.
And I never said they were evil. Projection much?
And everyone here is saying your wrong. Denial much? Not to mention your attitude towards them certainly doesn't imply that you think they are good people. How about you give up D&D?
Its not unrealistic at all.
Yes. Yes it is.
Starcraft does indeed apply here. Just because its a computer game doesn't mean it isn't comparable.
No. It does not. Not even. D&D is not limited by programing. I can only do what the computer game lets me do. D&D I can do pretty much what why imagination and the DM let me do.
Apparently TD got lost in his way to the errata forums.
So lets re-rail this thread. I for one think that Clumsy flight as a 16 level Daily Utility is fine.
Actually, according to the Wizard class, perfect flight is fine as a level 16 daily.
Clumsy as a lower level daily would also be fine. The question is how much lower. Likewise, the question is how much higher perfect flight as an encounter (and therefore a defacto constant) power is then 16.
And how is this different from the one PC who saved to buy a griffon or an ebon fly doing this? As early as 9th level nonetheless
Its not. That too is, well, I'm sure you can guess.
Once I am paragon and especially epic it's not a good thing anymore. I feel disgraced if I have to endure such petty obstacles like common riffraff. Maybe rarely when exceptional circumstances are making other modes of travel impractical, but as a rule of thumb I don't want to walk/climb when I am a freaking demigod/archmage/whatever
Well, maybe I'm actually interested in interesting adventures and interesting combat encounters.
Without terrain, combat is considerably less interesting.
If neither of these applies: then the monster deserves to die. Simple as that, as a flyer you just show the ground-based foe his place in the food-chain.
Unacceptable. If they're supposed to be challenging encounters for their level, they should be. If they aren't, then the game is broken.
So they should avoid hunting out in the open without means to get cover.
This is what is known as a "trap". Any good DM should know this, but most DMs are not good.
Ergo, it is a trap for them into making unfun encounters.
It also prevents you from having outdoors battles with monsters which cannot fly, which is bad.
Which can be obtained as early as 5th or 9th level (depending on whether the mount is leveld based in it's monster level or it's market price)
And is broken.
Yet you still seem to despise and hate them for not getting every little thing right the first time.
I don't despise them, and never said I did. I do dislike buying buggy products, which is far from unreasonable.
Quit projecting your psychological insecurities onto other people.
And everyone here is saying your wrong.
First off, not everyone. Secondly, "you're", not your.
No. It does not. Not even. D&D is not limited by programing. I can only do what the computer game lets me do. D&D I can do pretty much what why imagination and the DM let me do.
At some point, you're no longer playing D&D.
And the rules of D&D are quite comparable to a program.
I don't despise them, and never said I did. I do dislike buying buggy products, which is far from unreasonable.
Quit projecting your psychological insecurities onto other people.
Implied. "Buggy" products? It's not a computer game so stop using those terms.
First off, not everyone. Secondly, "you're", not your.
First off, show me someone whose agreed with you. Secondly are you an english teacher? No? Then don't try and be one. It's obvious your running out of points when instead of addressing the argument your attacking my grammar. You can tell what I'm saying. I'm not using l33t speak or typing lik dis zmog!
And the rules of D&D are quite comparable to a program.
Only in so much as the the game has rules. However unlike a program I am not limited by what the computer game parameters are. I can make a PC with nonstandard point buy or dice rolling. I can use 3rd party sources, I can go where I want in the world instead of only where the computer game lets me go. I could have my PC be evil instead of having to be a good guy. No, it's not the exact same. Oh and I could fly too. Deal.
And everyone here is saying your wrong.
First off, show me someone whose agreed with you.
For the record, I am here (page 1, post #27), and I think he's right and agree with him for the most part. It's just that, like I said before, I don't feel like getting into this. :P
For all I know you could be a sockpuppet though.
Define "sockpuppet".
Define "sockpuppet".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
. . . WOW, REALLY?
