3.5E caused your own problems with flight.

[Lago_AM3P]

Seriously, all of the problems this edition has with flight was imposed on itself.

1.) In 3.0E, flying with ranged attacks while your other opponents flew was actually a DISADVANTAGE, because cover used to be significant enough that archers took to the ground so they wouldn't get lit up. 3.5E sure fixed that.

2.) By making the available means of flight so difficult to get at (spells or really expensive magical items) you made the gap between flyers and non-flyers that. At least in 3.0E flight was cheap as hell through a magic item so not having it was more of a moron problem.

3.) Ranged and melee attacks are very opposed to each other except for one thing: BAB. Oh, and buffs. Thanks for shooting yourselves in the eyes with the crack-ass super-specialized feat system.

4.) 3.5E is insistent on using the monster runs up and beats you over the head. Seriously, the fact that silent image or a bag of hungry rats or a hole in the ground or any of that stupid crap makes you automatically win against iron golems and colossal zombies should show that flight is the least of your worries.

[RandomCasualty]

The game as a whole really doesn't seem well equipped to handle flight. Honestly I'm not sure why it isn't just done away with for the most part.

-We play on a 2 dimensional map grid, with no real systems in place to adequately handle 3 dimensional movement.

-We want tactical combat, where people use terrain and cover and all, and flight is the absolute antithesis of that, where people fight in wide open featureless aerial spaces.

-Flight opens up a huge cheese layer for the gap between people who have it and people who don't and the only way to close the gap is to effectively making everyone fly. This invalidates many kinds of terrain, from pit traps to archers standing up on cliffs.

-Flying singlehandedly destroys any concept of wilderness D&D adventures.

I just don't see a single good thing that having everyone fly does for the game. It makes combats more of a pain in the ass to depict on a 2D surface. It reduces the amount of good tactical choices and it makes all terrain seem the same. No movement penalties in swamps, no worrying about taking high ground to get an advantage... none of that shit, you just fly over it, and if you try to use terrain, they'll just fly over it.

Honestly, flying can kiss my ass. It's what makes mid to high level combat boring as shit. No point in having terrain cause every fucker can fly.


Flying needs to die a horrible, screaming death in the darkest dungeon of failed RPG mechanics. It belongs right down there with demihuman level caps and the 3E polymorphing mechanics.

[Username17]

The game as a whole really doesn't seem well equipped to handle flight.

True.

Honestly I'm not sure why it isn't just done away with for the most part.

...Because flying, unlike teleportation and raise dead, is in fact actually real. Right outside my window right now is a crow, and it's actually fvcking flying. This means that making a universe with no flying in it is essentially completely unimersive. If the game world is supposed to mimic the real world in any way, flying must be in it.

And more importantly, even if you get rid of flight altogether, the tactical matrix of flight still exists. Flight is, from a game mechanical perspective, simply the ability to make yourself completely immune to melee attacks if:

1. You forego melee attacks yourself.
2. Your opponent does not have a mobility power of their own capable of negating the current tactical matrix.

So, "flight" is game mechanically identical to getting on a really fast horse, standing on top of a watch tower (or tavern), cutting a rope bridge, climbing a tree (or being boosted into it by another), or any of a thousand things that all do exactly the same thing to the tactical set-up and therefore put you in exactly the same situation vis a vis game balance.

Flying needs to die a horrible, screaming death in the darkest dungeon of failed RPG mechanics.

The only way that can happen is if we abandon all pretense of playing characters in an imersive world and simply have playing pieces in a tactical simulation game. As long as we are playing warhammer or chess, we can force everyone to think and play inside the box. Areas on the map with tress in them provide cover for archery, cut charge moves, and limit line of sight. They can't be climbed, cut down and used as field fortifications, or in any other way be interacted with as a series of actual physical objects made out of wood. They are just going to be "tree filled regions" on our tactical map.

