They are horribly unbalance in both flavor and crunch in my opinion. I hope this is not the start of a trend.
Aarakocra - Nothing to be done about this. Its a flying race. It can't be put in with it not being unbalanced. I don't have a problem with this one.
Deep Gnome - Why would a drow have light sensitivity and not a deep gnome? In 3.5 they didn't have light sensitivy either, but they also had a level adjustment of +3. crunch wise, they should have been given more of their original powers along with light sensitivity
Genasi - Here's where they screwed the pooch.
Fire Genasi- The fire genasi is really the only one that actually made the grade and mached the older versions of the race although I think burning hands should have been removed or replaced with Control Flames. Why is the fire genasi the only one with darkvision? - In 3.5 the genasi were a level adjustment of +1. The Fire Genasi got everything it got in that version of the game and no level adjustment.
Air Genasi - In 3.5 they got fly (hey you gave it to the Aarakrocra). I don't think they should have fly, but they should have some kind of abilty that increases their jump or move. Levitate just doesn't fit the bill. They should also have darkvision. I would have also given them gust.
Earth Genasi - In 3.5 they had a burrow spead. Pass without Trace? Really? How does moving silently build on the flavor of being made of the earth element? You gave the water swim, you should have gave them burrow with limitations. You could have given them stoneskin 1/day instead as another option. They should also have darkvision. I would have also given them mold earth
Water Genasi - This subrace pretty much matches the older version. They needed darkvion though.
Goliath - This was one of my favore races of 3.5 and 4th edition. I'm not even sure I want to make one now. Stone's endurance was a good attempt, but it needs to scale with level to make it worth wile. They should have gotten proficiency with all heavy weapons as well. A Goliath druid with a greataxe would have been great flavor (I even have a mini for it).
Ok. Thats my rant about the races. I hope races coming in future products have more thought put into them.
zagora_01 wrote:
Everything we've been getting, from the Artificer to the new races to the mass combat rules do all seem like they were rushed and lack polish.
Um.. Artificer and Battlesystem are playtest rules. Of course they lack polish; they're quite knowingly not ready for prime time. I'm using Battlesystem in my next adventure, though, so I'll be able to give feedback to WotC (and the forums) then.
Honestly, the new races look fine to me. The wingy folks (I can't ever remember the spelling; too many vowels!) honestly just give me more confidence in my own design work. I've had a winged PC in my current campaign from the start, and thus far haven't run into too much trouble, though that PC being Tiny might help with that.
((Yay it's Tia!))
I thought the Goliath was pretty good. I can certainly see why you would want the power to scale for DR or even allow for additional uses per short rest as you level and keep the 1d12 + con as is. I would be down with that.
Also, you are running a new adventure? Perchance is this on roll20 and perchance is there room in it yet? 
Just my home game, at the moment. Work schedule keeps changing on me.
I predict a lot of flying archers.
I'm creating an aarakocra arcane trickster pirate with colorful plumage named Beakbeard who has a homunculus familiar, Paulie.
Istbor wrote:
RobotElder wrote:
Remember, being knocked prone while flying is painful.
Aarakocra, last I heard, have already been banned from being used in WotC-hosted events.
The big problem with aaracokra is compounded by their speed, their claws, and their armor restrictions. The race is horribly overspecialized. Reduce its speed let it fly in armor and ditch the claws because honestly natural weapons are like the worst racial ability ever, a lot of classes never want to use them, and the classes that could have better options or in the case of the monk get abilities that are as good as or better and don't stack as part of their progression.
Goliaths: Yeah that dr ability needs to scale a lot better than just con mod. EDIT: Also heavy weapons prof is again a horribel racial feature, it's only useful to a select few classes, and worthless to everyone else who either doesn't need it, won't be able to use it effectively, or already gets it.
In fact let's just just be clear about this, racial abilitie that rely on or force a single stat are bad to begin with since a race should be compatible with a wide array of classes and builds, con is admittedly better than any other single stat for this purpose but it's a single stat. I'd rather the goliaths be reducing by 1d12 + some number based on their level.
Deep gnomes are less dramatic but I'm a littl eunsure about their defense being specific to magic, it's probably fine for now but as the game expands it could get dicey especially once we get into things like psionics. I liked the feat as a way to access powerful racial abilities without making one race too much better than the others.
Genasi: I disagree that they need darkvision, they only had dark vision in 3e because of how creature types worked and genasi were native outsiders rather than humanoids, and all outsiders got darkvision. 3e was way too liberal with lowlight and dark vision. 5e is also overly liberal with darkvision but at least it's being granted specificaly instead of swept in with the creature type features. It makes sense for fire genasi to have it, although it would have been just as logical to give them the abiltiy to generate light instead. What I dislike about the genasi is the spell casitng powers, specifically the ones that don't scale, and the ones unlocked at higher levels.
