The Gaming Den

Enworld wrote:Fly Wizard Utility 16
'You leap into the air and don't look back.'
Daily * Arcane
Standard Action Personal
Effect: You gain a speed of fly 8 until the end of your next turn.
Sustain Minor: You can sustain this power until the end of the encounter or for 5 minutes. If you don't sustain it, you float to the ground without taking falling damage.

Your Wizard 16th level daily power of flight allows you to fly for 5 minutes or the encounter, and it eats up your minor action every round.

This makes me wonder what happens to all of the 3e weaker flying mount monsters. Hippogriffs, Griffons, Pegasus, Giant Eagles, Giant Owls, Spider Eaters, Animated Objects, Dragonnes, Lammasus, Nightmares, Sphinx, Wyverns. If they view flight as such an important ability that it is a 16th level wizard daily power, then that either means that the wizard is getting screwed over on opportunity cost, or that you cannot get a flying mount until after 16th level.

If you can't get any of those dozen low level flying mounts (only counting the MM1), how do the rules enforce this? Are all of these monsters like level 20-25+? Are all classes with mounts/animal companions/ familiars/summons/etc. not allowed flying creatures? Are all enchantments so nerfed that you cannot even get a low intelligence creature to carry you somewhere? Are the training/rearing rules so gimped you cannot raise the clutch of baby Griffons you rescued?

These questions make me wonder if they are seriously damaging gameworld verisimilitude, so that you are unable to get a flying creature to ferry you around. And this is just one spell...Thoughts?

Flying has been pushed back. So yeah, don't expect flying mounts until the mid teens. If the Azer can be pushed to 15-17th level, so can the hippogriff.

And, really, if this hits you in the verisimilitude button, don't read anymore 4e info. Your brain will explode.

Sigh... why do I get the feeling this change was less for combat balance reasons and more for all the GMs that bitched how long duration flight magic broke their LotR-With-Slightly-Different-Window-Dressing game when the party had the common sense to just use teleport and flight to avoid the dull as hell months long trek across the country of the Horsey Shaggers, the dangerous and pointless climb over the Big Ass Icy Mountain Range and go right to the Dark Volcanic Doom Temple in the middle of the Wastelands of Evil to destroy the super powerful Plot Hook of The Macguffin that doesn't really actually do anything cool unless held by a NPC.

So what level are the long range teleport spells going be, level 30? level Elmister?

What I fear is that changes at this magnitude means that any previous players will be alienated, and won't find the game acceptable. I had enough trouble getting them to play d20, and that was 2e with the numbers all pointing the same way...

-Crissa

Well...

Level 16 4e is ~level 10 in 3.x terms...still fairly high.

Given that they've booted druids, animal companions will be less of a problem...and it's entirely possible that they've killed/nerfed/altered summoning spells to delete the fliers as well.

I suspect flight is going to be restricted hard...will a high-level pally be able to acquire a flying mount? Will anyone be able to take Leadership, or Sidekick, or Second Character With Slightly Less Power, and gain a flier? My spidey-sense says maybe on the first, no on the second.

Personally, I don't have a serious problem with limiting flying...as a GM, I hate unlimited flight for PCs, since it renders a number of obstacles utterly useless. Pit trap? Chasm? Lava flow? Big ol' thorn-hedge? Who cares?

A good GM will gloss over pointless travel time anyway ("You have a travel montage...six days later, you reach the Big Ass Icy Mountains, where [x] happens...") Contrariwise, a bad GM will not be foiled by magic ("Teleport? Uh...you can't; you've never been there. Fly? Uh...you're attacked by fifteen harpies. And seven rocs. And a winged basilisk. With a hammer.").

3.x: levels 1 to 6
... are equal to...
4e: levels 1 to 10

So in 3.x terms, flight is around spell level 5-6.
Teleport will be almost unattainable in most campaigns, let alone planar travel.
Sad.

They have a 4th level flying Dragon in the sample. Versimilitude is shot.

Basically it's just EQd20 - you have to be 20th level to get the Mage spell that gives you a box of fireworks and party favors.

