The Gaming Den

So maybe, rather than nerfing flight/mobility, you need more/better ways to negate ranged attacks?

You've still potentially got an all-or-nothing issue with party strategy. If the warrior deals with flying enemies by holding up a tower shield so they need to land to engage effectively, and the wizard deals with flying enemies by flying, then the warrior doesn't participate in the fight until the wizard is out of it.

A lot of flying monsters still have to come close for melee attacks. I suppose the proper way to fight one is to keep your guard up and be ready to stab it in the face when it comes close.

How would that translate in DnD combat terms? A readied action?

Why can't the melee character just pull out a bow and start shooting?

Leress at [unixtime wrote:1204673340[/unixtime]]Why can't the melee character just pull out a bow and start shooting?

Cuz they would cease to be "melee warriors".

Yeah, choosing to fight a chimera without a bow is a lot like deciding to use a trike in a monster truck rally.

Leress at [unixtime wrote:1204673340[/unixtime]]Why can't the melee character just pull out a bow and start shooting?

Cause we've been conditioned to think that the guy who stabs evil in the face with a sword is the heroic main character and anyone with a bow is just a supporting character.

angelfromanotherpin at [unixtime wrote:1204663186[/unixtime]]

I'm curious. When you say 'that doesn't prove anything,' is it with the same authority that you said 'Conan defeats all his enemies without flight and using his sword?' Seriously, you claim to want to emulate a source, and then your statements prove that you don't actually know the source well enough to cite it accurately. That means you want to emulate something that exists only in your own head; which is fine, but don't claim it has the resonance of fantasies the rest of us have shared in.

Well it doesn't prove anything because it was an edge case.

Basically you're arguing for characters that fly around all the time like Superman and who have flight as one of their gimmicks. A one time thing where a hero happens to tame a pegasus as part of a plot device or whatever doesn't really count, because it was a one shot thing. Unless the Pegasus is part of your general schtick, no it doesn't count.

Flight isn't part of Aragorn, Elric or Conan's shtick. So the one time that Aragorn happens to ride on a giant eagle doesn't really matter as far as the discussion goes, except from a nitpicking "Aragorn doesn't fly only 99% of the time, not 100%" point.

Bigode wrote:
Record of Lodoss War, if you'll recall, IS D&D and suffered from its retardations, up to "warriors are only good with artifact swords".

I don't even care about that. The swords in Lodoss war didn't actually do anything. they were supposedly magical, but they didn't do anything visible that I remember, so they could have also just been masterwork and the high level characters could have been doing all the awesome stuff.

A lot of flying monsters still have to come close for melee attacks. I suppose the proper way to fight one is to keep your guard up and be ready to stab it in the face when it comes close.

How would that translate in DnD combat terms? A readied action?

Yep, you can ready an action to slice something as it passes.

And I think you've got a good point. Really, it's only ranged+melee which beats melee characters. So why not just say most flying creatures can't attack stuff while in the air. Archery and spellcasting is spoiled by the unsteady platform of a flying creature.

A few select creatures like dragons might be able to do stuff beyond melee attacks while airborne, but they should be few and far between. That solves almost all the problems.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1204677337[/unixtime]]
Flight isn't part of Aragorn, Elric or Conan's shtick. So the one time that Aragorn happens to ride on a giant eagle doesn't really matter as far as the discussion goes, except from a nitpicking "Aragorn doesn't fly only 99% of the time, not 100%" point.

That's a matter of setting. They didn't fly not because they didn't need to, but because nothing in their resources or ability allowed them to.
Not every warrior must be like them, but we've been over this subject so many times.
I think I'll just pretend that everyone has similar expectations and move on, that a warrior can still fly and split iron with their hands and shoot lightning and remain a warrior in a high-magic fantasy setting....

RandomCasualty wrote:Basically you're arguing for characters that fly around all the time like Superman and who have flight as one of their gimmicks.

I was not, in fact, arguing anything of the kind. I was just calling you out on not knowing the source material you were citing.

For the record, Aragorn never fights anything that flies, but he does carry a bow just in case (Legolas shoots down a Nazgul's steed at one point, though). Conan faces a few flying enemies, and uses a bow, or turtles and waits for them to close. Elric hangs out with friends who have bows, and can summon air elementals. All of them have anti-air options that don't include flying themselves.

Y'all seem to be missing my point.

I never said, indicated, hinted or implied that the Sword-Wielding Hero was the One and Only True Hero, merely that the SWH is a fantasy archetype and should be a valid one under the system's rules.

So should the archer. So should the bolts-of-fire-flinging wizard. So should the *ahem* rogue. Et cetera.