That's the argument you're going to use against me? That I'm a T_D alt? You really believe that strongly that nobody else could possibly disagree with you?
I could just as easily suggest that everybody in this thread that agrees with you is just one of your alts, but I don't, because I'm capable of accepting that there's probably more than one person out there who disagrees with me.
...Wow, that's just pathetic.
I'm out of here.
I don't even know how to respond to that kind of immaturity.
I'm out of here.
It's not immature considering enough people have used sockpuppets that it's not unreasonable to wonder if some posters are fake. I'm staying here. :D
I may not be as aggressive in asserting my feelings on some game balance issues, but I will often agree in principle to at least some of what TD says.
EDIT: As another note, I feel like something that is much out of the norm compared to other players that makes a DM create forced things to deal with you kinda ruins the point and immersion of the game. For example, if you give one player the ability to always be invisible, its kind of stupid. So, unless you take that away from them, you have to start making it so a very large portion of enemies can suddenly see invisible people, which honestly doesn't really make any sense even though it would be necessary for balance. Obviously perma-invisibility is incredibly powerful, but the point is that it is something that can VASTLY impair a normal person/monster, so the DM has to throw things at you that are specifically to cancel out one person, which is kinda silly.
i dont know if you all already know but it has been confirmed that there is dragonborn wings here
Thanks for the link. However, just because they have it in there does not mean it is balanced. I mean, stacking minuses to saves for Orbizards get retarded imo and I don't really think they are balanced either, so there you go. I will of course reserve judgement until I actually see it.
Its not unrealistic at all.
Yes, it is. With the amount of variables that go into a game like D&D, especially as it grows over the lifespan of an edition, it becomes more and more difficult to account for all possible instances of abuse.
Chess is ancient, and yet it still has the design flaw that white has the advantage. Tic-tac-toe is simplistic beyond belief, but has the design flaw that unless one player makes a stupid mistake, the game can never be won.
D&D is more complex than both of those games, more recent than both of them, and has had far less people play it, so expecting it to provide that level of complexity (which grows as it ages) without a single design flaw or instance of abuse is exceptionally unreasonable.
The only people that think perfect game design is possible are not game designers.
For all I know you could be a sockpuppet though.
Wrong though he is in this discussion, Crimson most certainly isn't a smurf of TD. He's been here longer and is far more respected than TD.
The only people that think perfect game design is possible are not game designers.
As a software engineer (not games though atm), I fully endorse this statement. Even with computer games/programs where you can more tightly constrain a (normal) user (non-hacker), it's still extremely difficult to make something bullet-proof or in the case of games balanced. Especially the more you add over time.
Fine, I also agree to some extent with TD that free-flying is kinda broken as well. I promise I'm not a sock puppet. Its just that if everyone else can't fly, or at least fly at will, you need special things just to deal with one person or else that person is pretty imba. Now, for some high PP/Epic campaigns, if everyone is flying around, it doesn't matter that much to have it as a freebie class feature if everyone else has to pay for it, but introducing flight to a race at will just seems wrong to me.
I may not be as aggressive in asserting my feelings on some game balance issues, but I will often agree in principle to at least some of what TD says.
EDIT: As another note, I feel like something that is much out of the norm compared to other players that makes a DM create forced things to deal with you kinda ruins the point and immersion of the game. For example, if you give one player the ability to always be invisible, its kind of stupid. So, unless you take that away from them, you have to start making it so a very large portion of enemies can suddenly see invisible people, which honestly doesn't really make any sense even though it would be necessary for balance. Obviously perma-invisibility is incredibly powerful, but the point is that it is something that can VASTLY impair a normal person/monster, so the DM has to throw things at you that are specifically to cancel out one person, which is kinda silly.
The idea of designing encounters to challenge PCs isn't new to the game and is even explicitly discussed in the DMG. This EXACT example is discussed in the DMG.
Designing encounters to challenge or reward fliers is not different than doing so for push oriented fighters and rogues, or wall focused wizards. Unless two two examples are also silly to you.
