Appearance informing expectations

[Wind Chime]

So there have been a lot of talk about flight on the summoner playtest and took this discussion of there to avoid cluttering it with more of the same.

So generally I don't think most people are opposed to late flight for game balance reason, most people can see the logic of why flight should be a late game ability me included.

But the eidolon aesthetic both in the art work in the playtest document and the recommended description of both the Angel and Dragon eidolon mentions wings being the norm so a lot of people are going to default to having winged ediolon at the level 1.

So I feel this is a problem because appearance in my opinion tend inform expectation and there are going to be feel that because they have wings they should be able to fly and will shocked to find out that they are not going to be able to do that easily until level 9 or at will until level 16.

I feel that it is appearance that has meant there has been ten times as much talk about eidolon flight than say a storm oracles ability to fly.

So how much do you think appearance effects people's expectations and do you think as a rule of thumb developers on rpgs should be careful about the asthetic choices they make and how they might influence their players. Or do you think aesthetics should have no effect on narratives and mechanics ?

[Asethe]

I agree that appearance informs expectations, and having those expectations tempered by the reality of game design can be disappointing, but the flip side of this is how do you sell a fantasy?

Do you sell it as it will be at first level, or as it will be at twentieth, or somewhere in between?

The angels, demons, dragons, elementals, primal birds and so on will eventually be able to fly, but not immediately. The orochi, sea drakes, and so on will be able to swim as natural movement, but not at creation, the monkey kings and spiders will be able to climb as a natural movement, but not at level 1

At what point in the experiential development should a piece of supporting visual art be based on?

[siegfriedliner]

Asethe wrote:

I agree that appearance informs expectations, and having those expectations tempered by the reality of game design can be disappointing, but the flip side of this is how do you sell a fantasy?

Do you sell it as it will be at first level, or as it will be at twentieth, or somewhere in between?

The angels, demons, dragons, elementals, primal birds and so on will eventually be able to fly, but not immediately. The orochi, sea drakes, and so on will be able to swim as natural movement, but not at creation, the monkey kings and spiders will be able to climb as a natural movement, but not at level 1

At what point in the experiential development should a piece of supporting visual art be based on?

Probably not level 16

[Tweezer]

siegfriedliner wrote:

Asethe wrote:

I agree that appearance informs expectations, and having those expectations tempered by the reality of game design can be disappointing, but the flip side of this is how do you sell a fantasy?

Do you sell it as it will be at first level, or as it will be at twentieth, or somewhere in between?

The angels, demons, dragons, elementals, primal birds and so on will eventually be able to fly, but not immediately. The orochi, sea drakes, and so on will be able to swim as natural movement, but not at creation, the monkey kings and spiders will be able to climb as a natural movement, but not at level 1

At what point in the experiential development should a piece of supporting visual art be based on?

Probably not level 16

Might as well base it on level 16 as level 1 tbh...

[Asethe]

siegfriedliner wrote:

Asethe wrote:

I agree that appearance informs expectations, and having those expectations tempered by the reality of game design can be disappointing, but the flip side of this is how do you sell a fantasy?

Do you sell it as it will be at first level, or as it will be at twentieth, or somewhere in between?

The angels, demons, dragons, elementals, primal birds and so on will eventually be able to fly, but not immediately. The orochi, sea drakes, and so on will be able to swim as natural movement, but not at creation, the monkey kings and spiders will be able to climb as a natural movement, but not at level 1

At what point in the experiential development should a piece of supporting visual art be based on?

Probably not level 16

I'd better let all the fantasy artists, freelance and commissioned, know that they shouldn't be painting wizards cracking the sky and raining down fire from the heavens, warriors can't actually face down armies alone, barbarians facing off against multiple angry T-Rex's probably should be reduced to a couple of small, slightly miffed lizards, and priests of light shouldn't be drawn healing the masses as at low levels they are more able to apply a bandaid before needing a bit of a nap.

