What if Fly required concentration

[blue_the_wolf]

As a GM I tend to want to limit spells that make it too hard to work around as a GM. at the same time I dont want to significantly nerf a class or hinder critical tools.

to that end I am considering house ruling a change to fly and I want people opinion on it.

the Fly spell does not seem critical to the caster but is an excellent utility for getting around. working around it as a travel utility is not a problem. but it can become difficult when players use it to float around the battle field destroying the enemy willy nilly.

Yes. this can be worked around also. but in order to make the contingency planning a little easier I would like to make the following changes to fly.

FLY

casting time from standard action to full round.
also
because flight is such an unusual state of being for the average humanoid full concentration is required to remain in control. A player in flight using the FLY spell cannot cast spells or use ranged weapons and uses melee weapons at a minus -5 they they take no penalty to defense or attempts to grapple and are able to maintain songs, concentration spells, and other effects.

all other effects such as duration and end of spell effects remain the same.

what are your opinions?

I think it limits the effectiveness of the spell but only minimally and can be worked around.

what are your opinions on this?

[Corlindale]

This basically makes it a horrible combat spell, and a somewhat worse "getaway" spell (why the full-round cast? That seems unneccessary given your other major nerf). Still a good utility spell. If that's what you're aiming for, it will work.

Instead of the complicated clause about what one can and cannot do, you could also make fly a "concentration" spell - so you'd need a standard action to maintain it each turn. That means that the wizard can only keep 1 person flying at a time - himself or another. But it doesn't nerf the warrior he uses fly on, the wizard just has to concentrate to keep him in the air. Makes using fly a more tactical decision.

A weaker nerf would be to require concentration checks to cast spells and fly checks to attack succesfully while in the air.

EDIT: A very simple change if you just want to completely eliminate Fly as a combat spell is to say that you can only take move actions while flying.

[wraithstrike]

I would probably not bother with the spell at all. It is not that good of a spell for me to lose combat options.
I would use spells like airwalk or levitate instead.

[Steev42]

I'd suggest if you're going to do something like that, have it based on the Fly skill rather than concentration. That is, essentially, what it was made for, I would think.

[blue_the_wolf]

all of the tweaks were to nerf its use as a combat spell... the standard action concentration would make it useless as a utility spell because a wizard could not spam fly on the group and fly over a river or other barrier (unless a mass fly was used)

move action only would be good also just a flat rule instead of all of the other stuff but some people may wonder why they just cant swing wildly if they want.

I looked at levitate and the fact that you cant move around and also the progressive hindrance to attack roles are interesting. I just figured I would also add a 10% arcane spell check that increases by 10% per round to balance it out.

as for air walk I had considered leaving it as is because it takes up a 4th level slot as opposed to a 3rd level, movement rates are slower. its mostly a divine spell and they get less utility from fighting in the air than an arcane caster does and they are subject to the wind penalty which can be fun and relevant (would probably not allow the mass version though)

there is a danger of abuse but it is less than fly.

I thought about the fly skill for concentration checks but wasnt sure how to penalize failure and thought that with the right skills it simply removes any penalty all together.

[Kolokotroni]

I dont think the spell with the changes you made it would still be worth a 3rd level spell slot. Maybe 2nd, but I cant concieve of casting it over say haste. This also means flying enemies become dramatically more powerful, because even if the wizard puts the fighter in the air to face him, he's at massive disadvantage with no ranged attacks and that -5 to melee. If all you want fly to be is a way to get the party over rivers, dump the spell completely and let them use swimming and rope. What the fly spell brings to the table that cant be gotten otherwise is it's combat boost, if you dont want it in your game thats fine, but dont gut the spell, just take it out.

[blue_the_wolf]

good points.

that's something I tend to forget when hoping to balance these things.

is there anything i could do to raise the spell power WITHOUT giving it a combat value?

[LazarX]

blue_the_wolf wrote:

good points.

that's something I tend to forget when hoping to balance these things.

is there anything i could do to raise the spell power WITHOUT giving it a combat value?

Raise the spell power? I thought your intention was to nerf the spell?

What exactly are you looking for in the final result? What do you want to change the most?