He's been here longer and is far more respected than TD.
WTF? People respect me?Since when? Why didn't I get a memo?
EDIT: Are you sure you're not thinking of Crimson Lancer?
People do sometimes get us confused...Designing encounters to challenge or reward fliers is not different than doing so for push oriented fighters and rogues, or wall focused wizards. Unless two two examples are also silly to you.
The difference that I feel here is that if you don't do something to counter a push fighter, you can still attack, flank, do everything to that fighter as everyone else. If you don't always put in things to counter flying, as TD points out, he can just fly over things without ranged attacks and they can't hurt him. I don't know about you, but I sure think that letting a fighter push people around a lot in some encounters is much better than letting someone take no damage because they just fly over everyone. Now, coupling the fighter with say a bloodmage will make this a different issue, as that pushing not only will have a tactical effect, but also a huge damage boost. But I will still call it silly if you have something that in order for the encounters to be balanced you always put that fighter in places where he can't push or against enemies that can't be pushed. If you let him do a good combo, yes it will do damage and pushing, and be fun. If you let someone fly over and not take damage, its boring.
Its not an issue of being impossible to counter. it's obviously easy to counter. Dungeons, low ceilings, range. However, you should not imo always make a counter to someone's ability, there would be no point in having it. And in this case, not countering it has a much more drastic consequence than not countering other abilities.
As a software engineer (not games though atm), I fully endorse this statement. Even with computer games/programs where you can more tightly constrain a (normal) user (non-hacker), it's still extremely difficult to make something bullet-proof or in the case of games balanced. Especially the more you add over time.
Including, say oh STARCRAFT? ;) I'm betting part 2 isn't going to be perfect.
Including, say oh STARCRAFT? ;) I'm betting part 2 isn't going to be perfect.
Yup!
SC was hardly perfectly balanced/built over every iteration of patches... otherwise there wouldn't have been patches :DPlease keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
This is an honest debate.
There even seems to be some general consensus.
- Most agree, its appropriate flavor for Dragonborn to have wings.
- Most agree, flying is powerful tactically.
- 4e drastically (drastically!) nerfed flying (from a spell at Wizard 5 to 16!), yet most feel this reevaluation is at least reasonable.
- Most agree, limited forms of flight are acceptable from levels 16 on up. So this debate is really about: How limited at what level?
- Most agree, perfect flight at-will is extraordinarily powerful, can only happen in Epic if at all, and requires adventures to actively accommodate its possibility in order to maintain balance.
- Most agree, the main concern about flight is, some monsters dont have Ranged attacks. If most Epic monsters had Ranged attacks andor special mobility, flight would become a nonissue.
The Dragonborn paragon path grants wings that let you fly.
Link: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=441229&page=23
The Scion of Arkhosia RPP grants "regular flight and later overland flight," according to some chaps in Japan who received their copies of PHB2 early and were generous enough to share the bounty.
Link: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=441229&page=23
That implies (to me, at least) that the regular flight is probably limited duration. However, again, it doesn't actually say that, so we'll have to wait and see. I suspect that's what it will be though; level 12 utility daily which gives you a fly speed, and a level 16 path feature which gives you overland flight all the time.
That implies (to me, at least) that the regular flight is probably limited duration. However, again, it doesn't actually say that, so we'll have to wait and see. I suspect that's what it will be though; level 12 utility daily which gives you a fly speed, and a level 16 path feature which gives you overland flight all the time.
It would seem it's not especially limited, assuming we can believe the following as posted by someone who already has the book:
Dragon born get versatile breath. when you burn an action point for an action you get a free breath attack on adjacent foes, overland flight, a ranged breath weapon ( burst 2 within 10 squares), at will flight, and clinging breath (breath attack does ongoing damage)
At-will flight hardly seems limited, though the details are still missing. Let us wait and see.
~Bizkit
At-will flight hardly seems limited, though the details are still missing. Let us wait and see.