The whole point of the art is the fantasy, and level 1 doesn't provide a spectacular and inspiring version of that, but high levels definitely do. If all low level creation expectations were dictated by the art, characters would start as gods instead of novices.

As to the summoner, their fantasy is imposing monsters tamed to the will of the summoner. The level 1 reality of that isn't a great gold dragon, or an angelic general, or a wraith lord. It's something much more humble that will grow into those things, and that is where the expectations need to be managed

[Temperans]

Well Eidolons were never actually dragons or actually undead. But they all used to get Flight at level 1 (for avian chained eidolons) or at least 5th level (for unchained eidolon).

I get that full flight need to be restricted according to the power of the creatures (Ex: Small Animal Companions get flight at level 1). But waiting until level 16 to have any semblance on innate flight is too late. This is why I would prefer for the eidolon base power to be lower but have the free options to pick how they are stronger: Do you get the Eidolon that might not deal more damage but has more utility? Or do you go for an agile striker? Or do you go for a large behemoth?

All of those should be reasonable options before level 10.

[Asethe]

So, on topic in the thread, your position is that the art should not represent a flying creature so that you don't enter into the summoner class with the expectation that you can fly immediately?

This isn't about bending mechanics to suit perception, but the expectation that the perception raises and whether the representations should be changed to reflect the entry level reality of this

[siegfriedliner]

Asethe wrote:

So, on topic in the thread, your position is that the art should not represent a flying creature so that you don't enter into the summoner class with the expectation that you can fly immediately?

This isn't about bending mechanics to suit perception, but the expectation that the perception raises and whether the representations should be changed to reflect the entry level reality of this

So flight at an early level is a problem, so having the default description for an Angel and dragon at level 1 being that they have wings is also a problem because the obvious next thought is I have wing why can't I fly?

[Asethe]

siegfriedliner wrote:

Asethe wrote:

So, on topic in the thread, your position is that the art should not represent a flying creature so that you don't enter into the summoner class with the expectation that you can fly immediately?

This isn't about bending mechanics to suit perception, but the expectation that the perception raises and whether the representations should be changed to reflect the entry level reality of this

So flight at an early level is a problem, so having the default description for an Angel and dragon at level 1 being that they have wings is also a problem because the obvious next thought is I have wing why can't I fly?

Exactly, hence the question on whether presented aesthetics should be tailored to the reality of, particularly, low level play to allow players to better manage their expectations of a class or feature

[Temperans]

When talking about the art specifically its much more difficult because it depends on what level the character is being drawn at.

My personal opinion is that art should represent what is possible at that level the character is introduced. Then adapted accordingly if they have multiple level or something plot relevant happens to them. The problem with iconic characters is that they are meant to be characters that any player could use. By that same token it means that they can have many different interpretations for high level. Which can set a bad perception if not handled correctly.

But there is not only the aesthetic of the images, but of how the character is described in words. If the character is described one way but the mechanics do not line up it also causes problems. For example: Imagine you read this character, "A creature who can reach above the land, flying like an eagle through the clear skies". How would you represent that mechanically? Clearly climb doesn't work, neither does jumping. It also tells you its like an eagle so either its talking about the height, the gracefulness, and/or the use of wings.

That description could be talking about a level 1 animal companion/familiar, a 9th level mage with fly, or any number of creatures from level 0 to 30. But they all share the same mechanics that is a fly speed. Eidolons are in a position where they are not the PC, they are an otherworldly magical creature that the PC is connected to. Because of that, the Eidolon leveling must be tied to the summoner level. However, they are not the same creatures and as such need to be balanced differently. Just like how Animal Companions and Familiars are balanced differently than PCs, Eidolons must also be balanced differently.

And that is were the biggest part of the debate is. Two portions are arguing about where should the Aesthetics of the Eidolon meet the Mechanics of the class, how much choices should the Summoner have, and how should the balance of the Eidolon affect the balance of the Summoner.

