Aerial Combatants vs. Earthbound Opponents

[Gandalf Istari]

Working on my second reread of the AD&D books, and I found this little snipet in the DMG this morning in the aerial combat section:

When diving, all creatures' physical attacks will do double damage to all targets which are not themselves diving. This includes diving attacks at earthbound creatures which come from a height of 30 feet or more. (DMG pg 50)

First, this is a really powerful rule when using flying creatures against earthbound opponents! I honestly don't remember using this rule back in the day, but it would really spruce up encounters in which flying creatures are used against a group, even low level creatures. Suddenly a bunch of harpies (3 hit dice)become a powerful foe even against a higher level group.

I'm curious about a few things though. Are the armor classes of flying creatures against ground opponents modified in any way? Shouldn't a flying creature who is diving down and then back up and away from the fight have an AC modifier, given that they would seem to be much harder to hit than an opponent on the ground? I don't see anything mentioned about this in the aerial combat section, nor in any of the monster manuals. Does the AC of flying creatures already reflect their ability to swoop in and out of combat with earthbound creatures, or should flying attackers against earthbound opponents receive an improved AC score while so engaged?

Obviously, if a flying creature is high enough, melee and even missile fire against them is impossible (even magic may be ineffective if they are out of range of any spells that could be cast at or upon them), so in that respect a flying creature does have a great advantage against earthbound creatures. However, I'm thinking about creatures that swoop down just over the tops of the character's heads so that the characters have to reach up to attempt any hits upon the diving attacker. Wouldn't this be a difficult way for the earthbound combatants to fight, with their arms lifted up in the air trying to whack at creatures that are swooping past quickly? I'd think it would not only be more difficult to fight against such creatures, but indeed would be quite tiring. Since there are no fatigue rules in AD&D beyond hit points, perhaps a penalty "to hit" against such flying attackers would be appropriate?

Further, I'm curious about what effect, if any, the charging rules would have upon diving attackers against opponents on the ground. Should the diving attacker get a bonus to hit as though they were charging? Its a pretty similar attack IMO. As well, what if an earthbound opponent had a weapon set against such a diving attack, say a long pike or whatnot? Would the rules for weapons set against a charge be applicable against diving opponents? I'm leaning toward saying that both the charging rules and the set weapons rules would be applicable to diving attackers and earthbound defenders, but thought it'd be good to get some input from others who may be more familiar with the aerial combat rules before making a final decision.

[AxeMental]

I'd rule its the same as a charge on horse back, if for no other reason then to keep it consistant.

[foster1941]

I thought there was a rule giving to hit bonuses/penalties for characters fighting from different elevations (horseback, ledge, etc.) but a quick look through the DMG just now didn't turn it up so I may have imagined it or mentally imported it from RQ (or "Chainmail," which gives +1/-1 (on 2d6) for mounted vs. unmounted figures). Anyway, if there were such a bonus I'd apply it to flying vs. non-flying creatures as well. And I agree that it makes sense to use the standard Charging rules for attacks by diving aerial creature.

But also keep in mind that if you're giving flying creatures all these advantages, you should remember to apply the disadvantages too -- "to hit" penalties for missiles fired by flying creatures (short range counts as medium (-2), medium counts as long (-5), no fire allowed at long range), maneuverability (the fact that most flying creatures require both considerable space and time to turn around), the fact that most flying creatures (those of maneuverability class C+) are unable to 'hover in place' and must maintain continuous forward motion, and the fact that any creature with membraneous wings that suffers over 50% damage is unable to fly and must land immediately (over 75% damage = uncontrollable plummet) while any creature with feathered wings must land if it suffers over 75% damage.

[Gandalf Istari]

foster1941 said:

I thought there was a rule giving to hit bonuses/penalties for characters fighting from different elevations (horseback, ledge, etc.) but a quick look through the DMG just now didn't turn it up so I may have imagined it or mentally imported it from RQ (or "Chainmail," which gives +1/-1 (on 2d6) for mounted vs. unmounted figures).