If you are willing to go that far, go nuts. Drop flight like a bad dream. Of course, you'll be playing Chainmail, and not D&D. But if that's what you want, there's nothing actually wrong with that.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1114195538[/unixtime]]
...Because flying, unlike teleportation and raise dead, is in fact actually real. Right outside my window right now is a crow, and it's actually fvcking flying. This means that making a universe with no flying in it is essentially completely unimersive. If the game world is supposed to mimic the real world in any way, flying must be in it.

Well, just because you can fly doesn't actually mean you have to be able to attack while flying, or at the very least doesn't mean you have to be able to have missile attacks. And you can certainly have rules that prevent most flying creatures from making ranged attacks. And I think it makes sense for the most part. IF you're worrying about flying and beating your wings, it's ok to say you're not balanced enough to concentrate on a spell or aim a bow. There's just too much wind whipping past you or whatever to draw a bow and aim it right, and you have to spend too much time concentrating on maintaining flight to cast a spell. And that'd be ok.

You don't have to eliminate flight as a whole, you just have to eliminate combat flight.

So, "flight" is game mechanically identical to getting on a really fast horse, standing on top of a watch tower (or tavern), cutting a rope bridge, climbing a tree (or being boosted into it by another), or any of a thousand things that all do exactly the same thing to the tactical set-up and therefore put you in exactly the same situation vis a vis game balance.

Well, not quite, because a fast horse still gets slowed down in a swamp or a thick forest. Standing on a tower makes you stationary. And letting people make use of terrain is a good thing, it makes them think more tactically instead of the "blank map" syndrome produced by flight. When you can fly people really don't give a fuck if they're fighting in a swamp, in a forest or in a featureless void. It seriously doesn't matter. Whenever your'e using terrain or trying to make use of a fast horse or whatever, at the very least you're making use of terrain. And there are certain kinds of terrain that are bad for you and certain kinds that are good.

The only way that can happen is if we abandon all pretense of playing characters in an imersive world and simply have playing pieces in a tactical simulation game. As long as we are playing warhammer or chess, we can force everyone to think and play inside the box. Areas on the map with tress in them provide cover for archery, cut charge moves, and limit line of sight. They can't be climbed, cut down and used as field fortifications, or in any other way be interacted with as a series of actual physical objects made out of wood. They are just going to be "tree filled regions" on our tactical map.

While I wouldn't advocate going this far, I think D&D definitely needs to rethink many of its abilities. If you want tactical combat in an RPG, then some effort needs to be made to keep the tactical combat functional. If you don't want tactical combat, then it shouldn't be in the rules at all.

And really, I don't think flying is fun, from either a tactical standpoint or a storytelling standpoint. It seems like the solution to every problem, whether its climbing a mountain or how to approach a well defended fortress is always just to do some crap using flying. And it's just a way overused mechanic. Especially when you've got rogues and rangers who need cover and such to hide behind, it's a good idea to keep things on the ground. It's a lot more fun sneaking through a forest than just flying over it. And as stated earlier aerial combat sucks ass.

Now maybe there's a point where everything should be flying, but that should be more at around level 15+, not 5.

[Murtak]

I don't see any problems with flying archers myself. There is a problem with way too many monsters having no ranged attacks though. Against encounters that have ranged attacks, even if they are much worse then their melee attacks you will not do all that well with flying archery, provided there is any amount of cover. A tower shield, a big rock and a couple bushes and you are shooting at 90% cover, while being sniped at with no cover whatsoever yourself. If your campaign features deserts and plains it may be more of a problem, I guess. Still, in these areas it only makes sense for anything that lves there to have significant ranged attacks.

[RandomCasualty]

1114198725[/unixtime]]
I don't see any problems with flying archers myself. There is a problem with way too many monsters having no ranged attacks though.

