Talk:Enfield (5e Race)

It's looking nice, but some of the traits don't explain how they work: Aerial Combat, and the Agile Wing's "evade while flying". There are also balance concerns: Permanent advantage on a skill and a damage immunity are not things a starting character should have. You can also at-will knock a creature down with advantage on the check. Flight also takes up a lot of your "balance budget". Marasmusine (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2018 (MDT)

I do appreciate your concern, though I would like some clarification and a reevaluation. Aerial Combat exists simply to explain the combat limitations of this species's flight; since their arms are occupied in maintaining flight, they're limited to an unarmed attack with their legs and an attack that brings them out of the air. Agile Wings' gimmick is, as it states, just a dodge advantage alongside higher flight speed for the sub-race.

As for the question of the balance, that is the whole purpose of the Aerial Combat feature. Yes, flight is generally OP, but I took measures to reduce its capacity to keep its power in check. For the knockdown, I feel inclined to point out that whether you succeed or fail the attack, you are automatically knocked prone as well. Yes, knockdown can be a broken technique under certain circumstances, but again, I've taken measures against that.

the most recent tag on this page was removed on the grounds that the issues presented are opinionated as far as quality is concerned. Parallels between flying races of similar anatomy are an inevitability; simply put, similar races have similarities. The comment about the general balance is simply a case of personal dislike of the style. Balancing a race or a class by making it significantly better in one field and overall worse or vice versa has always been a trend. In any case, the race remains balanced. If the damage is an issue, I will dial it back within a reasonable degree, but other than that, the features of this race are built from the ground up with only this race's traits in mind, and are indisputable as such, and I will not have this race shoved back into balancing so it can fit a circular cookie cutter definition.

Please read our policy on civility and avoid removing maintenance templates from pages without attempting to addressing the issues outlined within them. If you have issues with following the standards that the first party content keeps to or wish to create content that is purposly stronger than of the first party see the {{Design Disclaimer}}. Finally please sign your comments as seen on your talk page. Thanks. —ConcealedLight (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2018 (MST)

Following a consultation of the civility document, I would like to address the advisement to avoid unclear and broad comments on editing work and advise the given party to act accordingly and provide some more detailed feedback regarding what you intend to see from the edits you're advising. I have staked my claim and opinion regarding this document, and the Design Disclaimer has not explained the opposition much at all. What I managed to take from the reading, particularly for the canon bird race, is that they have very little in common respectively. Sure, they have more in common than they do with, say, humans, but that's not grounds for that much similarly. That aside, the biggest similarities are a foot based attack, subraces that resemble various bird species, and flight. The first was included to give the Enfield something resembling an aerial attack that doesn't sacrifice flying. The later are simply characteristics of races based off birds. As I fail to see how this race is a better D&D bird, the ball is in the court of the prosecution. The defense awaits response. As requested: Signature. I hope I did that right. ChronoChrome (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2018 (MST)

This isn't a court case. You are only making it more difficult to understand what you trying to say and as such not helping. The page as it stands is stronger then comparable first party content, namely the aaracokcra and goes against a few design philosophies all of which can be solved by the suggestions given in the maintenance temple. Again, as seen on your talk page, it's four "~" or tilde's to sign your name. Avoided linking to the talk page of an administrator in your signature. —ConcealedLight (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2018 (MST)

I fail to understand what is difficult to understand about "What you have provided me does not explain the problem." I repeat my advisement to follow the civility document's advise towards avoiding vagueness. As an example, instead of telling me the race 'goes against a few design philosophies', explain what philosophies you see the conflict in and why. Repeating the same order when I'm telling you I don't see what's wrong here is helping as much, if not less, than light hearted court humour.--ChronoChrome (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2018 (MST)

Without further information, I cannot proceed, as after reevaluation of my position, I maintain to fail to see the reasoning behind the issues presented and the relevance of the loose aaracockra comparison.--ChronoChrome (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2018 (MST)

Given a continuing absence of further provided reasoning and explaination as requested by my previous comment: "I repeat my advisement to follow the civility document's advise towards avoiding vagueness. As an example, instead of telling me the race 'goes against a few design philosophies', explain what philosophies you see the conflict in and why.", I have opted to remove the relevant tag. Should the party's issue persist, they are advised to maintain strict adherence to the philosophy contained in the civility document regarding avoiding vagueness, lest their response supply no new information, and consequently keep debate closed.--ChronoChrome (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2018 (MST)

I believe that both of you may benefit from re-familiarising yourselves with constructive editing, and, if you truly wish to improve the race, state not only reasons why certain traits should be changed in truly understandable detail, but also why the traits under scrutiny are written as presented. One may believe the race is basically a reskinned aaracockra with haphazard differentiating weaknesses, but those same weaknesses are also tied into what the race is for the other, and the race's flavour and core physicality are explaination enough for them. A mutual understanding is the best path and approach.--PopsFortuitous (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2018 (MST)

I appreciate the new breath of reasoning that has been brought to this discussion and I look forward to expanding the race on this information. With the new description, I can see where the imbalance between the Aarakocra and the Enfield exists, and will work towards establishing a balance. As I have previously mentioned, I wrote this race based from a logical perspective on the physical anatomy of this mythical creature. For instance, the detriments included in this character's design exist not to balance an abundance of benefits, but rather to reconcile the unique physique of this creature. The traits were written in the same way, though with an added design philosophy of one trait tied to wings and one tied to fur to regulate and balance the subraces among them. It should also be mentioned that prior to working on this race, I hardly knew the Aarakocra existed, let alone the specifics of the race. I have a few ideas for how to rebalance based on the insights of the new tag, but I am open to, and in fact invite, further ideas, so long as they have a creative substance and a path forward rather then happlessly pointing out a perceived problem. --ChronoChrome (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2018 (MST)

This is such a wonderful response to read. The edits made surely have helped and I think will make it easier to review the balance of the subraces. I am not a fan of the boring aarokocra. Adding flavor through subrace traits is cool. Too cool though and we might have Armageddon. There's a user that came up with Labored Flight. Labored Flight. You can use an action to gain a flying speed of 40 feet until the start of your next turn. You can continue using this flying speed after the start of your next turn by using this action consecutively. Otherwise, you must land or begin falling. To use this flying speed, you can’t be wearing medium or heavy armor. I don't like the trait, but others do and maybe you will too. Anyways, we're all here to help. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2018 (MST)

I believe that trait, while not perfect, would do measures to replace the extremely complicated traits that currently work around with the biology and give players far more functional creativity to players for the flight mechanic. I'll implement that trait's general idea with some modifications and see if it completes the character.--ChronoChrome (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2019 (MST)