I am of the opinion that the best possible version allows the Summoner to have any eidolon they want within reason for the level range. To me the Aesthetics of the Eidolon are only complete when they have many choices that are not bound by their type or feats. To the point I would accept a weak base, if it meant I could choose how to Mechanically represent its strengths. Aka Aesthetics == Mechanics.

Others are of the opinion that the only thing that matters is the Aesthetics. The mechanics of how that works don't matter what so ever, and can be replaced by anything. They see having a strong base generic eidolon they can place any image on top of as good. Aka Aesthetics > Mechanics.

What makes Pathfinder fun for me is that I can represent the mechanics faithfully without having to wait till level 20 unless its some earth shattering ability (Ex: 10th level spells). Which is why I hate 5e and other narrative games that don't care about how it works just tell you it works.

This is just another form of the Simulationist VS Gameist VS Narrativist debate that has been going on for decades. With certain people wanting to make their side the only one people use. But personally I think the best games make use of all three. PF1 leant more towards Simulationist/Gameist. 5e more towards Narraivist/Gameist. PF2 seemed to be going pure Gameist, but there is constant push to just turn it into another Narrativist game.

[Temperans]

Asethe wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

Asethe wrote:

So, on topic in the thread, your position is that the art should not represent a flying creature so that you don't enter into the summoner class with the expectation that you can fly immediately?

This isn't about bending mechanics to suit perception, but the expectation that the perception raises and whether the representations should be changed to reflect the entry level reality of this

So flight at an early level is a problem, so having the default description for an Angel and dragon at level 1 being that they have wings is also a problem because the obvious next thought is I have wing why can't I fly?

Exactly, hence the question on whether presented aesthetics should be tailored to the reality of, particularly, low level play to allow players to better manage their expectations of a class or feature

The way PF1 Unchained handled it was it never told you how an Eidolon looks like. It gave you vague things like form, maybe some material its made of, or how pretty its features are. But never told you how the Eidolon looked. That was something determined by the players and the evolutions those Eidolons took.

Angel PF1 Unchained Eidolon wrote:

Hailing from the higher planes, angel eidolons are creatures of exquisite beauty. They usually appear in idealized humanoid forms, with smooth skin, shining hair, and bright eyes. Angel eidolons are impeccably honorable, trustworthy, and diplomatic, but they do not shy away from confrontation when facing off against evil and its minions.

Agathion PF1 Unchained Eidolon wrote:

Patient and enlightened liaisons of the good-aligned Outer Planes, agathion eidolons seek to vanquish evil and protect that which is good. Agathion eidolons always have aspects of a single animal or creature, rather than a hodgepodge of several. Though they have patience for summoners with unorthodox methods and even those who stray from the path of good, they will not brook their powers being used for evil ends. An agathion eidolon seeks to bring its summoner closer to its own enlightenment.

Shadow PF1 Unchained Eidolon wrote:

Summoned from the dreary shadowscapes of the Shadow Plane, shadow eidolons are grim, colorless mockeries of creatures that inhabit the Material Plane. Shadow eidolons resent being pulled into the unbearable brightness of the Material Plane. Despite this, shadow eidolons serve their summoners with somberness, acknowledging that shadow cannot exist without light.

There were no Dragon, Beast, or Phantom eidolons because non of those are outsiders (Phantoms were spirits that were treated as outsiders for effects). But you could always make an Eidolon that looked like anyone of them with the right evolutions.

[Tender Tendrils]

Wings can be vestigial or underdeveloped - for example, the art for the playtest summoner shows a dragon eidolon with wings too small to possibly lift it off the ground - presumably as it levels it's wings will grow until it is high enough level to fly.

[Asethe]

That has to be the most eloquent statement of the prevailing debate, and your position within it, that I have read, and it was a joy to read.

[Asethe]

The examples of descriptives brought up from PF1 might be a possible answer to, at least, the aesthetic debate over the eidolons that is raging.