Well, for the most part I consider monsters with no ranged attacks to be almost a staple of fantasy. You see a lot of oozes, big animals, giant vermin, or even just the zombie horde. There are plenty of fantasy concepts that are entirely melee based, and I don't expect that to be readily changeable, nor do I consider changing it to be all that great an idea anyway.

In a modern game we can expect almost everyone to have guns, so flying just doesn't become all that big deal. In a fantasy game, not everything is likely to have bows. Many things may just rely on their tough natural armor and fortitude to soak a few shots and close with the enemy. Still others may use natural cover and ambush their targets. The problem is that flying takes away all these tactical effects,
since you can simply fly over any problems.

And I still have yet to really hear a good reason how flying makes the game better in any shape or form. Yes, I realize birds and such have to fly, but birds don't have to be able to fire bows at the same time. I think the game would be more fun to play if we just got rid of the idea of ranged attacks while flying, and in general kept combat flight out of the hands of PCs until well into level 15+.

Instead create earthbind spells to take away the enemys ability to fly. That would create a much more tactical game.

[Murtak]

1114198725[/unixtime]]
I don't see any problems with flying archers myself. There is a problem with way too many monsters having no ranged attacks though.

Well, for the most part I consider monsters with no ranged attacks to be almost a staple of fantasy. You see a lot of oozes, big animals, giant vermin, or even just the zombie horde. There are plenty of fantasy concepts that are entirely melee based, and I don't expect that to be readily changeable, nor do I consider changing it to be all that great an idea anyway.

But why are any of these a problem anyways? Do you usually encounter giant vermin out in the open? Do you seriously mind if the players fly and shoot 50 of 500000 zombies instead of running away and turning to shoot? Heck, pretty much for anything that is not intelligent, why do you expect the players to duke it out in physical combat, the one thing these things do well? As long as "fly and shoot it" is not the answer to each of these monsters, is there a problem if the players choose to fly and shoot instead of running and shooting, spring attacking, illusion and shoot, grease and alchemists fire or what not?

If you want these monsters to stand a chance, put them where they belong: undergrounds, in swamps, in forests. Out in the open they get slaughtered, and rightfully so.

Many things may just rely on their tough natural armor and fortitude to soak a few shots and close with the enemy. Still others may use natural cover and ambush their targets. The problem is that flying takes away all these tactical effects, since you can simply fly over any problems.

The "I will just run up and bash them once I am there" approach will get the monster killed, yes. That is, if the party routinely has fly spells for everyone. Unless all of your encounters can be defeated like this I doubt that this is the best use you can put those spells to until 3rd level spells have not much value to you - say, around level 10 or higher.

Not that there is a reason for most of those monsters to not have any ranged attacks. Why would lizardfolk or bugbears or orcs not use ranged weapons? And how exactly does fly negate ambushes?

And I still have yet to really hear a good reason how flying makes the game better in any shape or form. Yes, I realize birds and such have to fly, but birds don't have to be able to fire bows at the same time. I think the game would be more fun to play if we just got rid of the idea of ranged attacks while flying, and in general kept combat flight out of the hands of PCs until well into level 15+.

Sure, fly may be a little low in level. But an 8th level spell? Sheesh. Are you routinely playing in desert settings and placing 90% melee-only encounters in there?

As for how flying makes the game better: Being able to fly is cool (= fun = good). Not being able to do something that quite a few encounters of your level are capable of is not cool ( = not fun = bad).

By the way, I think 3.0 fly is too good myself. Not because of the combat applications though - I think it is too good because it lasts too long, is too fast and lets you move while held. 3.5 Fly though? A spell you actually have to cast in combat? And it ruins your encounters, more then slow, invisibility, illusions or stinking cloud?

Instead create earthbind spells to take away the enemys ability to fly. That would create a much more tactical game.

Check out the Draconomicon.

[Username17]

Flying and shooting simultaneously is no different from flying or climbing to an appropriate shooting platform and shooting from there. The net result: you can hurt them at all and they can't say the same; is identical. If you are in a situation where "flying and shooting" makes you automatically win, then no amount of fvcking with the rules is going to make you not automatically win. As long as the world is actually interactive, the PCs win. Period.