The non-scaling spells make sense for things like levitate since it doesn't scale, but burning hands and create/destroy water should probably scale, burning hands especially can become kinda useless at higher levels.
Of course the whole bit where the race unlocks more powers at higher levels for free is inherently broken anyway. So removing them entirely seems simpler.
mellored wrote:
RobotElder wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Watching people get all consternated at the thought of flying PCs is always very amusing. It happens Every Single Time a flying race is introduced.
Zardnaar wrote:
mellored wrote:
Kalani wrote:
iserith wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Command: Grovel, Tahsa's Hidious Laughter, Sleet Strom, hold person, ect... can readily turn flying to a disvantage.
Flying creatures enjoy many benefits of mobility, but
they must also deal with the danger of falling. If a flying
creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or
is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature
falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held
aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell.
IMO: It's the speed 50' that crys out for an archer much morso then fly.
Fly is mainly for exploration.
And I view flight as being level independant of whether it is broken or not and how the GM (usually me) has to deal with it. So I'm quite fine with flight at 1st level.
So good work on the Aarawhatever, WotC, let's break down more of those sorts of perceptions 
EnglishLanguage wrote:
I prefer how 4e did Genasi. No problems there. All 4 types were good choices, and balanced with every other race. Stop giving out darkvision randomly, D&D. 3e did that too. No Genasi should have darkvision. IMO, the only PC races that should have it are Drow, and now, Deep Gnomes...With the light sensitivity penalty. Dwarves, elves, tieflings, etc. should have low light vision.
The aara's are ok too. As has been said, flight isn't really that great and that's really all the get.
The goliath needs something that scales better, I agree. Maybe instead of 1d12+CON mod temp HP, give them resistance to bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage (or even all damage) for a few rounds per long rest. Basically stoneskin, but not a spell.
The deep gnome is good, but where's the racial feats for everyone? I hope they put together all of this, plus more cool and playtested stuff in a PHB 2 one year.
There's just so much house ruling that needs to be done with 5e for it to work for me...It gets daunting sometimes.
mellored wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
I'd consider house ruling the Goliath ability to be 1D12 + proficiency. It makes it a little less powerful at lower levels, which is fine by me, and lets it scale with your level without having to raise CON.
Flying movement usually isn´t too useful in the underground. My houserule is lower XPs for a menace what is easier because some special traits, for example a classic pitfall trap would be like lower challenge rating for a winged PC who can use wings to create a effect like "feather fall".
* For genasie one of my ideas was to give a free extra metamagic feat: subtitution of energy, but only for their elemental bloodline.
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
Challenge and difficulty aren't the same thing. A pit trap (the challenge) might be easily circumvented because player actions reduce the difficulty. Either way, the challenge is worth its given XP.
im curious why fire gensai are the only ones with any type of resistance. Acid for earth (tough as stone) cold for water, lighting for air. The fire gensai just feels so much more powerful then the others with that, and the other feel very weak. Also, pass with out a trace is an odd spell for Earth Gensai. might try to find another, maybe give them acid spary(think thats the cantrip im thinking of). or hell, thorn whip from the druid would be kewl with them. Anyways.
Deep gnomes- LOVE THE RACIAL FEAT! i hope its how they go with all "monsterous" races from now on. So much better then level adjustment and racial classes, which i both feel are more like taxes or penalties then anything.
I think people are freaking out about the birdfolk more then they need too. Disadvantage is your friend, as is the already existant limit on weight, which besides armor, I will expand to include a lbs limit. Enough for you to carry a few weapons (like spears/ javilns) and your leather armor.
OTher then odd fluff I agree with the idea of the goliath points.
OVerall this article feels more like Unearthed Arcana then published material.
Acid =/= Earth in D&D. In fact, Acid is traditionally one of the most reliable elements to use against stone and metal, since it used to ignore most resistances. It wasn't uncommon to see rogues carrying a +1 (something, usually dagger) of Acid, since it could EAT any locks they couldn't pick.
Farmer42 wrote:
zagora_01 wrote:
flight is for sure more powerful then darkvision, but not more powerful then things like savage attack or the dragonborn breath weapons.
Actually, I'm really liking that genasi are finally unique to each other. No more "the same, just different color".
I'm going to disagree here... I doin't think unlimited flight is OMGITSGOINGTORUINTHEGAME broken, but I think it is very powerful, and can trivialize many challenges. I am glad it isn't allowed in AL, and I hope DMs using it are prepared for it.
zagora_01 wrote:
rampant wrote:
It's funny how some are trying to downplay how good flight really is.
It's almost as if they believe that WOTC cannot put out anything unbalanced for D&D.
Benefits of flight (outside combat).
1. It gives you the ability to scout in relative saftey.
2. It also gives you easy access to what otherwise might be inaccessible places.
3. It makes it easy to get away from non flying people that are chasing you.
4. It gives the player unlimited choices on the paths they want to take to reach a destination. Thus they can bypass most all obsticales you may have planned.