Crissa threw out a list of monsters and indicated that a SWH is going to have trouble with them. No qualifiers, no "but/except/unless." I pointed out real-world mythological examples of SWH's dealing with these monsters (or not).

No one said "the hero has to beat the monster in a fair duel." No one said "non-flying dragons don't count."

SWH's are going to be subpar in certain situations. You know what? Archers will be subpar in some situations. Blasters. Grapplers. Whatever-ers. There is no one class that absolutely and universally rules...or at least, there should not be.

An anime-style warrior who can fly and hurl lightining is cool...in some settings. But unless you're playing an anime-style game, warriors shouldn't have to become quasi-spellcasters simply to stay viable.

Talisman at [unixtime wrote:1204663788[/unixtime]]

- The Gorynych, a Russian dragon, first subdued by the hero Dobrynya with a hat (!) and later killed with a whip (!!)

Wow, the Russians are hardcore when it comes to killing dragons.

"Uh oh, the hat's coming off. You made him angry now."

You should see what they can do with a hat and whip... while stumbling drunk.
Almost as brutal as an angry Irish bastard with a short stick.
Now there's a warrior archetype for ya. Complete Shillelagh abuse right there.

Talisman at [unixtime wrote:1204679638[/unixtime]]

An anime-style warrior who can fly and hurl lightining is cool...in some settings. But unless you're playing an anime-style game, warriors shouldn't have to become quasi-spellcasters simply to stay viable.

Well I think there's a point where they should have to become superhuman, but that point isn't 5th level. It should probably be near epic. I like about the 16th level where 4E placed basic flight. Then at like 22nd or so you can have people be flying all the time and playing the superhero style game.

Though actually I do wish that fighters got anime style leaps instead of true flight, it'd just be cooler.

Sigma: The whip doesn't surprise me - I've heard stories about the Russian knout and how it could kill a human in one blow. But defeating a dragon with a hat is impressive to say the least.

How about a herring?
Not even an enchanted one.
Kill a dragon with that.
Now that's epic.

I threw out a series of mythological monsters.

None of which are in your swordman settings.

So... Why must I give up my flying monsters and mounts so you can have your swordman?

-Crissa

Leress at [unixtime wrote:1204673340[/unixtime]]Why can't the melee character just pull out a bow and start shooting?

If the character concept is "fights in melee" thats out of concept and needs to be a rarely used option. Just like a wizard should cast spells in the vast majority of fights.

Anyone who says its not a highly requested concept needs to learn to read. The problem is making it a workable concept. Ground based melee is the most tactically limited style by far.

To get it working flight needs to be less of a freebie than 3.x It also needs gap closing moves. Even then it'll still need a backup bow.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Nobody should be able to defeat an adult dragon at any level.

Fixt for Dragon fetishists.

Anyone who says its not a highly requested concept needs to learn to read. The problem is making it a workable concept. Ground based melee is the most tactically limited style by far.

And there also aren't any examples of it except in video games.

Seriously. The first guy who fought with an ax and didn't have a backup ranged weapon of some kind was the dwarf in Golden Axe. And even he had the Magic button that hit everything on the screen.

I seriously don't see why the entire world should bend itself out of alignment so that barbarians can kill owls with swords.

-Username17

How far does it have to bend to keep the bow as a 10% of the time backup for levels 1-5?

I don't think it can be stretched a lot further but that range should be doable. Most enemies are ground based and most of the weak flyers are melee only. Fast ground foes are a weakness of all melee, even flying melee so we're already stuck doing something about that.

The main restriction placed on the world is that no PC race can have innate flying until 6+.




Related question for TNE: How are mounts going to be handled? There needs to be scaling so that you don't ride a Great Wyrm at level 1. There also needs to be scaling so that you can be a pegasus rider and have that be level appropriate from whenever it becomes available until whatever the max level is. Making people trade their mount out for a totally different looking one just to stay relevant sucks.

Draco_Argentum wrote:Related question for TNE: How are mounts going to be handled? There needs to be scaling so that you don't ride a Great Wyrm at level 1. There also needs to be scaling so that you can be a pegasus rider and have that be level appropriate from whenever it becomes available until whatever the max level is. Making people trade their mount out for a totally different looking one just to stay relevant sucks.