By abstracting the appearance, and to a large extent, removing the specific identities of the eidolons, it mitigates expectation that an angel should fly, or a sea serpent can swim, and instead leaves a canvas to be sketched upon as the summoner levels

If this can then be tied to a broader range of developing aesthetic customisation options, some of which can then be tied back to mechanical options, without having to create a whole new system of character progression, and without creating something that will be banned from every table the moment a GM lays eyes on it, it might just produce a workable middle ground.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Wings can be vestigial or underdeveloped - for example, the art for the playtest summoner shows a dragon eidolon with wings too small to possibly lift it off the ground - presumably as it levels it's wings will grow until it is high enough level to fly.

That's what they want you to think, but actually the wings stay the same size. The rest of the body shrinks until it is small enough to fly. ;)

[Temperans]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Wings can be vestigial or underdeveloped - for example, the art for the playtest summoner shows a dragon eidolon with wings too small to possibly lift it off the ground - presumably as it levels it's wings will grow until it is high enough level to fly.

Even Young Dragons which are generally Creature 7 have a Fly speed. A Young Black Dragon has a fly speed of 100 ft.

Actual dragons are too strong? Lets look at Drakes.
* Shadow Drakes are tiny, creature 2, and have fly speed of 60 ft.
* River Drakes are medium, creature 3, and have a fly speed of 50 ft.
* Wyverns are Large, creature 6, and have a fly speed of 60 ft.
* Flame Drakes are large, creature 5, and have fly speed 50 ft.

Ah but what about angels?
* Chorals are small, creature 6, fly speed 40 ft.
* Cassissian are tiny creature 1, fly speed 40 ft.
* Balisse are medium, creature 8, fly speed 40 ft.

What about beasts?
* Giant Eagle are large, creature 3, fly speed 60 ft.
* Dracolisk are large, creature 9, fly 50 ft.
* Cockatrice are small, creature 3, fly 40 ft.
* Yeth hound are medium, creature, 3, constant air walk 40 ft.
* Pegasus are large, creature 3, fly speed 80 ft.

The reason why eidolons are not getting an evolution for early flight is completely arbitrary. My guess is that they tried to hard to balance it as a PC, when the Eidolon needs to be handled as its own separate creature.

[Tender Tendrils]

Temperans wrote:

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Wings can be vestigial or underdeveloped - for example, the art for the playtest summoner shows a dragon eidolon with wings too small to possibly lift it off the ground - presumably as it levels it's wings will grow until it is high enough level to fly.

Even Young Dragons which are generally Creature 7 have a Fly speed. A Young Black Dragon has a fly speed of 100 ft.

Actual dragons are too strong? Lets look at Drakes.
* Shadow Drakes are tiny, creature 2, and have fly speed of 60 ft.
* River Drakes are medium, creature 3, and have a fly speed of 50 ft.
* Wyverns are Large, creature 6, and have a fly speed of 60 ft.
* Flame Drakes are large, creature 5, and have fly speed 50 ft.

Ah but what about angels?
* Chorals are small, creature 6, fly speed 40 ft.
* Cassissian are tiny creature 1, fly speed 40 ft.
* Balisse are medium, creature 8, fly speed 40 ft.

What about beasts?
* Giant Eagle are large, creature 3, fly speed 60 ft.
* Dracolisk are large, creature 9, fly 50 ft.
* Cockatrice are small, creature 3, fly 40 ft.
* Yeth hound are medium, creature, 3, constant air walk 40 ft.
* Pegasus are large, creature 3, fly speed 80 ft.

The reason why eidolons are not getting an evolution for early flight is completely arbitrary. My guess is that they tried to hard to balance it as a PC, when the Eidolon needs to be handled as its own separate creature.

That is adequately argued but has little to do with what I said - I was saying that a creatures art having wings doesn't preclude it from being flightless, as vestigial and underdeveloped wings that are unable to sustain flight do exist in nature, and that the eidolon concept art is consistent with the idea that it's wings are to small and underdeveloped to be able to fly, and that it is reasonable to envision that it's wings will later mature when it gains the flight ability.