[Selgard]

Instruct your PC's that you do not want them flying around the field of battle, and that in return you will not have NPC's flying around the field of battle.

Note that this makes alot of creatures significantly weaker.. but oh well. thats the price you pay for not wanting things flying around.

If you are going to neuter the PC's ability to fly without neutering the enemies ability to fly.. well.. I wouldn't expect your PC's to hang around long. (Myself, I'd not sit around for such a game).

I do agree that flying for the uninitiated shouldn't be easy.. but the Fly skill already handles this. Someone without the skill trained at all and someone who has spent the points in it has shown that they .. want to learn how to fly.

Alternate alterations:
If there isn't a penalty to the concentration check for casting while flying, create one. If there is one, add +5 to it or +1 per level of the spell or something. This makes it harder to cast while not impossible. Make it a harder fly check or a harder concentration check.. Either is really appropriate. (harder to fly while casting, or harder to cast while flying.. just depends on which end you want to pinch)
Then communicate this to the PC's and get their input on it and other possible ways to fix the issue.
Then also apply said fix to any and all casting creatures who fly. (such as say.. dragons..)

I would really advise against any sort of "You can't fly in combat if you are a spell caster" though, especially mid-campaign. Like it or not flying is a big part of the later part of the game. Many creatures can do it, and if PC's Can Not do it effectively then they are just behind the ball. Sure fly is annoying when PC's first get it- but any toy is the most powerful when its first acquired. It levels out as the PC's grow and the CR's increase.

-S

[blue_the_wolf]

i never pop rules mid game but I think I am begging to accept i just have to let it be and work around it.

with that in mind...

I am definitely going to Nerf teleport ^_^

[StabbittyDoom]

blue_the_wolf wrote:

i never pop rules mid game but I think I am begging to accept i just have to let it be and work around it.

with that in mind...

I am definitely going to Nerf teleport ^_^

It's already nerfed. Just remind players about the mishap chances and other faults and the attractiveness of the idea fades quickly. Greater teleport gets rid of every error condition but mishaps.

Basically, by the time the players can teleport without risk, they are 100% familiar with the area they are teleporting to and using a spell slot that could just as easily create their own pocket dimension or other similarly ridiculous things.

If you're worried about the power of such spells, just play a low-magic campaign (no full casters) or a low-level campaign (look up E6).

[blue_the_wolf]

I love E6.

it may be why i am so interested in nerfing higher level campaigns down.

[StabbittyDoom]

blue_the_wolf wrote:

I love E6.

it may be why i am so interested in nerfing higher level campaigns down.

You're seriously better off just playing E6 or some variant thereof.

If you do an E6 game and disallow 9-level casting classes then the highest level spells will be 2nd level and you won't get stuff like haste, fireball, fly, etc. Or rather, it'll be very hard to get those spells.

Alternately, picking a system other than pathfinder may be appropriate.

[Kolokotroni]

blue_the_wolf wrote:

I love E6.

it may be why i am so interested in nerfing higher level campaigns down.

Then you are probably better off running an E6 campaign. If you dont like things like fly and teleport being major parts of the game, then you dont want a high level game in the first point. If you take out the more fantastic elements, all you have is higher numbers. There is no benefit to that really. Play E6 and play the game you want to play instead of trying to shoehorn parts of that game into a different mold.

There are all sorts of options out there for higher level players (not just spells) that can get pretty out there, that are likely to cause you indegestion (so to speak). For instance a higher level monk using the dimensional agility line of feats becoming a dbz character essentially.

That said, if you still want to make fly more useful but without it being a combat spell bring it back to the hour duration, but make it require concentration. Basically make it overland flight but without the ability to do other actions besides the flying.

[Jason Nelson]

If you want to go the concentration-Fly route, I'd submit another spell that would be similarly appropriate to nerf in that way would be concentration-Invisibility.

You can still get your one sneak-ambush attack with it, but you don't obviate the Stealth skill so completely, and for that matter you would also eliminate the Fly-Invisibility combination.

You could also just raise the level of the spell. I'm not a teleport fan, so all the teleportation spells I just increased a level IMC. You could easily do the same with Fly, Invisibility, or any other spell you find bothersome.