In combat benefits of flight
1. Allows melee characters to easily get to back lines and catch flying enemies
2. Allows ranged characters better kiting options
3. Allows any character that's in trouble a way to saftey that many creatures have trouble hitting.
The question I have is, so what if flight can't be used in every imaginable scenario? Just because there is 1 scenario where it isn't the best thing since sliced bread doesn't invalidate its power.
I mean can you really imagine taking a non-flying barbarian now that you have that option? Can you really imagine not taking a flying longbow ranger now that you can?
Heck, can you imagine a flying warlock with darkvision that eldritch blasts everything from the air? 1 diesngage action and flying up gets you out of melee range of everything but flying enemies...
Fly speed 50 is pretty huge....
Add more Pros:
*Trivializes a great deal of published material that assumes players cannot fly(or that they have to cast a fly spell). Find the back enterance to the dragons lair that normally would be unaccessable. Get across water obstacles, pits, moats, and avoid nearly all difficult terrain penalties. Gain easy access over the back wall of the castle that is unguarded because normal people can't get in that way.
*Makes it so that most enemies cannot flee from your party.
*Allows a rogue to move the about the length of a football field in 6s.
*Makes the character nearly immune to melee damage.
*Gives you many more options for combat placement and hiding behind obstacles.
I don't really buy the 'enemies can shoot you too' argument. Most enemies do not come packed with good options for ranged attacks. If they do, it is either uncommon or because you added them specifically to attack the winged character. Which is not much different than the unbeatable tank character that you have to throw huge enemies at to get past his armor, but that would shred any other party member, so you pretty much have to focus on him or quickly cause a TPK.
How popular wound a race be if it had a 50' Land speed? I think it would be very popular solely because of the superior mobility granted in combat.
zagora_01 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
And don't forget we've had flying player characters (as early as 3rd level) since the PHB came out. But all of a sudden... 
Weird.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Its just the whole "flying archer can kite the Tarrasque at any level!" issue again. Some DMs can't handle the situation, while others laugh it off. My responce to that situation was dual wielding thrown weapons (stones, trees) at the offending flyer. If you, as a GM, can't adapt to a flier in the party, then you are going to be in serious trouble when the party gets the fly spell to handle a lot of things.
In a real way, the game is kind of designed under the assumption that much of combat is going to happen in and around melee range. Which is a reasonable assumption to make, given that dungeons are a large part of the game's name. Any kind of perma-distance-kiting can be an issue, if the party works around that idea. The tengu-like race is just an example of where one might happen. Its something that either the party will generally not do (many come to the table to have fun and the thrill of the risk), or the GM will have to worry about anyways with Carpets of Flying, spells, and magic potions anyways.
I'm actually considering making an Aara wind elemental Monk. Or, I would if I had a new game starting up. Its flavorful, its hardly gamebreaking since I'll effectively be at ground level in combat, and I'll need to stay with the party most of the other times. It works.
I could see some good arguments about reducing the flying speed to 40, or 35.
But i don't see anything paticularly out of place with flying.
iserith wrote:
mellored wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
I think the new Races are cool, I had thought there would be more. From looking at the fact that they where making a book that was to sell for $50. I am liking the free books, but would like to see a PH2. That would be helpful for my group soon. I think that the books are a guide, and as long as your DM agrees you can change the rules a bit. Problem solved.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Fly only seems overpowered at very low levels, and even then only until you realize that a Sleep spell can KILL a low level flier from 110 feet away with no save.
Flight has roughly the same problems that any 'I'm personally invulnerable to a big set of encounters, but my fellow PCs aren't' option has. It forces the DM to either:
Ignore that set of encounters or
Ignore that PC and focus fire on everyone else.
Which some DMs can deal with well and some can't.
I'd change it to the following:
Fly 50' at-will, but must land at end of round.
Able to cast Fly(self-only) 3 times/long rest. 50' movement, considered non-magical, Advantage on the Concentration Save, but otherwise the same as Flight
And then two feats
Cast Fly(self-only) at-will
No need to make Concentration checks
Bloodsausage wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
there's rarely anything to hide behind in the air.
though i suppose that might be an actual use of skywriting.
and yea, i didn't look the monsters. though, anyone with a bow and 50' move speed can do the "can't hit me" thing against plants and beasts. it's why ranged weapons are popular in the real world.
Mephi1234 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
iserith wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
seti wrote:
Melee characters biggest weakness is the inability to deal with flying enemies. The flying PC race fixes that problem. So I actually think flying is a good thing for melee characters in combat.
However, it's overpowered for ranged characters in combat. Sure there are some caves and building where flying won't be useful. I get that. Flying isn't useful in every single imaginable combat situation. The problem is that for situations where flight isn't a problem then it is too good for a ranged character to have.
Now that we have talked about combat situations again let's talk about exploration situations.