Well, for the most part I consider monsters with no ranged attacks to be almost a staple of fantasy. You see a lot of oozes, big animals, giant vermin, or even just the zombie horde. There are plenty of fantasy concepts that are entirely melee based, and I don't expect that to be readily changeable, nor do I consider changing it to be all that great an idea anyway.

Well, flying is a staple of fantasy as well. From Belepharon to Perseus to Alladin to Dorothy, if you are a serious fantasy character the chances are pretty good that you can fly.

But that's irrelevent actually. The only way to make fantasy characters actually care about zombie hordes is if the zombie hordes are either hidden or actively attacking something that the players value. That's it. If there isn't a built-in time constraint, an immobile melee threat isn't.

That's not a flight problem, that's not even a problem. Zombie hordes being "over there somewhere" isn't a challenge, it's a fvcking terrain feature. And noone cares. If the zombies are actually in the process of tearing up the docks or are lurking in the water next to your campsite - that's a problem that needs dealing with.

-Username17

[User3]

Mostly for reasons already stated, I don't think that getting rid of flying is even possible.

And flying combat is cool, I don't want to eliminate epic aerial dragon jousts.

What could be represented more accurately are the difficulties of a flying opponent attacking a grounded one. Of which there are many.

Almost evenyone on the ground should have cover relative to flying archers. In a forest (or similar terrain), fliers (especially larger ones) are basically fscked.

Flying as a mobility issue is big, but if you don't mind bringing more obnoxious rules into the game, wingspan is a damn' good way to quash fly-happy half celestials.

That is, a flying medium creature takes up the space of a large one, etc. Which means that in the average dungeon crawl, you can't spread your wings far enough to get over that pit trap.

In a dense forest, you actually need to use your Climb skill to get to the top of a tree so you can start flying.

There is no reason that you can't make the Fly spell create physical wings which are just as annoying as nonmagical ones.

Of course, that doesn't stop most smaller creatures (or things like Beholders), but seeing as there are terrain-based manuvering penalties for grounded creatures, I have no idea why there aren't ones for flyers.

And sure, you can always just soar above it all, but at that point you can't interact either.

Wide open desert plains will still be paradise to the flyers, but they always have been (IRL). And the great thing is that lets the DM decide just how effective flight will be and when.

Add in the danger of being tripped/grappled by ranged weapons (check the D&D rules, a tripped flyer immediately "stalls"), and improve spells like Gust of Wind against the airborne, and people might start thinking twice about those wings...

[RandomCasualty]

1114205499[/unixtime]]Flying and shooting simultaneously is no different from flying or climbing to an appropriate shooting platform and shooting from there. The net result: you can hurt them at all and they can't say the same; is identical. If you are in a situation where "flying and shooting" makes you automatically win, then no amount of fvcking with the rules is going to make you not automatically win. As long as the world is actually interactive, the PCs win. Period.

We've been over this before. A shooting platform is much weaker because it's immobile, and it's also relatively visible too. If you're up in a tree, then someone can take cover and you damn well can't see them or shoot them until you get down. They can also approach while under cover as well, or wait for you to get down, or any number of other tactics. If you shoot a dire wolf while up in a tree, chances are it will survive the first shot. Then it goes and waits. And basically you're stuck up that tree till you decide to climb down and melee the wounded wolf or you decide to wait it out. In either case you are much weaker than someone who could damn well follow that wolf anywhere above ground and kick the crap out of it.

Well, flying is a staple of fantasy as well. From Belepharon to Perseus to Alladin to Dorothy, if you are a serious fantasy character the chances are pretty good that you can fly.

This is true, but the aerial sniper isn't much of a staple of fantasy. Generally flying stuff doesn't use ranged attacks, but rather swoops down and attacks, this is true of monsters as well as heroes.