There is an elevation bonus in 2e IIRC from my one and only read through of the 2e PHB. I don't recall having seen anything about elevation in the 1e DMG or PHB either. Maybe there was something in some Dragon article? Hmmm, makes me wonder what other kind of combat stuff might have popped up over the years in Dragon. I need to sit down and read through all of the old issues some day to find all the juicy nuggets for AD&D in there.

Anyway, if there were such a bonus I'd apply it to flying vs. non-flying creatures as well. And I agree that it makes sense to use the standard Charging rules for attacks by diving aerial creature.

Cool, thanks.

But also keep in mind that if you're giving flying creatures all these advantages, you should remember to apply the disadvantages too -- "to hit" penalties for missiles fired by flying creatures (short range counts as medium (-2), medium counts as long (-5), no fire allowed at long range), maneuverability (the fact that most flying creatures require both considerable space and time to turn around), the fact that most flying creatures (those of maneuverability class C+) are unable to 'hover in place' and must maintain continuous forward motion, and the fact that any creature with membraneous wings that suffers over 50% damage is unable to fly and must land immediately (over 75% damage = uncontrollable plummet) while any creature with feathered wings must land if it suffers over 75% damage.

Definitely. Although I might play around with the numbers a bit. The whole range thing for missile weapons seems odd to me, given that creatures firing from a higher elevation should have greater range, not less. I suppose it might work out in the end once the difficulty of firing from the air is factored in. Maybe allow Class A flying creatures to fire missiles without a penalty. Hmmm.

[foster1941]

gandalfistari said:

There is an elevation bonus in 2e IIRC from my one and only read through of the 2e PHB. I don't recall having seen anything about elevation in the 1e DMG or PHB either. Maybe there was something in some Dragon article? Hmmm, makes me wonder what other kind of combat stuff might have popped up over the years in Dragon. I need to sit down and read through all of the old issues some day to find all the juicy nuggets for AD&D in there.

There are all kinds of little rules hidden all over the AD&D rulebooks (various sections of the main rulebooks + monster descriptions, modules, Dragon articles, etc.) so I'm not yet convinced there isn't something about this out there somewhere. For instance, I was looking up the description of normal bats in the MM2 this afternoon and noticed that they are listed as AC 8 but with a note that when flying they should be considered AC 4. This could be taken as a special case unique to bats or used to extrapolate a general rule for hitting flying creatures of small size and high maneuverability.

[Gandalf Istari]

foster1941 said:

There are all kinds of little rules hidden all over the AD&D rulebooks (various sections of the main rulebooks + monster descriptions, modules, Dragon articles, etc.) so I'm not yet convinced there isn't something about this out there somewhere. For instance, I was looking up the description of normal bats in the MM2 this afternoon and noticed that they are listed as AC 8 but with a note that when flying they should be considered AC 4. This could be taken as a special case unique to bats or used to extrapolate a general rule for hitting flying creatures of small size and high maneuverability.

You know, it'd be a great project to have all of these "little rules [that are] hidden all over the AD&D rulebooks", etc., sorted out and consolidated in one place, wouldn't it? Alas that EGG never got the chance to do so with his planned 2nd edition of AD&D...

Sure would be a heck of an undertaking, trying to sift through and interpret all of the various rules and ways of doing things that exist here and there in an effort to make a consistent, organized text. Of course, its been stated that the vagueness of some of the rules is one of the real strengths of AD&D, so maybe trying to integrate everything into a "seemless" system would actually take something away from the game. Add on top of that the issue of trying to sort out what belongs in AD&D versus what doesn't (like perhaps psionics, etc. which EGG has said he intended on cutting from a revised version of AD&D), and I'd imagine it'd be a near impossible task, especially given how varied the interpretations different gamers have of the AD&D rules.

[AxeMental]

Never mind the oddities, what about proper interpretation of basic rules (initiative- do you role for the seg your attacker hits you? or are you rolling for order per Storm Crow?), Missile fire, when does the first shot get fired round 0 or the segment rolled, Ive seen both argued? Do spells start on segment 0 so that if the caster is hit he looses the spell before it is cast, or do casters start the spell on the segment rolled, as EGG recently suggested which would also suggest the MU keeps dex bonus until he starts casting). The fact that the game works and feels the same when rule interps.