Exploration and Scouting are the real things that flight trivializes all too often. This is why flight is a 3rd level spell that only lasts 10 minutes and requires concentration. There's not much scouting you can do with 10 minutes of flight. Also taking up a 3rd level spell slot each time you want to try and triviialize something with flight is a fairly steep cost.
2ndly since concentration is freed up you can easily become invisible while flying if you can cast invisbility on yourself. This works great for scouting (and invisibility lasts alot longer than fly).
IMO, the people that can't figure out how to greatly benefit from flight are very unimaginvative. I believe flight is soo useful that if given the choice I would not want to play anything but the flyer. I think many people will feel this way and you will end up with alot of flyers at your table and as some have stated, a whole party or nearly whole party with flight is problematic...
I would reduce the fly speed to 35, remove the armor restriction. If you can wear a backpack with heavy armor in it you can wear heavy armor while flying. I think this was more of a misguided attempt at balancing something broken. And make talons count as light weapons to allow use with two weapon fighting.
mellored wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Other people have talked about the exploration use of flying, so I won't comment on it more than I agree it's useful but not the most useful trait for that there is. And what's the general player reaction anyway? I find it's most often "Glad we have you with us!" than "He made that bit far too easy for us."
For combat, I actually think flying is more unbalancing (for the aspects that really count) when used by the GM than by the players, just consider:
- Mixed group of PCs, some fliers and some non-fliers and specifically some grounded meleeists vs. most things: everyone gets to contriubute and have some spotlight shine.
- Same group vs. flying NPCs/monsters: everyone but the grounded meleeists can contribute, they have to sit out.
As a GM I'd be much more mindful/concerned about throwing flying enemies at my players than letting some of them be flying. I have full control over what they'll face and it's easy and IC sensible enough to throw threats against a flyer.
So does that limit the sorts of beast I can throw at them? Eh, maybe. I just can't throw things at them. I can throw things at them in constrained environments, or they have to stop the beast before X, or various other situations to complicate things. And really, what's more interesting? A monster in a big empty room/clearing/plane, or a monster with some extra situation involved?
So GMs, don't think of 1st level constant flying as a unbalanced thing to excise from your game, instead think of it as an opportunity to stretch your GMing muscle and have a better overall game.
Oh man, I just saw this:
"Birth names are rarely linked to gender. Goliaths see females and males as equal in all things, and they find societies with roles divided by gender to be puzzling or worthy of mockery."
They totally added that to the lore, right? I found a goliath name generator that differentiated between male and female.
You know what I love most about tabletop RPGs?
...wait for it...
Gender politics!
FrogReaver wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Are there any guidelines for encumbrance while flying? If not, what would you rule? Can't fly at all if over carry limit (15 x Str Score)? Or using the variant encumbrance rules, can't even be encumbered (5 x Str Score)?
Starting with 15 Strength would give you a weight limit of 75, 150, or 225 depending on which option you choose. A Halfling weighs about 40, and Humans don't have a listed weight, but the 3.5 SRD says a male weighs 120.
- With the low limit of 75, that means you can only carry small characters around.
- With the medium limit of 150, you could ferry most characters around, but you'd have to do separate trips for gear.
- With the high limit of 225, you'd be pretty free to carry people one at a time. Or 5 naked halflings.
MechaPilot wrote:
SilentSin wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I think that due to many parties having access to flight via magic by at least level 5 that having a flying PC in the group wouldn't be too problematic.
In fact all of these:
Benefits of flight (outside combat).
1. It gives you the ability to scout in relative saftey.
2. It also gives you easy access to what otherwise might be inaccessible places.
3. It makes it easy to get away from non flying people that are chasing you.
4. It gives the player unlimited choices on the paths they want to take to reach a destination. Thus they can bypass most all obsticales you may have planned.
In combat benefits of flight
1. Allows melee characters to easily get to back lines and catch flying enemies
2. Allows ranged characters better kiting options
3. Allows any character that's in trouble a way to saftey that many creatures have trouble hitting.
are easily accoplished with magic. It is only in the very early levels that a PC that can fly has any real advantage, at later levels the rest of the group is likely able to do the same.
MechaPilot wrote:
Dunther_the_Great wrote:
And of course, the two classes that grant unarmored defense are highly focused on close range melee attacks, rather than ranged attacks, so it kind of balances out that way, too.
Since we've got a long discussion about flight already going on I'd like to propose a question or two, as flying enemies gives me a headache
Big one is that I use a battlemap with dice as minis, so how do I accurately represent flight during battle? This came up with the Wizard's Homonculus who just kept flying 40 ft up. He wasn't attacking so I eventually just took him off the board, but is there any good way to represent the 3rd axis on a 2d mat?
In that same spirit, just to confirm my math is not horrible, if a flying creature is 50ft away and 40 ft up the actual distance to them for an attack would be 90 ft correct? I don't tend to add low level flight to range (plus everyone shoots at over 100 ft whenever they want) but it may start becoming an issue since they are after a beholder.