As for being a serious character, I'm not quite sure, there have been plenty of heroes that didn't fly. Aragorn, Hercules, Conan, Elric. Sure, they may have ridden something flying at one time, but they did not fly as a norm. Not anywhere near the D&D style of flight where everyone has an item to fly and everyone flies pretty much all the time. Generally when I think fantasy I don't think of flying heroes. For the most part, flying in fantasy is used very sparingly. LotR wouldn't have been all that interesting if they just used giant eagles to fly to Mordor and dive bombed the ring into mount doom. Honestly I think abundant flying screws most fantasy.

And flying combat is cool, I don't want to eliminate epic aerial dragon jousts.

Well there's nothing necessarily wrong with melee attacks and flying. You just eliminate the noncool use of some jackass sitting on a griffon and raining down arrows killing dire wolves. Because that isn't cool at all.

Flying as a mobility issue is big, but if you don't mind bringing more obnoxious rules into the game, wingspan is a damn' good way to quash fly-happy half celestials.

That is, a flying medium creature takes up the space of a large one, etc. Which means that in the average dungeon crawl, you can't spread your wings far enough to get over that pit trap.

In a dense forest, you actually need to use your Climb skill to get to the top of a tree so you can start flying.

Imposing wingspan rules, and wings for the fly spell may actually be a good step in the right direction, though I'm not certain how big of a change it would do, since then you'd just end up with flying halflings, and all the other tricks people used to get around the large size of mounts in dungeons.

But it would help somewhat in certain terrains to reduce the impact of flying. Though I still think powergamers could probably figure a way to get around it.

[User3]

1114218279[/unixtime]]You just eliminate the noncool use of some jackass sitting on a griffon and raining down arrows killing dire wolves. Because that isn't cool at all.

But what about eliminating dragons that fly around breathing fire on everyone? Cool or not cool?

[Josh_Kablack]

I don't have a single conceptual problem with flight in an RPG.

I however have several mechanics and metasystem complaints about the handling of flight in D&D.

1. The rules for creatures flying with less than perfect mobility interact really poorly with an initiative system in which a full round's worth of actions occurs at a single discrete point.

2. Representing minis in the 3rd dimension is a challenge on most gametables.

As to these, I really need to get off my ass and formalize the alterante 1 die, 12 oz, 20oz, 2 liter flight/altitude system we use in my game.

3. Flight becomes available at such a low level that it renders a number of existing mobility skills obsolete very fast. Either flight needs to be a bit more tightly restricted to higher levels, and or the mobility skills need to be cheapened, powered up and/or made capable of granting flight themselves.

4. There are too god-damn many monsters of substantial CR who are both groundbound and have no way to attack anything more than 30' away. Flying archery ownz these monsters, as does Expeditious Retreat Archery, Mounted Archery, Climbing Archery, Moats, and a number of other tactics, all of which are tactics embraced by smart players, since the designers compensate for these monsters' weakness at range by making them significantly more dangerous in melee than a PC of the same level can expect to be.

[Murtak]

3. Flight becomes available at such a low level that it renders a number of existing mobility skills obsolete very fast. Either flight needs to be a bit more tightly restricted to higher levels, and or the mobility skills need to be cheapened, powered up and/or made capable of granting flight themselves.

Agreed. I am currently redoing the DnD skill system, mainly because it is absurd how different the skills are in power, even if you do not take things like fly into account. Diplomacy vs innuendo? Balance vs use magic device?

For now it looks like Climb, Swim, Ride and Jump will become Athletics, which is also going to include "jump as far as you can run into one round".

[Username17]

This is true, but the aerial sniper isn't much of a staple of fantasy.

Bullshit. Dragons fly and breathe fire on people. Belepheron tamed Pegasus in order to have a flying archery platform from which to slay Chimera. Flying archery is a seriously important aspect of both heroes and villains in fantasy.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1114244171[/unixtime]]
Bullshit. Dragons fly and breathe fire on people. Belepheron tamed Pegasus in order to have a flying archery platform from which to slay Chimera. Flying archery is a seriously important aspect of both heroes and villains in fantasy.