-Username17

Harlune at [unixtime wrote:1204521938[/unixtime]]Sigh... why do I get the feeling this change was less for combat balance reasons and more for all the GMs that bitched how long duration flight magic broke their LotR-With-Slightly-Different-Window-Dressing game

Flight was uber in combat, and it came way too early in 3rd edition. When you expect shit like dire bears to be a threat, you can't have flight magic that lets you literally get invulnerability to them. Flight basically beat every melee only ground creature. It really was too good if you ask me.

Flight should come at the level where melee based ground toughs don't exist anymore.

As far as flying mounts, they could easily just set it up where you can't easily fire a bow or cast spells while riding a flying mount. That'd fix that problem rather easily.

I can see possibly 4E might be good, but on the other hand they could screw it up entirely and be the worst edition of D&D yet.

What about the people with bows and the ability to climb a tree, or ride a horse, or simply able to move faster than the dire bear? These people create the very same invulnerability situation against many a melee monster.

I agree that flight should be a power gained later on. There's not much progression in the flymancer chain of events. Perhaps they should focus more on hovering just off the ground to increase movement speed rather than "fly as high as a kite all you like".

Yeh, I never had a problem with fly; I had a problem with Dire Bears. Expecting a Dire anything to be a threat at level 5 was a joke.

People do seem to want a larger level range where non flying melee stuff is a threat though. 3e leaves LotR behind really fast considering that lots of people go on about wanting a game like LotR.

Virgileso pretty much said it already, but there's more than one kind of 'flight'. Against a dire bear in a big forest, 'climb the biggest tree' is a better form of flight than 'clumsy realistic flight', because in the tree you don't have to worry about crashing into something. Yeah, if the bear is really on the warpath he'll eventually knock down the tree, but by then he'll probably be dead.

Total banishment of "flight" from low levels is probably an outgrowth of the abstraction of everyone flying like a will 'o the wisp. Even a helicopter could get in trouble trying to fly low over lava flows what with all of the chaotic thermals.

Virgileso put it well:

virgileso wrote:What about the people with bows and the ability to climb a tree, or ride a horse, or simply able to move faster than the dire bear? These people create the very same invulnerability situation against many a melee monster.

Exactly.
_____________

RandomCasualty wrote:Flight was uber in combat, and it came way too early in 3rd edition. When you expect shit like dire bears to be a threat, you can't have flight magic that lets you literally get invulnerability to them. Flight basically beat every melee only ground creature. It really was too good if you ask me.

Flight should come at the level where melee based ground toughs don't exist anymore.

No. Having flight doesn't automatically mean that "...flight magic that lets you literally get invulnerability to them." Flight isn't the problem here. The problem is one of mobility.

You don't judge the challenge of a Lantern Archon to a party by assuming that the party will fight it in a 5 foot square box. You don't judge the challenge of an Arrow Demon to a party by assuming that the party will fight it underwater. Likewise you don't judge the challenge of a Dire Bear by assuming it is sitting in a 1 mile diameter grassy field with no cover, when the party has flight.
___________________

"Flight should come at the level where melee based ground toughs don't exist anymore."

This is simply untrue. There are many instances where melee monsters are a threat to a party with flight. The Dm just has to use discretion when evaluating the situation.

Dire Bears can be a threat, but they can't be a primary threat. You can put up walls of fire and huge chasms in the middle of combat and have that matter despite the fact that in abstract you could just walk around.

A necromancer villain who has a dire bear playing bodyguard is a lot more threatening than one who does not. Despite the fact that a Dire Bear by itself doesn't command more respect than any mid-size brute.

-Username17

Draco_Argentum at [unixtime wrote:1204534405[/unixtime]]considering that lots of people go on about wanting a game like LotR.

Yeah, but those people need to eat some KCn powder. Seriously. LotR is a terrible thing to base a game off. It's not even an entertaining story, but once you add in actual players who have to play a part in it and enjoy it...

So if we encourage the LotR fanboys to just fuck off and die, then many problems are suddenly solved.

There have been extended threads by LotR fanboys whining that they *have* been invited to fuck off and die.

Its important to remember the gag before you drive them off into the wilderness.

Koumei at [unixtime wrote:1204544855[/unixtime]]

Draco_Argentum at [unixtime wrote:1204534405[/unixtime]]considering that lots of people go on about wanting a game like LotR.

Yeah, but those people need to eat some KCn powder. Seriously. LotR is a terrible thing to base a game off. It's not even an entertaining story, but once you add in actual players who have to play a part in it and enjoy it...

So if we encourage the LotR fanboys to just fuck off and die, then many problems are suddenly solved.

As someone who truly enjoys LotR, let me invite you to shut the hell up about hating on my favoriite story. I agree that LotR makes a poor basis for a D&D-style RPG, but the flavor of LotR is a different matter. You don't like it? That's fine; just don't bash those of us who do.

How about this: you play D&D the way you like, and I'll do the same, without either of us saying the other person should "fuck off and die."

Climbing a tree is a legit option when faced with Dire Bear. It is then expected that the Dire Bear, after being peppered with arrows for 2 rounds, leaves well enough alone.

Flight is awesome, but it is way too awesome. At the levels that it is encountered is is simultaneously a great offensive and defensive spell towards many, many monsters. Additionally, I would like a larger level range where flying monsters are a legit. threat.

Mounts are a different story. Yes, you can have your mount run circles around the Dire Bear. However, mounts are vulnerable. If this was 3.5, you could kill a mount with a decent arrow/spell/ranged attack.

CatharzGodfoot at [unixtime wrote:1204534694[/unixtime]]Virgileso pretty much said it already, but there's more than one kind of 'flight'. Against a dire bear in a big forest, 'climb the biggest tree' is a better form of flight than 'clumsy realistic flight', because in the tree you don't have to worry about crashing into something. Yeah, if the bear is really on the warpath he'll eventually knock down the tree, but by then he'll probably be dead.

I'm not sure why you guys think climbing a big tree is so awesome. First, climbing requires a check, that you very well may fail, especially if you're the cleric in full plate, or the wizard with 8 strength.

Second, the bear can climb right after you and likely with better ranks than the rest of your party. With 31 strength, you're looking at a +10 climb modifier. If it's a small tree, the bear can claw it down.

Third, the bear can run into the forest a short distance behind cover and wait you out. Unlike with flight, you can't advance the adventure while up a tree. You really can't do much of anything.

Running up a tree isn't going to help you.

Lol. The LotR-talk compels me to ask:

Has anyone here read DM of the Rings?

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedt ... br]Premise: Let's say a bunch of hack-n-slash DnD players have somehow never heard of Lord of the Rings and get involved in a game where it's given the full Tolkien-esque detail and oh-so-elegant world and speech patterns.

Now that is funny stuff.

I'm not sure why you guys think climbing a big tree is so awesome.

I never gave more emphasis on the tree technique than the other methods. It is but one example of many options.

In 3E, bonuses to climb are easier than getting flight even in the system where flight is apparently too easy. In 4E, they're already showing that proficiency is barely needed, and combat on a tree is like combat near a cliff. You can just push them off with basic maneuvers like bull rush, assuming class powers don't factor in.

But that is just for trees. There remain the other options, likely with even less effort than climbing around.

Now, for when the bear gives up and goes behind cover or into his cave, how is this any different than dealing with a flier? After the first round or two of it doing nothing but hiding from the arrows, I would think even animals would just start working with readied actions to move behind cover when they see the death dealer.

Then there's the closet technique. When a bear or troll is unable to readily handle ranged attackers, they live in a closet (or cave). There we go, neatly negates ALL of the problems when the only way to even be able to see it is when you're in reach of it.

And if you have a problem with giant polar bears not posing a real threat in an open field, well, there's nothing I can do to help you.

I forgot to actually give my opinions on flight. Many seem to assume that if flight is happening, it's going to be perfect maneuverability. There does remain an entire range of flight options in 3E.

I can see this being a problem in 4E, where I doubt they'll actually make enough of a distinction (either no flight, or air walk without the 'stairs' penalty).

It should probably come after you finish giving out bonuses to climbing and jumping, or at least give it a value slightly higher than great bonuses to both. It's value would go down on its own the crappier the flight got, obviously.

Judging by how they're doing it so far, does this mean that 'effin hang gliders won't be available until level 14 or some crap like that?

No, Talisman. People who claim they wanna play a fantasy leveled cooperative game based in LotR should fvck off and die - and that comes from someone who actually likes the book, but that just doesn't work. If we talk Silmarillion, OTOH (hint: stuff that appears in it is nigh-universally ignored by the alluded-to retards) ...