I suspect the at-will flight will be like many flying items: you must land on solid ground. Tada.
It would be weaker than constant flight, especially if the sustain move make you move your speed, for example.
The dragonborn racial PP gives you wings all the time.
The attack powers focus on breath weapon stuff.
The utility is an at-will that lets you fly your speed, but you must end your movement on land.
The 16th level power is an overland flight speed of...get this...TWELVE!
The utility is an at-will that lets you fly your speed, but you must end your movement on land.
/thread :D
I have my PHB2 already and can answer some questions.
The dragonborn racial PP gives you wings all the time.
The attack powers focus on breath weapon stuff.
The utility is an at-will that lets you fly your speed, but you must end your movement on land.
The 16th level power is an overland flight speed of...get this...TWELVE!
So nothing unreasonable.
You know what? I think it really appeals to me. Having an overland flight speed is dreamy...
It's very flavorful, but kind lame if it's the only ability the PP gets at level 16. Sure your character can travel faster, but D&D is a team game and thus in practice overland travel is dictated by the slowest member of the team. I'm sure a creative DM can provide some situations where a single character's ability to travail quickly through the air matters, but most of the time its only use will be to fly in wide circles around your ground based allies as the trudge along.
It's very flavorful, but kind lame if it's the only ability the PP gets at level 16. Sure your character can travel faster, but D&D is a team game and thus in practice overland travel is dictated by the slowest member of the team. I'm sure a creative DM can provide some situations where a single character's ability to travail quickly through the air matters, but most of the time its only use will be to fly in wide circles around your ground based allies as the trudge along.
It allows you to climb anything without making athletics checks, jump any gap, fly up a tree on a moment's notice to scope the surroundings, ect. There are a ton of uses of overland flight.
Seems to me that either the devs are forgetting this is a team game, or they figured a ridiculous (faster than most flying mounts!) overland fly speed would make up for their failing with the at-will.
None of that is anything that can't be accomplished by the fly at will.
Uh, you have to land on the ground at the end of your movement with the fly at-will. Ergo, you can cross considerably larger gaps/go to considerably higher heights/ect. with your overland flight speed.
Seems to me that either the devs are forgetting this is a team game, or they figured a ridiculous (faster than most flying mounts!) overland fly speed would make up for their failing with the at-will.
How did they "fail" with the at-will?
Uh, you have to land on the ground at the end of your movement with the fly at-will. Ergo, you can cross considerably larger gaps/go to considerably higher heights/ect. with your overland flight speed.
How did they "fail" with the at-will?
I think(buy could be wrong) that Vaal won't be happy without unlimited flight.
The fly and land is a decent racial power, but not a Paragon power.
Bowing to the false idea of 'infinite AC' is where they failed.
The fly and land is a decent racial power, but not a Paragon power.
. They obviously made the right decision here. D&D is designed for groundbound characters.
Bowing to the false idea of 'infinite AC' is where they failed.
It's not a false idea. It's a completely accurate analysis.
It's not a false idea. It's a completely accurate analysis.
The completely accurate analysis of a completely horrid DM who needs to step down.
The completely accurate analysis of a completely horrid DM who needs to step down.
Of course, because DMs who don't want to restrict their campaigns to dungeons are horrible.
Besides, regardless of DMing capabilities, you just agreed the analysis was completely accurate, so... :P
I'm sorry you don't understand game design, Vaalingrade. They obviously made the right decision here. D&D is designed for groundbound characters.
Saying it is obvious doesn't make it obvious. Neither does personally attacking your debate partner.
Sure the could have found some way to give us more in a more balanced fashion...but it'd had been a risky and complicated venture. I think this At-Will gives exactly what I would want out of flight: be able to avoid troublesome terrain.
Of course, because DMs who don't want to restrict their campaigns to dungeons --
As well as essentially any setting that isn't merely a completely flat, featureless plane --
are horrible
Missed a couple of words there.