[cranewings]

If you are running E6, flying wizards are basically popingos.

[Liam Warner]

Don't do it, seriously considering the number of creatures with flying abilities . . . .

Deva, Planetar, Solar, Lantern Archon, Trumpet Archon, Bralani Azata, Ghaele Azata, Lillend Azata, Bats Dire and Swarm, Fire Beetle, Stag Beetle, Chimera, Cloaker, Cockatrice, Couatl

and that's just in the A-C of beastiary one. If the PC's have to stand on the groud range atacking these things or try flying really badly with huge blows to their attack abilities they're going to die. Unless you remove every creature with fly from the game or make them attack stupidly its massively slanted the dynamic to the enemies and if you don't address that like the others I wouldn't play in the game. There's a reason most people who want to nerf the fly spell go after its out of combat utility, something I also dislike.

If the players want to be zipping around at comparitive control to most of them they need to invest in the fly skill anyway which is good enough to me. Remember these flying enemies start at CR 1 and just go up from there so nerfing the fly spell really does require a lot of changes to the game on your part.

[cranewings]

Liam, I don't think fly is that needed. In games I've been a player we never bothered with it outside of using it for espionage. Standing on the ground using ranged attacks is a perfectly fine way to kill flying enemies.

The adaptation needs to be on the part of the players, not the gm. If the gm nerfs fly and the players still build their melee combat monsters who refuse to take ranged weapons, that just means they fail. Too bad. Try harder next time.

[Liam Warner]

cranewings wrote:

Liam, I don't think fly is that needed. In games I've been a player we never bothered with it outside of using it for espionage. Standing on the ground using ranged attacks is a perfectly fine way to kill flying enemies.

The adaptation needs to be on the part of the players, not the gm. If the gm nerfs fly and the players still build their melee combat monsters who refuse to take ranged weapons, that just means they fail. Too bad. Try harder next time.

So your saying the player who wants to design a knife fighting Rogue or a swashbuckling swordfighter ala Zorro has failed DND?

EDIT
Just to be clear my point is I don't think the Rogue's sneak attack applies to ranged weapons nor do a large number of fighter feats e.g. cleave. So nerfing fly while retianing flying creatures forces the players to metagame a little and design specific class/feat combinations to handle the enemies when they may want to play something else.

EDIT 2
and isn't there a protection from missles spell/item when a lot of these creatures function as an X level sorcerer?

[cranewings]

He has if he makes it knowing the party doesn't have anyway of fighting flying creatures.

When that character levels up and the player sees the party is weak against flying, and he just goes on ignoring the matter, he is failing. If the whole group is made of weak links because the players didn't coordinate and no one can handle fliers, they fail together. That is the nature of the team game. If everyone is just an unconcerned individual, the team will fail.

In fact this just happened in my game. The party was very weak against fliers and set out to fight a flying sorcerer: coldnorthdnd.livejournal.com where they tried to shore up their weakness with followers. They got pooped on heavily and were almost wiped out if the party monk didn't stumble into a way of winning.

I even warned the players that they had a weakness and some of them refused to carry any ranged weapon at all. They won, but they lost a character and all their expendables because they weren't tactically sound. Me not coddling them by picking only enemies I know they can beat is why it is a game and not a backrub.

[Liam Warner]

cranewings wrote:

He has if he makes it knowing the party doesn't have anyway of fighting flying creatures.

When that character levels up and the player sees the party is weak against flying, and he just goes on ignoring the matter, he is failing. If the whole group is made of weak links because the players didn't coordinate and no one can handle fliers, they fail together. That is the nature of the team game. If everyone is just an unconcerned individual, the team will fail.

In fact this just happened in my game. The party was very weak against fliers and set out to fight a flying sorcerer: coldnorthdnd.livejournal.com where they tried to shore up their weakness with followers. They got pooped on heavily and were almost wiped out if the party monk didn't stumble into a way of winning.

I even warned the players that they had a weakness and some of them refused to carry any ranged weapon at all. They won, but they lost a character and all their expendables because they weren't tactically sound. Me not coddling them by picking only enemies I know they can beat is why it is a game and not a backrub.

