Lord_Gareth: Flight in D&D and its legacy systems has essentially always been annoying
 AmberVael: Yeah
 Mashallah_: that still sounds better than pf flight
 Lord_Gareth: Dunno if 4e or 5e fixed that
 Adahn: It also meant that you could do whatever within those limits.
 Kelebed: And frankly most gms I've seen just treat it as another movement mode
 Kelebed: Climb doesn't have a massive list of dos and donts
 Adahn: Yeah!
 Adahn: Climb's just shit! :V
 Kelebed: Swim doesn't. Burrow needs more
 Kelebed: (main thing on burrow: tunnel or no tunnel?
 Agata: I am a great fan of the way Strike! handles flight for D&D 4e-style skirmishes. It is arguably more elegant a solution than what 4e had come up with.
 Lord_Gareth: We're well aware that you love Strike!
 Bellezza: My curry roux was a failure ;-;
 AmberVael: I think I've heard enough about strike to last me a month
 Lord_Gareth: It's almost like we had a conversation about that earlier or something.
 Lord_Gareth: Oh wait.
 Lord_Gareth: *We did*.
 Tuvarkz: I'd say tunnel as a feat
 Adahn: <AmberVael> I think I've heard enough about strike to last me a month
 Lord_Gareth is now known as Lord_Shower
 Adahn: I could say the same about PF.
 Adahn: But it keeps draggin' me back in.
 Agata: It is simple. "Flying" is a status effect. If you are flying, melee attacks and Opportunities from non-fliers cannot affect you, but you cannot use melee attacks and Opportunities against non-fliers either.
 Adahn: I keep homebrewing, it hurts.
 bjc2406_ left the room (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
 Adahn: It is a good pain, but it's also a painful one.
 Lord_Shower: Agata - That was the least subtle possible clue that no one gives a shit and didn't wanna hear it
 bjc2406_ [~bjc2406@8BB3ADF:FEF37400:AD281BC9:IP] entered the room.
 Lord_Shower: Goin' AFK now
 Agata: I fail to see how it is irrelevant when it is a flight mechanic in a D&D-style system, precisely when you yourself had brought up flight in systems other than Pathfinder.
 Adahn: It might not be irrelevent, but it's not what anyone necessarily wants to hear about right now.
 Agata: Why is that?
 Ikiryo: Oversaturation
 Mashallah_: people are still bitter about strike in dbg
 Adahn: Mostly because it is Strike!, which as other people have mentioned you have talked at-length about. It's a good thing that you enjoy Strike!, really it is. But constantly talking about it is just very, very wearing on the mind.
 Adahn: Yes, it's probably better than PF or 4e in some regards, but it is as annoying as "Just play GURPS"
 Adahn: And I say that, /as someone who was once a "just play GURPS"-fag/
 Agata: "Constantly talking about it" is patently false.
 Ceri: I don't know how flying works in 5e but I bet it's better >:D
 Agata: Going through my logs of /pfg/, I have mentioned the system extremely sporadically in the past, and even then, the majority of the occasions where times wherein someone else had brought up the system.
 Adahn1 [~Adam@Rizon-F5FBA21E.hsd1.or.comcast.net] entered the room.
 Ceri: Agata, you frustrated people with it this morning, bringing it up again is just rubbing salt
 Ikiryo: Agata, please just accept that people really really don't want to talk about it right now.
 Adahn1: Freakin' hell, my internet just does not like IRC today it seems.
 IterationDrive: so I think I'm gonna try my hand at some pathfinder homebrew for literally the first time; if I wanted to make an archetype for fighter or ranger that did wild shape, I think, would it be too much for it to ALSO give limited (up to sixth level) martial initiation?
 Agata: It contains a mechanic relevant to the situation at hand. Does this mean that if I was to simply present the mechanic without context, it would have been more acceptable?
 mode (+b *!*@Rizon-DF00A0F2.mycingular.net) by Anise
 AmberVael: Probably
 Agata left the room (Kicked by Anise (It's time for you to take a break.)).