Missed a couple of words there.
You addition didn't even make any sense in context.
Whatever, I'm over this. I have puppies now. :D
THEY'RE SO CUTE!!!
So paragon clumsy flight BY ITSELF might not be broken, but that ability being only available to such a narrow focus of character is just wrong.
Your all getting a bit to relied up, PUPPIES FOR EVERYONE!
Amaterasu had babies ?!
One big problem I'd see giving the Scion of Arkhosia unlimited flight, even clumsy, is that it make it a must have for anyone wanting to abuse unlimited flight. Its just not really fair for other paragon paths and other RACES that this one guy, just because he's a dragon, can fly whenever and for how long he want.
So paragon clumsy flight BY ITSELF might not be broken, but that ability being only available to such a narrow focus of character is just wrong.
Amaterasu had babies ?!
No more arguing and no more questioning where the puppies came from. Just shut up and enjoy your puppy.
No more arguing and no more questioning where the puppies came from. Just shut up and enjoy your puppy.
...and they are absolutely adorable. I made sure to snag one for my saved pictures file.
Anyway, now I'm eagerly waiting Arcane Power so I can turn one of them into my familiar.
I'm more of a cat person actually.
Well...nobody's perfect.
(I think the wardne cna do that and the druid has one too)
Statistically, if players choose the power too often over other same-level powers (or in this case, choose the Scion of Arkhosia over other available Paragon Paths), it is a sign of being overpowered.
Oppositely, if players choose the power (or Paragon Path) too seldom, it is a sign of being underpowered.
Once developers detect the statistical anomaly, they can investigate whether behavior is because of power or flavor. If a power imbalance, they can errata it.
Its easy to determine if the flight powers are balanced.
Statistically, if players choose the power too often over other same-level powers (or in this case, choose the Scion of Arkhosia over other available Paragon Paths), it is a sign of being overpowered.
Oppositely, if players choose the power (or Paragon Path) too seldom, it is a sign of being underpowered.
Once developers detect the statistical anomaly, they can investigate whether behavior is because of power or flavor. If a power imbalance, they can errata it.
This is true, but they still haven't fixed daggermaster yet.
This is true, but they still haven't fixed daggermaster yet.
Isn't it more like, they haven't fixed the underpowered rogue paragon paths?
While power is a major driving force, there can indeed be other reasons people pick a particular path, class, or whatever. People played fighters in 3.5, despite their suckiness.
Are you guys still arguing about this? Wait and see. We've seen the power forces players to land at the end of their movement. So guess what? They can still be attacked.
The lvl 12 power does, the lvl 16 feature doesn't.
On the PP as a whole: I think it's a stupid design to make a lvl 12 power that becomes useless once you get the lvl 16 feature of the very same PP.
On the PP as a whole: I think it's a stupid design to make a lvl 12 power that becomes useless once you get the lvl 16 feature of the very same PP.
The level 16 feature grants overland flight. That means that while using it the character is restricted to move actions only.
The level 16 feature grants overland flight. That means that while using it the character is restricted to move actions only.
And the at-will is also a move action and being a power in it's own right it can't be combined with powers allowing to move before/after an attack. The at-will has no more uses once you get the lvl 16 feature
And the at-will is also a move action and being a power in it's own right it can't be combined with powers allowing to move before/after an attack. The at-will has no more uses once you get the lvl 16 feature
Overland flight is meant to be used outside of combat and you loses other action while moving thay way.
Overland flight is meant to be used outside of combat and you loses other action while moving thay way.
No you don't. You just crash if you chose to use any other action but a move action while overland flying, but that's not different from the level 11 power at all.
Overland flight totally covers the effect of the at-will, it can do absolutely nothing that overland flight doesn't (while overland flight not only does everything the at-will does, but also does a lot more).
Variant a: I use my move action to fly 6 squares with my lvl 11 power, then land and attack with a standard action.