I see, the problem here is with fly nerfed further everyone is going to need to take a significant ranged option. In your example I could use my powers to cast fly on the party and the melee fighters could engage it in the skies while the ones with ranged options (my mage from what you indicated) could hit it with spells from the ground. Which means everyone needs to take a signifant ranged attack option or be useless when a flying creature shows up, if too many in the party aren't ranged fighters then the party can't beat it.

Sure a party needs to co-ordinate in order to cover each others weaknesses but to me that means I can play my mage, John can play his knight and Jenny can player her bard because we cover each others weak points. Now which makes more sense (1) John and Jenny both investing heavily in ranged combat so they can take on the flying enemies or (2) my learning a single fly spell and them putting an occasional rank in he fly skill so if we come up on a flying enemy I can cast it on them and they can engage it in the air? If everyone HAS to share a common option in their attacks be it ranged, melee or spells in order to avoid being useless then its either poor design or a specific game type that should they have to be informed about in advance.

I know in the world with this fly spell EVERY spellcasting flying creature with the ability to cast spells I had would learn protection from arrows. Its a level 2 that grants DR 10/magic against ranged weapons for 10 points per caster level. Sure it doesn't sound like much but it means every fighter type needs at least a +1 bow representing an investment in resources that they may not want to spend. Not to mention things like the Rogue effectively losing their sneak attack ability as they can't flank while fighting ranged.

They wouldn't want to flank since in the variant spell postulated in this thread logic says its incredibly dangerous to fight while flying, as every hit should invoke a concentration check to maintain your "fly" skill and if you fail you fall to your death. If its just the mage that has to concentrate on maintaining (doesn't seem to be as if that were the case why can't they flying PC shoot a bow, for that matter why can't you shoot a bow when flying anyway?)then any intelligent foe is going to target them as making them fail to concentrate will drop the entire party. Not to mention that you are at a -5 to attack anyway, which means while the wizard could cast fly at 5th level 3/4 bab attackers like the rogue have to be 7th level before they can melee without a penalty and 1/2 ones like the wizard have to be at 10th. Which doesn't even address secondary and tertiary attacks that are already at -5.

No I stand by what I said this is a bad idea either drop the spell entirely along with flying encounters, not very fun for the players or leave it alone. There's a reason why most people who don't like fly either drop it entirely or nerf the out of combat effects.

[cranewings]

Liam, fair enough.

I mean, players can always vote with their feat and I have a feeling this gm would be just as unhappy with 3 pc archers shooting full attacks from behind a druid's thorn wall. Bottom line is that players want to dish without taking and flight is just one way to do it.

[A highly regarded expert]

blue_the_wolf wrote:

i never pop rules mid game but I think I am begging to accept i just have to let it be and work around it.

with that in mind...

I am definitely going to Nerf teleport ^_^

This is not the game to play, if fly and teleport ruin things for you.

[Liam Warner]

cranewings wrote:

Liam, fair enough.

I mean, players can always vote with their feat and I have a feeling this gm would be just as unhappy with 3 pc archers shooting full attacks from behind a druid's thorn wall. Bottom line is that players want to dish without taking and flight is just one way to do it.

True enough.

I'm just not a fan of all the "nerf spell X because" things people do. If you drop a spell entirely, and inform your players before starting, thats one thing but when you start modifying the effects of something that is assumed to be part of the players resources it rarely ends well since they rarely nerf the enemies as well. Its always fly's bad because it let the party get past X, I don't think I've seen more than one or two "Fly's bad because it lets the BBEG leave via the 3rd story window while the party's fighting his mooks in the lobby."

Of course I like playing my wizards so I can tinker around with transforming the peasants in various way's and I've had some bad experiences where after playing for awhile I've taken a spell and then been told by the GM "Oh by the way that's a X change in my game."

For example a hypnotic pattern that lures in enemies which after taking and trying to use I got told "Since its a visual effect it only works on enemies facing it or nearly so." which meant if I cast it behind them they ignored it entirely instead of say glancing back to see what the light is and then heading away from me and towards the fighter for a round. Rendered the spell pretty much useless as I could only lure the enemies in the direction they were already headed and if there was say a cliff if they went a little too far or a melee type who'd get an AOP they got another save to resist walking over/into it. Of course there was no facing for the fighter types when they meleed just this spell, and a few others as I found out when I questioned things further.