Size and age of various bestiary creatures is largely irrelevant to my point.

[Temperans]

My point is that even if its true that its supposed to be vestigial wings. Gating the feat to level 16 makes no sense given similar creatures with considerably more abilities are able to get it before level 8.

Aka the Mechanics are totally arbitrary and just harm the versatility and Aesthetics of the Eidolon.

Imagine if ranged martials or casters could not make ranged attacks until level 10, because "it invalidates martial who are too far away". Thats the situation level 16 flight is causing.

[Ruzza]

I'm not sure why creature mechanics and PC mechanics should be held to the same metrics. They perform vastly different roles in the game and have wildly differing "screen time."

[Megistone]

Look, an Ether Spider can become ethereal at will at level 5. We should definitely allow PCs to do the same, it won't break anything!

[Paul Watson]

Yes, Dragons are too strong to be PCs. Glad we could clear that up for you.

[Temperans]

I am not talking about dragons or having the exact same abilities as other monsters. I am talking about the Eidolon and something as simple as flying.

Dont misrepresent my point.

[Ruzza]

Yes, but why should the level at which monsters access abilities pair evenly across to player characters?

[Temperans]

I am not talking about a player character. I am talking about the eidolon which is not a player character. Its a companion creatures.

That is what I mean when I said people are treating the eidolon as the player, instead of it being its own thing. That the Summoner just gets to summon.

[Salamileg]

Temperans wrote:

I am not talking about a player character. I am talking about the eidolon which is not a player character. Its a companion creatures.

That is what I mean when I said people are treating the eidolon as the player, instead of it being its own thing. That the Summoner just gets to summon.

Companion creatures are part of the character though. Familiars and animal companions are too. If it's controlled by the player, then it's part of their character.

[siegfriedliner]

So I was more annoyed by the descriptive text in the eidolon appearance box than the image. I can understand wanting the most bad ass image possible.

[Ruzza]

It is a thing you get to summon, but is expected to be manifested for the majority of the time. It's a radically different power level than a bard composition, a fighter's proficiency, or even a druid's animal companion. It's more a part of the PC than any other class feature, which still shouldn't be balanced as though they were monster features.

[Temperans]

Its a monster that you summon. Its no different then a Ranger getting an Animal companion all day.

The only difference is that the main combat of the Ranger is itself and not the animal companion. But for the summoner its the eidolon not himself.

In any case the lack of monster abilities breaks the aesthetics of the eidolon which is supposed to be a creature. The fact its a major part of the summoner doesn't mean it should stop being balanced as a creature. Make it a lower level creature if at level is too strong. But give it monster feature so that it feels, works, and looks like a monster.

[Themetricsystem]

Temperans wrote:

I am talking about the Eidolon and something as simple as flying.

Dont misrepresent my point.

That's the thing though, despite a half dozen people trying explain this to you, you're still missing the point entirely.

Flight on a PC (Like it or not the Eidolon represents just about 90% of the Summoner Class and powers the PC has) is not "something simple" at all. It doesn't matter if Animal Companions or Summon Spell Creatures can fly out of the box, the same thing with Familiars, and that's because those features at BEST take up the design space of one to three Class Feats, not twenty levels worth of features which is what the Eidolon really is.

[Themetricsystem]

So would perhaps a special rule indicating that winged Eidolons can fly within their space they occupy as long as they're adjacent to a solid surface work for this purpose?

In other words, their wings are powerful enough to keep them aloft but not so strong that they are able to gain altitude beyond their ground-based space/square/hex/whatever. This way they could still fly (eg. move about while airborne and not touching the ground) but the feature doesn't break the systems movement-based assumptions and when things are allowed to be wholesale bypassed by PC movement. This could even a unique benefit in that they are able to ignore ground-based difficult terrain and be properly budgeted against the benefits granted to non-winged Eidolons.