Finally, I will agree and reiterate. A single flier in a group of walkers is much less gamebreaking than a group of fliers, becuase unless he's good enough to solo encounters or willing to abadon the team then the group still faces the same obstacles they always have.
For example, 1 flier, a war cleric, paladin, and fighter in full plate facing a massive ravine. Sure the flier can get over the ravine no problem, but logically he can't carry people wearing heavy armor, so how does everyone else get across? And if your answer is the flier carries a rope over, any rope that is long enough to work could have also been shot with a crossbow by the party, so the flier's impact is negligible.
Can't say for what to do about flying minis/dice, as I use MapTool.
However, the distance to the flyer that's 50ft away horizontally and 40ft up is about 65ft. If you want more accurate measurements for other ranges, and have access to a computer, you can use a handy online pythagoras calculator.
Chaosmancer wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
* What is the relation between earth element and acid damage? the boron, the chemical element.
* Shooters don´t need fly movement to be dangerous. A goblin archer from the top of a tree with poisionous arrows in an ambush can be a serious menace..(and the XPs reward ought to be higher).
Do remember winged creatures can be hurt in the wings and then the can´t fly, and most of flyier humanoids don´t wear armour.
* Don't you miss paragenasies from Dragon Magazine, with the rest of planetouched races?
* In the forests the flying movement isn´t so useful for combats among the trees.
* A character can have got fire resistance, but not the clothes or the item.
* What about parangon racial classes and racial feats? For example a water genasie could be create water, or ice psionic constructs,
* What if a future half-elemental template is added to a genasi?
* What if in any setting the genasies have got 4th ed angel ancestors?
* A possible future PC race could be the celadrins, elves with with eladrin ancestors. It was a canon PC race from dragon magazine. It would be the return of 4th eladrins with only a litte change in the name and background.
Vahnyu wrote:
Two comments
One: Fire Genasi shouldn't have Darkvision, instead they should mess up everyone who uses darkvision because, y'know, they're part fire elemental and all, and counter this by being bright enough to blind everyone who depends on it. Fire Genasi supremacy
Now, in regards to flying, I don't consider it overpowered because I'm using the justification of not being able to hover. You need to land once you've done moving, unless you're something that can hover, like a pixie, or an air genasi. Aarakocra, however, are... If I remember right, they're eagle-parrots, aren't they? They can't hover. There is one bird that can hover and its called the Hummingbird. You might be famillier with the hummingbird and the fact it is clearly a very specialised bird
I cannot be bothered looking up flying rules, but are their rules that specifically say you hover? Because if not, well, welcome to gliding to the ground or just dropping to the ground.
Mecheon wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Just remember, a fall from 50' up can be quite fatal even for someone with several hit dice under their belt. ;)
And with bounded accuracy, a whole group slinging pot shots at a flier is fairly likely to be effective. If they're in range, you're in range.
To review
1: Flying does NOT allow you to scout safely. It helps you scout, but you are at serious risk of falling.
A familar can do this at level 1, and plenty more can by level 5.
2: Flying does NOT allow you to kite except against a few creatures. Speed 50' does. Flying helps with things like difficult terrain, but if you had fly 5', it would only help against melee only enemeies.
A wood elf, or human with mobility, or druid with longstrider can do this at level 1 (you only need to be 5' faster then your opponent). Monks, barbarians, and anyone else with the mobility feat can do this at level 5.
3: Party matters. Just because you float over a trap, doesn't mean it won't hurt your buddy.
4: That's all they get. No resistance, or no avoiding death 1/day, no AoE breath weapon, or anything else. If you can't make good use of the mobility (including party tactics), you get nothing.
Undrhil wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Mecheon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
mellored wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Just wanted to add: anything without longbow range has no chance to even be a threat to you. That's a problem.
FrogReaver wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Llenlleawg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I'd venture to say that anything you can't hit with a long bow is far enough away that you aren't going to gather meaningful data from. Which means it can't gather meaningful data about you, as well.
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Though that's again not really a problem with flight as it is so much with the particular mechanics of ranged attacks and the sharp cut off of the ranges. It's at a boundry condition (both figuratively and literially) and game rules always break at boundries. It doesn't really have anything to do with flight beyond it being an easy way to get to that condition. I'd have no problem with a GM smacking player for abusing those sorts of things, and treat the max range limits more as guidelines or approximations.
So I'd have it that all the arches in a reasonable tight group can counter shoot at the kiting archer if he can shoot one of them.
Also if they did nothing but just stand there instead of running for cover... well, they deserve every arrow they get :P
Dunther_the_Great wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
You really think there isn't an arrangement on a grid to place yourself so that only 1 enemy can target you?
Orethalion wrote:
Hover was mentioned earlier, and It is my understanding in 5e that hover only applies to a few situations now.