Variant b: I use my move action to fly 6 squares with my lvl 16 feature, then land and attack with a standard action.
Variant a just becomes obsolet once you get the feature.
No you don't.
From the Monster Manuel, page 281
From the Monster Manuel, page 281
The at-will allows you to land and take your remaining actions on the same turn.
Note the while flying. Also the desciption is flawed because if you would truly lose your capabilty of taking these other actions the last part about crashing if using your actions for anything but flying would be obsolete. PHb2 clarified that you have your other actions, but just shouldn't take them or you'll crash. You can however take your standard action to trade it for annother move action to fly further.
Uh, if you were to fly, you'd lose all your other actions, as you'd be, you know, flying. Unfortunately the description in the MM isn't all that clear, and I'm actually going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't supposed to be able to use your overland flight and then attack afterwards.
Uh, if you were to fly, you'd lose all your other actions, as you'd be, you know, flying. Unfortunately the description in the MM isn't all that clear, and I'm actually going to go out on a limb and guess that you aren't supposed to be able to use your overland flight and then attack afterwards.
Definately not your full overland flight speed as that already includes the assumption of trading your standard action for a second move action.
So if it's possible for a SoA to fly 6 squares overland, then land and do something else (crashing wouldn't matter since he has landed anyway) the lvl 11 power becomes obsolete. If not it still has it's use.
In regard to crashin when using anything but move actions to fly it would really be interesting to know whether you crash as an "interrupt" or "reaction" (so are you getting through with the action that causes the crash or do you crash as soon as you attempt it)?
Definately not your full overland flight speed as that already includes the assumption of trading your standard action for a second move action.
So if it's possible for a SoA to fly 6 squares overland, then land and do something else (crashing wouldn't matter since he has landed anyway) the lvl 11 power becomes obsolete. If not it still has it's use.
In regard to crashin when using anything but move actions to fly it would really be interesting to know whether you crash as an "interrupt" or "reaction" (so are you getting through with the action that causes the crash or do you crash as soon as you attempt it)?
I always figured the "other actions" ,taken during overland flight that make you crash, mean action point actions, free actions or immediate actions, since you give up your normal actions to use it. I could see it being more clearly written, but it's fairly comprehensible.
Edit: As to when you crash? Well, that definitly needs clarification, but I'd rule it as an interrupt.
On your turn, you can move your fly speed and do NOTHING else, as you lose your "minor, immediate, and standard actions while flying." Basically, this says to me, "as soon as you start using your overland flight, all the other actions types can no longer be used; and you can't start using overland flight if you have used any of those actions during the current combat round."
You do NOT, however, need to end your movement on a solid surface. BUT, if on your next turn you wish to use a standard action to attack, for example, you'd crash first. Crashing does not appear to eat up any actions, so you'd suffer the consequences and then take your allotted actions.
The point being, the At-Will power specifically allows you fly a short distance and continue with other actions, while the Overland Flight option uses up all of your actions in a single round of combat.
If you really feel a need to rebalance the overland flight some, tack the 'clumsy' condition onto the overland flight. A -4 to attacks and defenses is never a good idea in combat, so it further pushes the overland flight into being meant for non-combat alone.
At epic level even more graceful flight should be avaible.
like in an invisible learjet? or 1st class aboard virgin airways?
:D
In my games, I'm offering a race that has clumsy overland flight from the get-go. They'll lose the clumsy and gain hover from a Paragon path. I'll make sure to let the boards know if any of my players abuse this.
How broken would it be to grant at-will flight that also imposed an altitude limit? I've been mulling over the idea of using the Flying Carpet as a guidelines for paragon paths and/or paragon-epic tier feats that grant at-will flight. Considering that by 16th level, a carpet is valid treasure for players to get a hold of. Would a clumsy flight with 10sq altitude limit be enough to balance at-will flight for a "typical" game? If not balanced enough by itself, would the inclusion of monster templates that grant range capabilities help?[/Hijack]