[Temperans]

Themetricsystem wrote:

So would perhaps a special rule indicating that winged Eidolons can fly within their space they occupy as long as they're adjacent to a solid surface work for this purpose?

In other words, their wings are powerful enough to keep them aloft but not so strong that they are able to gain altitude beyond their ground-based space/square/hex/whatever. This way they could still fly (eg. move about while airborne and not touching the ground) but the feature doesn't break the systems movement-based assumptions and when things are allowed to be wholesale bypassed by PC movement. This could even a unique benefit in that they are able to ignore ground-based difficult terrain and be properly budgeted against the benefits granted to non-winged Eidolons.

Or you know. Have it so that there is a low level evolution that lets them hover, fly 5 ft above the ground, or even "must land after each movement".

The Mechanics and Aesthetics would then align and not cause any problem.

[Themetricsystem]

Temperans wrote:

Or you know. Have it so that there is a low level evolution that lets them hover, fly 5 ft above the ground, or even "must land after each movement".

The Mechanics and Aesthetics would then align and not cause any problem.

Yeah exactly, this could be something that is baked right into the "Type" Chassis of the Eidolon you choose so that any selection that would logically include wings or another form of natural Flight can have that right at level 1 without being at all disruptive. This would be especially good if a more robust Evolution mechanic is implemented in a way to personalize your own Eidolon by spending "points" or whatever in a manner similar to how a Familiar/Master shares a pool of benefits based on a decision made during Daily Preparation so that it can be used with any other Chassis but would require a decision and investment to unlock/use.

[The Raven Black]

A note indicating that Eidolon have to "earn their wings" should be enough to keep expectations in line with mechanics.

That said, I can see how people might wish for the Eidolon to be something else than a combat-focused martial. Being able to balance utility vs combat ability in your Eidolon would be great IMO.

[Temperans]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Temperans wrote:

the discussion of Aesthetics vs Mechanics.

Which mechanics do you want the Aesthetics to be representative of?

Level 1 mechanics?
Level 20 mechanics?

As I understand the basic question, people are unhappy that illustrations show the fully evolved level, not the beginning level.

The argument seems to be that
if you show people the full range of what they can do,
then they will be unhappy that there are levels they have to go through to get there

And the solution is
"don't let them know there's something to aspire to."

I already answered that. The Aesthetics for an NPC/monster should show what it looks like when the PC meets them or the general case.

Iconics are different in that they all start at level 1. With players choosing how they level. Some do get higher level versions because of being used in a scenario. But character portraits almost always tent to be level agnostic.

Even the Balazar the Iconic PF1 Summoner was illustrated as he was at level 1. Not with all the evolutions that he could get at level 20.

[Temperans]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Or you know. Have it so that there is a low level evolution that lets them hover, fly 5 ft above the ground, or even "must land after each movement".

The Mechanics and Aesthetics would then align and not cause any problem.

Yeah exactly, this could be something that is baked right into the "Type" Chassis of the Eidolon you choose so that any selection that would logically include wings or another form of natural Flight can have that right at level 1 without being at all disruptive. This would be especially good if a more robust Evolution mechanic is implemented in a way to personalize your own Eidolon by spending "points" or whatever in a manner similar to how a Familiar/Master shares a pool of benefits based on a decision made during Daily Preparation so that it can be used with any other Chassis but would require a decision and investment to unlock/use.

Exactly. The mechanics doesn't have to be big or intrusive just enough that lets the Player pick some basic abilities to represent their eidolon.

If level 1 is too soon for some ability make them level 5 or 8. But the only abilities that should be above level 10 are things like fast healing, huge size, and things like being ethereal.

[CrystalSeas]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

The premade, perhaps set the sights a bit smaller so that anyone that picks up the iconic at a pickup table instantly has a good idea of what they are capable of right then, rather than eventually if they stick with the character for another 15 levels.

But isn't that the same problem?

Wouldn't you have to have three different pieces of art, one for each level, to be sure that someone playing a Level 1 iconic didn't get confused by Level 5 art?