1) If you dont have hover you must move 10 feet or more via fly speed or start to fall
2) anything that cause you to be stunned, proned, held monster/person, all cause you to fall if you cant hover or arent flying via magic
3) hover only works while you are conscious, so you fall when you reach 0 hp, and i would rule can die from massive damage when hitting the ground.
cowleymen wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
This arguement has shown me that, clearly, Tucker's Kobolds is a crystal clear example of why Kobolds are broken and should be banned. And that's a PRACTICAL example as opposed to the flying white room we're using. So yeah, no more kobolds or flight. The Flight spell is also going to be banned in my games from now on. I'm considering Levitate, as well. It's an edge case, and we can't allow those, amiright?
mellored wrote:
We're treading dangerous territory here. I think there might be GREAT PERIL down this path. PERILOUS PERIL, even.
Farmer42 wrote:
No. It's unhealthy.
You really think that for any given arrangement of ground archers that I can't fly to a position that only 1 can reaction attack me back even on a grid?
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Yeah. You can't argue that something is broken because one side uses the absolute best tactics while, at the same time, the other side is using the absolute worst. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
mellored wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Or under a tree. Or in a cave. Or in some tall grass. Or in another building. Or under a rock overhang. Or under a shield roof.
or under the dead corpses of all the other achers who died....
mellored wrote:
You know what I'm gonna do if a guy is 600' away from me, but 601' away from my buddies? Crouch.
Farmer42 wrote:
Yea d&d isn't very realistic when it comes to a creature knowing an enemy is out of its range. D&d doesn't even let an attack be attempted in such situations. So it's relly pretty easy to tell. Can I attack that enemy. Yes or no? Okay move forward 1 ft. Can I attack that enemy? Yes or no?
Good thing dnd isn't realistic for ranged weapons. If it was then a longbow 600 ft above you could hit you and you wouldn't have a prayer of hitting me.
Orethalion wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
We all duck and ready an action to rise when you move.
Farmer42 wrote:
Really? We're gonna play this game?
Farmer42 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
At that point, I wouldn't even say fell short. I'd just say they missed. They're on the extreme end of range trying to suss out if they can hit. They MIGHT be able to hit. Maybe. But they don't know. It's not until they're in normal range that it's even you ahve a decent chance of hitting range. And if they have a shield and know you're there at 600', straight above them, all they have to do is raise their shield and 1: You can't see their body to target. and 2: All they can hit is your shield. You don't even have to try. You just hold it up like an umbrella. At that point I would rule that the attacker can't hurt them at all, as there is no way to possibly hit any of their vitals.
Vahnyu wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ah, much ado about nothing.
AFAIK the only bird which can hover in mid-air is a hummingbird and Aaracockra (sp?) are clearly not based on hummingbirds so I think I would require that when in combat they have to land at the end of their turn or else they have to reserve some movement (say 25' at least) to basically fly in a circle. And this would be impossible indoors. You ever have a small bird like a sparrow come into your house and fly around? It just flies from one perch to another in basically a straight line. It certainly can't hover. Now imagine a bird-man larger than the largest eagle trying to fly indoors.
Macrocosm156 wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
So this arguement is going no where.
Just to try and put a cap on it, here's a "final point" sort of idea.
It doesn't matter.
If flight opens up a million new, more powerful options then pat the player on the back, then do your job as a DM and challenge them.
If your flier is pot shotting armies of archers to death someone is going to take note, then make a deal with a dragon or two to ambush you during the next fight. Bounties are a thing I would use if a villain is having trouble with a very specific PC.
You scouted the enemy stronghold? Great. Here is everything you saw from the outside. Inside? That's still a mystery.
Drop bombs of alchemical fire onto a stronghold? Good plan, it destroyed the building, killed the hostages, and the big boss was never there anyways.
The entire point of flyng being too powerful may only really apply for a small handful of sessions, then most DM's will have a feel for how that changes their plans and adapt. Just like you occassionally throw fire giants at the pyromancer and Intellect Devourers after the Bear Barbarian.
I have a friend who early on hated the idea of roleplaying games, because the guy introducing them to him made it seem like the DM and the players are in direct opposition, and he immediately saw that the DM has unlimited resources, while the player is limited. If you don't believe there is any way your flying archer can be out fought, then make the goal of the campaign not rely on combat. If there is no base he can't scout, feed him false information. Villains are smart, they have plenty of tools and allies, they will find a way. There is no player ability that reigns supreme, and if there is, then the villain can use it too.
I'm fine with what I have read about the new races. I have no real issues with balance of them. But the choices seem dry for me. There are just so many more races I find more appealing as a pc race. I get the Genasi but the other three. Aakokra bird man, yawn. Goliath, big bruiser, really never cared for the goliath but I see the appeal. The last Deep Gnome, dour humorless gnome lives in the underdark. That one I don't get at all.
thier are just so many more interesting DnD races that apeal to me as player. I thought for sure we would see the satyr way before we saw the deep gnome.