I'm guessing the easiest way to do it would be to make a few archetypal mount progressions from level 5-20*. Then you would choose a specific creature and just use your preferred table. So, you would have a lvl 5-20* mount progression for:
-Brute Mount (high offense, medium defense, low movement)
-Speedy Mount (low offense, medium defense, high/unique movement)
-Guardian Mount (low offense, high defense, low movement)

Then each mount table would have a list at which levels you would get specific special abilities. So for example, if you chose a Speedy mount, you would first choose which special movement type you wanted to have: Swimming, Climbing, Brachiation, Flying, Burrowing, or Fast normal movement.

So lets say you wanted a Speedy mount that flies. Lets also assume in TNE that increases in movement will scale with level: (The following progressions are merely conceptual)

Speedy Mount (Flying)
Level 5: Fly 30 ft. (average)
Level 8: Fly 40 ft. (average)
Level 11:Fly 50 ft. (Good)
Level 14:Fly 60 ft. (Good)
Level 17:Fly 70 ft. (Perfect)
Level 20:Fly 80 ft. (Perfect)

You then choose the creature of the flying mount you wanted: Griffon, Pegasus, Hippogriff, Wyvern, True Dragon, Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, etc.

If you wanted to get more granular, each specific creature could get different minor bonuses. A Wyvern could get a poison stinger, and a Giant Owl could get Supernaturally enhanced vision. The important part is to make each creature choice as valid as the next. Ideally, choosing a Giant Eagle would be just as viable as choosing a True Dragon.

*(you could just as easily start the mount progression from level 1, I am just assuming you would want to have to complete some quests or a mini-adventure to gain your special mount)

Wait. You go on about how the sword wielders don't use ranged attacks against their opponents when they're over there, and consider it an edge case when they do so and hence not a standard to consider. In a large portion of the stories you cite, they only ever fight like one or two things without flight. I'm using you for inspiration for this, and declaring that as unimportant.

All of those people just use swords because all they fight are melee monsters/people. That's the kind of setting you want where melee gets to be largely viable, one where nobody flies.

I appreciate how you seem to consider ranged+flight as an auto-win button when the heroes have it, yet go on about how all these sword people went on to defeat such. All ranged+flight means is that you're going to slay the slow+melee+STUPID (such as bears and hydras). No special powers were had by any of them to negate the flight/ranged advantage, except for the extreme power of "hiding underneath a rock".

As for mount upgrades, if you want more than a numerical upgrade, you need to either trade in your mount or start getting magic items (this includes long-term spells) for it. Depending on your initial mount, you can get away with it 'evolving' whole new abilities; such as a drake that finally grows its wings.

How about this: you have your big, burly, stupid warriors if you take the compromise of carrying 5 spears, using them when absolutely needed, and replacing the lost ones between adventures? Or does someone have a concept for which it's absolutely crucial to never think about using more than one weapon? Also: if the setting's fantastic and the monsters are fantastic, yes, "mundanes" need not apply.

Yes, but if the melee weapons shoot elemental projectiles or beams or explode in a huge burst or fling temporary copies of themselves by the grace of a warrior's trained ability, the "melee warrior" doesn't have to pack a separate ranged weapon.
Any melee weapon they use is one. Mundanes need not apply indeed.

"Didn't y'all see the sign? It says 'No Gygaxian Fighters!' "

But Green Barbarian needs food badly. And a paycheck.

My point was that people can reasonable claim flashy magic is out of concept, but not so for basic smarts. If YOU want explosions, be happy with them, but that was for people who want to be well, ... not spellcasters.

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1204708828[/unixtime]]
And there also aren't any examples of it except in video games.

Seriously. The first guy who fought with an ax and didn't have a backup ranged weapon of some kind was the dwarf in Golden Axe. And even he had the Magic button that hit everything on the screen.

Huh? That statement is just incredibly... wrong.

Speaking of dwarves, what about Gimli? I don't remember him firing any ranged weapons. He fought with an axe and that was it pretty much.

Elric didn't have any ranged attacks. Except that time he summoned a bunch of Stormbringer copies and had em act as dancing swords. But that was mostly just to take on an army of gods and not to deal wtih flying stuff.

Parn from Lodoss War. Hell, pretty much all the fighters from Lodoss war. I can't remember a single one using a ranged weapon. Classic swashbucklers don't fight with ranged weapons. The three musketeers or Zorro for instance. Zorro has a whip, that's about it. Fuck man, even Drizz't is pretty much melee only ground based. His stat block doesn't even give him a bow and he's a ranger.

Only in video games? I think not. Melee only ground based swordsmen is a concept that we see all the damn time in fantasy stories. While you may be able to point to some edge case where some of these characters happened to ride a flying creature or happened to pick up a bow like once in twenty adventures. But the base concept is melee only and ground based. None of these characters has a magic item of flight that they walk around with, nor do they carry ranged weapons.