[Laurefindel]

blue_the_wolf wrote:

(...)

what are your opinions on this?

Another possible nerf on the flight ability would be to activate it as a Move action and maintain it as a free action, but force a move action to either move or hover.

This would prevent full round actions, including full attacks. That alone is a significant melee/range nerf.

One could also consider flying as "violent motions" and enforce concentration checks for casters based on speed like riding.

As for the fly spell vs the multitude of flying opponents, my opinion is that the spell should not be allowed to be a "necessity". Flight is an advantageous ability and should remain as such. Players should be encouraged to change their strategies when facing new challenges, as opposed to cast a spell that makes the new challenge a non-issue. But that's a personal rant...

'findel

[LazarX]

Actually Blue at this point I wouldn't suggest E6. I'd say just cap your players at 6th level and be done with it. When they get that high, start a new campaign. That'll keep the power cap down to where it seems you'd be most comfortable.

You can even cap it at 5 if you don't mind making your spontaneous casters cry at never seeing 3rd level spells.

[blue_the_wolf]

no. E6 works fine.

my intention is not to nerf the CLASS or i hate SPELLS. I just dont like those spells that make casters so versatile that its hard to GM around. I know its hard for some of you to believe but some players like to break the game. as a GM its some time hard to factor in all of the possibilities.

for example once teleport is in game there is almost no reason to design any story or encounter based on travel because players are more likely to just say we rest to night and teleport in the morning.

as for fly once that is in game every single encounter has to be balanced around the party just flying over it or flying above it and attacking from an impervious position.

its not impossible to GM around. but its yet another variable and when you add up ALL of the variables it becomes quite tedious.

on the other side of that coin if as a GM I start using all of those abilities against them then I have a bunch of sad pandas.

personally I would rather play a game where both the GM and the players can be as creative as possible within the bounds of the rules and have fun doing so without risk of game breaking.

having said that, I accept that the changes required if I change the FLY spell will be significant and it looks like its an evil i will have to accept and work around.

teleport on the other hand is something I can easily drop and life goes on. if I am playing with a bunch of people who cant accept a game without the teleport spell then some one else can GM.

[Vrecknidj]

Suggestions
1) Make it a 4th level spell.
2) Change the duration to 1 round per level.
3) Make the speed of the flight the same as the recipient's normal speed (capped at 60/40).
4) Make the maneuverability based on a Fly skill check which is required at the beginning of each round (make up your own table so that different skill check results provide different maneuverabilities).
5) Get rid of the range of touch.

I wouldn't recommend all these things, certainly not any more than (1) if you pick that one. Just changing the duration will help if the players are casting this multiple times before the fight starts. You could also create two spells, one that the wizard casts on himself, another that he casts on others, and have the one for himself be level 3 and the one he casts on others be level 4.

I do like the idea of reducing the speed and having maneuverability issues be based on skill checks. I agree that flying around is probably not the easiest thing and would require some getting used to.

[Bladeace]

If you want to lower its combat use so much then it becomes a weaker spell, IMO too much weaker.

This dosen't mean your fix can't be done, it just means it needs a buff in other areas as well as a nerf in the combat use area.

So I would say do one of the following (AS WELL AS YOUR CHANGE):

Lower it to a second level spell (so now you can levitate and cast spells at enimies OR get full fly but not be able to cast spells at enimies - sounds like both spells still have a place to me!).

Raise its duration (if it's an out of combat spell then maybe let it do a little more, 10mins a level instead of 1min a level).

Alter your change to lower it from a standard cast to a swift instead of raise it from a standard to a full. Now it is an escape spell in combat (which might not be something you're happy with) but still not something that can turn you into a ariel gunship.

[cranewings]

Or just take the spell out. A lot of us have spells we just hate. I run E6 and I hate Haste. It is aggravating that when a summoner hits 4th level, from that minute on, I have to wait for every player to roll another die on their turn. So I removed it from the game.

Really, NPCs shouldn't fight the party unless they think they can win, and all winning tactics involve crapping on the wizard. So first round he flies and second round he is a pin cushion.