Deep gnomes are important if you want to run an Underdark game. They're common down there, and unlike the Drow, they don't have the same kind of baggage.
FrogReaver wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
An invisible halfling on a broom who fly's up and grapples you,.
a chain warlock who sends his invisible imp to toss a net on you, or simply cast a touch spell.
a ranger with ensaring strike
any of those will result in death.
Mecheon wrote:
I suppose people coming up with these extreme situations of the rules as an example of why things are OP and shouldn't be in the game, are also against physics simulations in video games, because they too sometimes break down in extremem situations with highly unrealistic and/or game breaking reulsts. It's a pity both the players and espcially the GM have to act like computers and follow the rules, whether they're the game's rules or house rules, like a computer and can't make on the fly rulings because "the rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session" (DMG pg 5). It's a real pity that isn't the case and we have to get rid of something that is fine 97% of the time.
FrogReaver wrote:
Dunther_the_Great wrote:
Easiest solution to deal with aarakocra: 20 years of downtime between adventures. They die peacefully in their bed, surrounded by loved ones.
Personally, I find engaging in an arms race with a DM to be counterproductive. At best, the DM and the rest of the players are irritated. At any rate, whatever is legal for a PC is legal for everything the DM has control of. Even in the case of someone trying to "abuse flight" there is always going to be an answer. Everyone at the table would be better served trying to promote fun (for everyone else at the table too).
mellored wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
mellored wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mellored wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
you only need to be 1' faster to strafe (or kite).
you simply spend a few turns running, then 1 turn shooting.
otherwise, any ground unit could simply run away (60' vs 50'), and you lose your archery target.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I ban everything in my games because all of it is OP in certain specific situations.
Reius wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
The pop out from behind cover tactics?
Azzy1974 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Being able to call yourself "the f-ing yo-bo" is probably worth attacking at disadvatange just for flavour purposes.
RCanine wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
And none of that really is any different on the ground then in the air.
It's not Vancian Casting, it's Schroedinger Casting: The spells don't exist until you have a legal target.
A D&D version of transfomers would be possible if Autobots and decepticons were (giant) living constructs like warforged and sharminds.. maybe the right setting would be Spelljammer.
There was a project about a Transformers/DC crossover.
* About a D&D version of G.I.Joe and Cobra characters is a so crazy idea that even it may work.... but Snake-Eyes and Storm-Shadow ought to be ninja class, not rogue class. What about a d20 Future G.I.Joe? With aliens races from Star Frontier, Alternity and Gamma World.
* I would like to suggest a different XPs reward system for enemies with special adventajes. For example a goblin archer in a dungeons or riding a giant vulture aren´t the same level of menace, and then the Challenge Rating or the XPs value should be different. That would help to get the right balance of power about flying winged humanoids.
LuisCarlos17f wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Haven't we been largely done with that for a while? I mean, the bulk of what I recall of the thread is discussion of whether flight is a) automatically op, and b) op as presented for the Aara. . . Arrara. . . the cockle-doodle-doo PC race.
Vahnyu wrote:
Dunther_the_Great wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
IMO: The only new classes we need are...
Warlord / Martial / Captain / Tactician, or whatever you want to call it.
Artificer, with golem master, trap master, alchemist, and iron man (self buff) subclasses. A flexible caster who buffs at the start of the day.
Psion, with battlemind / mindblade, telekenetic, telepath, ardent sub-classes. (weapon, blast, control, suppot respectivly).
Possibly Swordmage / Duskblade / Hexblade or whatever you call it. Though i see much of this in the current paladin. Not sure it brings enough.
Binder is a conjuration wizard. Though there could be a few additional conjure spells.
Healer is a life cleric.
Incarnate/Soulborn requires serious alignment contraints. But could be folded into artificer or psion.
Jester can be a bard sub-class.
Knight is a background, or paladin. Basicly Oath to your house or country.
Shaman is a druid subclass. Expend a wild shape to summon a spirit.
Truenamer is based on a bad mechanic. Basicly favored enemy for wizards.
Vahnyu wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
"Knight" is already a background. Classes and feats fill in the rest, if you're going for the whole traditional mounted knight in shining armor archetype.
Vahnyu wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
@ Chris and Mellored
I got into the knight and my issues with it enough in a previous thread. I'm not going to rehash it here and derail things. Just take what I said at face value, as it applies to me 100%.
@ Orethalion
Then I suggest you quit trying to drag your knight baggage back into new threads after your complaints have been refuted and shown to be lacking in substance.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
...says the guy who begged to drop it because he has no argument to make...
Again, what do you want your knight to do?
Wear armor and use a sword? Check.
Ride a warhorse? Check.
Use a lance? Check.
Be charming and honorable? Check.
Act as an enforcement arm of his lord? Check.
All of that totally achievable using the 5e rules as they stand. What more do you need to play a knight?
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Plus, wasn't there a series of movies that was explicitly inspired by samurai movies? It was set in space, and there was a lot of fighting involved, but the exact name eludes me. Probably wasn't anything important or popular...