Well dragons are varied. You've got some myths where you have St.George charging the dragon with a lance, and that just can't happen if he's flying. Then you've got lord of the rings where you have an archer killing a dragon.

And that's a matter of flavor, and it depends what you want to have killing dragons. Given that dragons have huge numbers of hp, it's generally assumed you're going to melee them. So I wouldn't really have a problem just saying they can't breathe fire while airborne. If we wanted the LotR style dragon that you're expected to kill in the air, then we'd just lower its hp and make it a target for archer characters. Which I wouldn't really have that much of a problem with. If you want dragons to be one of the rare creatures that can attack and fly, that's fine. It makes them feel special anyway.

It just depends on if you want dragons killed by knights or archers.

As for flying archers, the flying archer is a very rare part of fantasy, especially for heroes. And as I stated before, flight is something rare and wondrous in fantasy altogether. It's very rarely something someone always does or takes for granted, especially an archer type. And really I think the game would be better off without it.

Let people use terrain if they want to gain elevation advantages. Make climb mean something, but don't just allow true three dimensional movement anywhere.

[Username17]

As for flying archers, the flying archer is a very rare part of fantasy, especially for heroes.

You keep saying this. It's still not actually true. Remember that every hero who stands on a cloud and shoots lightning at people is a "flying archer", as is every hero who rides around on a sky chariot wih a longbow, as is every hero with a magic carpet who drops heavy objects on people.

Collectively, that's a crap load of heroes from all over the world. Flying Archers are used more often than any monster, even the winged fire breathing lizard. If we accept dragons as "common", then flying archers are fvcking pandemic.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1114276715[/unixtime]]
You keep saying this. It's still not actually true. Remember that every hero who stands on a cloud and shoots lightning at people is a "flying archer", as is every hero who rides around on a sky chariot wih a longbow, as is every hero with a magic carpet who drops heavy objects on people.

But this just doesn't happen all that much. I mean sure, a lot of gods can do it, Almost every deity myth involves some god up in the heavens being able to pick people off from afar, but as far as heroes, it's just not too common at all. Most of the time of heroes is spent grounded, not flying. You can use Beowulf or Hercules or anything more modern, like any of the LotR characters, Conan, Elric. Even while some of these characters may have flown at one time or another it was something that they rarely did, not a common occurance.

Flying Archers are used more often than any monster, even the winged fire breathing lizard.

Thats a gross exaggeration. flying archers are used rarely. Using any mythology, or fantasy story, flying and ranged attacks are very rarely combined. More often than not flying creatures act more like the beasts the Nazgul rode in Return of the King. They swoop down and grab people, or they peck people like cockatrices or whatever. Even dragons can do that. If you ever want St.George to be able to slay the dragon you've certainly got to prevent it from just doing strafing runs and never landing.

And simply put, lots of monsters don't fly. From the lowly orcs to medusas, basilisks, minotaurs, giants, wights, most elementals, hell hounds, as well as a great many other monsters. By far the most common monsters are the ones who don't fly and have only close range attacks. Next most common are flyers who have only melee attacks. Then come ground based archers, and finally you've got flying archers after that.

[Lago_AM3P]

Jesus, RandomCasualty, do you draw D&D material from ANYTHING besides Lords of the Rings and similarly-themed series?

[RandomCasualty]

1114281047[/unixtime]]Jesus, RandomCasualty, do you draw D&D material from ANYTHING besides Lords of the Rings and similarly-themed series?

I tend to stick with classical high fantasy. LotR after all was what inspired D&D. And the majority of monsters tend to come from a classical fantasy atmosphere anyway.

Even most of the Forgotten Realms novels are rather low on flight. You don't see every hero, even supposedly high level heroes, walking around with boots of flying.