Currently, there is a single piece of art for each iconic. It sounds like you're suggesting that each level needs its own art so that people don't get confused.

[AnimatedPaper]

CrystalSeas wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

The premade, perhaps set the sights a bit smaller so that anyone that picks up the iconic at a pickup table instantly has a good idea of what they are capable of right then, rather than eventually if they stick with the character for another 15 levels.

But isn't that the same problem?

Wouldn't you have to have three different pieces of art, one for each level, to be sure that someone playing a Level 1 iconic didn't get confused by Level 5 art?

Currently, there is a single piece of art for each iconic. It sounds like you're suggesting that each level needs its own art so that people don't get confused.

What I said was aim lower. If the same art is going to be used by every premade version of the iconic, then yes, depicting them at level 1 is the correct move. In the case of the summoner, that would include making it clear that the wings are non-functional somehow. The suggestion upthread of making them vestigial, or clearly incapable of bearing the weight of the dragon in flight, is a good one I think.

There are other art pieces commissioned of almost every iconic for other source books. I'm certain there will be multiple depictions of both iconics in Secrets of Magic in fact. Those can safely be shown at a higher level, to as you said give players something to aspire to.

[OrochiFuror]

How far do you go with mechanics must support what you see or what's described to you? Superman can fly and has super resistant skin, you can't tell that by looking at him. A fallen angel could have dusky pale undead like skin and massive wings, but still be mostly human due to clipped wings and having turned away from the light of good.

[AnimatedPaper]

OrochiFuror wrote:

How far do you go with mechanics must support what you see or what's described to you? Superman can fly and has super resistant skin, you can't tell that by looking at him. A fallen angel could have dusky pale undead like skin and massive wings, but still be mostly human due to clipped wings and having turned away from the light of good.

I don't think "illustrate the character within the bounds of what they are capable of at first level" is that unreasonable of an ask. You obviously aren't going to be able to fully lay out what they can do in the art piece, that IS unreasonable. Especially since the character won't even be given a sheet until months after the art piece is commissioned. Just make it so the art doesn't set expectations that the character sheet cannot meet is all I'm saying.

[jdripley]

Just popped in here to say, honey bees emerge from their cells with fully formed wings but do not fly for the first 3ish weeks of their 4 week lives.

Also, Ostriches.

The presence of a wing does not mean flight is possible, either at all or “yet.”

Though I do get the OP’s point... we don’t think of angels or dragons as being flightless.

[ArchSage20]

jdripley wrote:

Just popped in here to say, honey bees emerge from their cells with fully formed wings but do not fly for the first 3ish weeks of their 4 week lives.

Also, Ostriches.

The presence of a wing does not mean flight is possible, either at all or “yet.”

Though I do get the OP’s point... we don’t think of angels or dragons as being flightless.

just to note humans are also born with fully formed legs and mouths yet we don't walk or talk for some time as well

maybe we should make human speed 1ft [crawling] and remove their speech until they take a feat at level 18 to become fully grown humans

[Ruzza]

ArchSage20 wrote:

jdripley wrote:

Just popped in here to say, honey bees emerge from their cells with fully formed wings but do not fly for the first 3ish weeks of their 4 week lives.

Also, Ostriches.

The presence of a wing does not mean flight is possible, either at all or “yet.”

Though I do get the OP’s point... we don’t think of angels or dragons as being flightless.

just to note humans are also born with fully formed legs and mouths yet we don't walk or talk for some time as well

maybe we should make human speed 1ft [crawling] and remove their speech until they take a feat at level 18 to become fully grown humans

I would completely agree if life were a 1:1 comparison between levels and age (I mean, I guess 2? When do babies start talking? New dad here, serious question.)

[AnimatedPaper]

Pretty early. 11-12 months to start is not uncommon. A little later is more typical.

[Ruzza]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Pretty early. 11-12 months to start is not uncommon. A little later is more typical.

Awesome, thanks! Baby is coming in March!