And all the classic, beloved westerns that were direct rip-offs of famous samurai movies. Don't forget them...
ChrisCarlson wrote:
That's such a rediculous and foolish criteria. What is made in American, is not necessarily only what is beloved by America. You are continuing to express a double standard.
Again, go to that IMDB list you are standing on and filter out all films not made in America, by Americans, and get back to me. You think you'll still have an argument worth making? Go ahead. Prove your claim.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Your lack of history and world events are painful to read. Also, your view of America continues to be insulting.
And do you even have any idea how much Western culture has permeated modern Japan?
You may be in for a bit of a shock if you ever pulled your head out of the sand and looked around the world.
And how's that knight character conundrum going? I'm still waiting to hear what it is you can't manage to emulate using the 5e rules as-is.
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
About classes and subsclasses there is a thread I myself created to speak about that.
Archetypes, built, subclasses and themes character
http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/3300801?page=1
Archetypes, variant classes and themes
http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4107006
* A G.I.Joe rpg should be a d20 Modern system, and today transformers are more popular.
* What about a D&D version of "My little pony: friendship is magic"/"Equestria girl" with kentaurides (=female centaurs)?
mellored wrote:
I actually prefer the idea of different subclasses for Psion and Artificer, truthfully. I can run a psionic themed game where everyone is a different class, if I wanted, much easier than I could if we had one Psion class with different subclasses. Or we could do an Eberron game where everyone used artifice to one degree or another.
If they added smite spells to the warlock list, i think it would work for a swordmage.
And I see plenty of room for a full marital support class. Warlord is just a sub-class of it (like valor bard). But there's no way it could fit into the fighter shell with so much of his power budget in damage and toughness.
I think swordmage is best pondered as an Eldrtich Knight / Abjurer multiclass at the moment. Or rather mixing Abjurer benefits into a new Eldritch Knight style subclass. Something.
As a warlock? Terrible. They have nothing in common, save access to the 4e refreshed encounter powers.
mellored wrote:
I really think that people are so wrapped up in one class or one subclass doing everything, in a direct conversion, that they're missing out. As well, expecting core book to cover every possible build over everything from all editions is problematic.
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
[quote="mellored"]
I don't want a straight conversion.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
* A true 4e style of play is only possible with the one-min-rest-between-every-encounter option in the DMG. That holds true for the Chaladin, the AEDU style warlock, the monk, and, yes, even the Battlemaster. The game is meant to have a dial so you can adjust between different styles, and that's one that is critical to the 4e style. Trying to make a warlord operating under the hour-long rests won't work. * Another one is that 4e style games start at a higher level than 1 - either at 3 or 5. So, expecting them to do what you want should wait until around there at least.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
mellored wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
It's worth noting that not every great martial genious in history gets to be Andrew Jackson: a skilled combatant and tactician. Some of the greatest fighters were horrible tacticians, and some of the best tacticians were horrible fighters. You know who I want with me in a fight? Kimbo Slice. You know who I'd never let lead an army? Kimbo Slice. Rommel wasn't a spring chicken by the time the Africa campaign rolled around, but he was still brilliant. And speaking of the African campaign, the Allies plan hinged on the skill of noncombatant magicians. So no, a 20th level fighter is not the be-all-end-all leader of men. He or shee is a competent and skilled fighter, knowedgeable in the means of killing someone with their sword. Mayber instructing people in how to apply swords to enemy faces. But they aren't, inherently, generals and tacticians. That's more of a character and RP thing than a mechanical thing.
One point is the title of the class: Warlord, yeah, pretty unsavoury (some 3rd world, local military, subjugating scumbag).
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
mellored wrote:
Back in the 4e heyday, we had a guy who prided himself on played a lazylord to such an extreme, he intentionally didn't bring any dice to the table. On the rare occasion he was forced to actually roll something he would borrow one from another player.
True story.
mellored wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
mellored wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Hmmm...
You take an action to give an ally advantage on his attacks next turn. If the attacks hit, they deal extra damage equal to your Int modifier.
Math...
1d8+3 * 6 = 4.5
1d8+3+3 * .84 = 8.82
= +4.32 damage. (low level sword and board)
2d6+5 * .6 = 7.2
2d6+5+5 * 0.84 = 14.28
= +7.08 damage (maul)
10d6+5 * .6 = 24
10d6+5+5 * .84 = 37.8
= +13.8 damage (eldrich blast)
2d6+10 * .6 = 10.2
2d6+10+5 * .84 = 18.48
= +8.28 damage (level 20 barbarian)
Overall, i think that one works.
Likewise, giving an enemy disvantage on all his attacks, with -Int damage should work too.
Gunthar wrote:
Skill challenges worked just fine, as long as you were smart enough to run them as intended rather than try to run them as written. If the checks were nested, they worked great, if you used them as a checklist, not so much.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote: