Talk:Kiss the Floor (3.5e Flaw)

Ratings

	Luigifan18 favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	This flaw is just a work of genius. It really forces you to find alternatives to flight for getting around and maintaining the advantage in combat.

	Wildmage favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	solid and fun flaw

	Undead Knave likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	This is fun and hurts all types of characters. The inability to fly really hurts, but being able to fly while carried makes it so it isn't completely impossible to get around. All around effective.

	Ghostwheel dislikes this article and rated it 1 of 4.
	While this flaw is fine at higher levels, I dislike the fact that it has almost no impact whatsoever in low level games, especially if you don't expect the game to get to very high levels before dying as many games do.

Debatable. 1d10 can KO or nearly KO 1st level PCs, and while it's least important from 2nd-5th level (you can now soak the damage), that's also the levels where pit traps and cliffs are the most common, on account of not expecting flight. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. I just feel that it's much more unilateral than most "good" flaws, since in the majority of games I've been in, those kinds of traps have a relatively low DC, and a +2 increase per die of damage just from falling (on average) ain't *that* big of a thing relatively speaking. --Ghostwheel (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

By that reasoning, how is this fine at higher levels? The average of +2 per die increase gets progressively LESS dangerous the more HP the PC has, and as a PC gains wealth they gain the ability to have "get out of falling free" items to use. And while traps may have relatively low DCs, environmental hazards may not. Even so, knocking PCs prone remains a viable tactic up to and through mid-level play, and the added action penalty for getting back up hurts all classes pretty evenly, which is what you want out of a flaw. Spanambula (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

...Because that's not the thing that hurts in the feat at higher levels. It's the inability to fly, and if whatever mount is carrying you up goes down, you're doing down with it regardless of what you do. --Ghostwheel (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that hurts overland travel, but that doesn't change the fact that your complaint of "almost no impact whatsoever in low-level games" seems odd, since it's been pointed out that Xd10 hurts a lot in low levels, especially since you can add at least 1d10 to a successful trip attack, PLUS you have to spend your next standard action getting up. Not to argue from personal experience, but I've played games where flying from point A to point B wasn't ever a thing, but I've never played in a campaign where someone didn't knock my PC down a few times. --Spanambula (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Who's talking about overland flight? I'm talking about combat flight against flyers. A barbarian with this flaw who's fighting against flying archers is going to be at a great disadvantage compared to if he was able to use those Winged Boots or whatever the party can have access to. That's the biggy in my mind, which makes this flaw "worth" the extra feat.. --Ghostwheel (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And those flying archers are using tactics which automatically raises them to a level of play in which it can no longer be referred to as a "low-level game." Flying around kiting people is a solidly High level tactic, and - as mentioned - Barbarians (who have ride, by the way) can also have a flying mount.

You misunderstand me. Low, not in balance rating, but in pure level of characters. --Ghostwheel (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Let’s recap the action so far:

Ghostwheel: “Not enough penalty at lower levels. Dislike!”

Eiji-kun: “Here are examples of meaningful low-level impact.”

Ghostwheel: “I’ll agree, but then ignore all but one small part of your examples and use only that to justify my continued dislike.”

Spanambula: “Here are other examples of meaningful low-level impact.”

Ghostwheel: “I’m going to refuse to acknowledge those examples as well and continue to focus on the higher-level impact I approve of. Oh, and keep my dislike.”

Oh Ghostwheel… never change. <3 --Spanambula (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

GW: I didn't misunderstand you; I understood that you meant low as in the number of levels that a character had. However, that had already been covered multiple times, and you insisted on repeating the same argument. You then brought in an argument that corresponded more to a lower power of play rather than a lower level of character, so I covered that, too. You still insist that your problems haven't been covered (they all have). Does this help clear things up? --Undead_Knave (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Feather Fall?

How does this flaw interact with it? --Sulacu (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Weird, I swore I had addressed that before, but apparently not. Adding the fix on what that was. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)