[Josh_Kablack]

1114285096[/unixtime]]
I tend to stick with classical high fantasy. LotR after all was what inspired D&D.

That's a piece of hyperbole.

But if you want to stick to middle-earth, you have lots of flight. We have Bilbo escaping on the Eagles. We have the Eagles fighting in the battle of the Five Armies, We have the Nazgul Riding around on fell beasts, We have Smaug flying out of reach of all but arrows, and we have balrogs and dragons galore flying around in the First Age.

[Carcharoth]

1114287420[/unixtime]]

1114285096[/unixtime]]
I tend to stick with classical high fantasy. LotR after all was what inspired D&D.

That's a piece of hyperbole.

But if you want to stick to middle-earth, you have lots of flight. We have Bilbo escaping on the Eagles. We have the Eagles fighting in the battle of the Five Armies, We have the Nazgul Riding around on fell beasts, We have Smaug flying out of reach of all but arrows, and we have balrogs and dragons galore flying around in the First Age.

...and Gandalf. Gandalf flew around on eagles quite a bit.

[Oberoni]

And, of course, it bears mentioning that a lot of modern fantasy--relayed through comic books and cartoons as such--is chock-full of "flying archers."

While one could certainly hold his or her nose high in the air, sniffle, and then declare that only fantasy novels count, that would be a very, very cheap way of trying to sidestep the prevalence of flying fantasy characters with ranged attacks.

Amazingly, I never have to read or watch too many stories of flying archer types picking off their opponents because--guess what? Most of their adversaries can fly or use ranged attacks.

So, yeah, like Lago said, trying to make flight rarer (and building the game around that premise) was a really, really bad idea.

[RandomCasualty]

IMO making flight common just cheapens the game experience. There's so many plot ideas that utterly get tossed out the window when everyone can fly.

It can be as simple as the rickety bridge over the chasm to having to navigate the deep dark forest.

Not to mention as stated earlier, terrain just goes out the window. Flyers don't worry about cover or any of that crap they just exist in the featureless void of being airborne.

From a game standpoint, flying is incredibly boring. Even if you want to say that it's common in fantasy, which I still strongly disagree with, it's just not fun from a game point of view to have everyone fly. It screws over adventure designs, makes many monsters in the MM pointless and has no positive side whatsoever. I mean who really wants to kick terrain in the nuts like that? If you set the adventure in a swamp, it should actually mean something.

I mean at that point you might as well just have no walking form of movement and just say everything flies. I mean who gives a fuck if the PCs are playing superman and wonder woman, then your dire bears might as well be super bear too. And your bears need to be if the want to compete. But what the heck did you achieve.

You've forced three dimensional combat on a system designed for two, you've totally eliminated terrain, and you've turned every character into superman. Random encounters and bandits and all practically don't exist, because you can just fly over em. By making flight common, you eliminate ground movement, and ground movement is by far the more fun and interesting of the two. That's the kind of movement that takes you past the old graveyard, or allows for you to meet the halfling traders on the way. In the air you either get attacked by a Roc or dragon or you get to your destination. And either way it's boring as hell. Doesn't matter what terrain you're travelling over, you're fucking superman.

I look at all the things that you have to give up in order to have common flight, and I look at the benefits. When you add it up, there just damn well aren't any benefits to common flying. It doesn't make the game any more fun and I'm ok with not allowing concepts that require flying because they're just flat out not compatible with ground concepts, and there are a heck of a lot more ground concepts than flying ones.

Seriously guys, what is the advantage of flying again?

[MrWaeseL]

If you really think walking is something that adds to the flavor of a campaign, there can always be strong winds blowing across the bridge, or the hedge maze is made out of special plants that drain the magic around them, acting as an Anti-Magic field. Go nuts.

[Username17]

Or just put up a fvcking ceiling on your maze/chasm/whatever.

-Username17