Of flying speeds and super PCs

How many people here have actually DMed or played flying characters? Because I've played with and DM'ed flying characters in 5e. It's fine. Totally fine. I don't recognise any of the problems here.

Are there some things that are trivial for flying characters? Sure. But that's true of all sorts of features. Tabaxi super dash can bypass some situations too, or water genasi breathing water. Well done to the PC for finding an opportunity to use their ability. Longbows and enough range can completely change a combat encounter too - but nobody's banning longbows.

Non-flying characters are left out? That's true of most unique features. Elven trance, darkvision, half-orcish chumbawumba, tabaxi climb speed, triton amphibiousness. I've never detected nor felt any feature envy, probably because flying is quite situational.

A flying character can help with cliffs (by flying up and dropping a rope down), but they'll be exposed and on their own up there. I'm not sure how a flying character easily deals with a brown bear - unless maybe if the whole party can fly. But if they can, then more power to them.

Maps are easy enough. I just show the PC's token larger and we make a note of height (image from a party with an aarakocra).



Me? I don't bother with Pythagoras for range or distance. I'm not running a simulated war game in 5e - just a game. Diagonals count as one square, same as vertical and horizontal. That makes things simpler for everything (not just flying), and I like simple.

But if a DM wants to ban them? Sure. Whatever. It's your game. I'm just saying that I've never seen a reason to do so.

So is it just a matter of GMs being ''lazy'' (pardon the harsh term) and just spout of ''balance'' rules? when in truth you can interrupt flying with spells and items. A DM from time to time should use the height against their players...that same brown bear? it can swipe a moving fish jumping at a waterfall...what's stopping it from swiping that player aaracokra trying to dive in for a hit? Also shooting while in air: If you're using a character that flaps its wings to fly he will have some penalty applied to him since he is not in a stationary position (flapping around see?) and we haven't even tackled wind speeds and weather yet...gods forbid all campaigns are made under a sunny clear lit day that lasts perpetually until the end of a campaign.

I think a few tweaks are there to be made to enable PCs with innate flying abilities...but it seems like some GMs don't like to put in the extra work citing why it cannot and should not rather than why it could be...It's like saying ''If a player has flying then what's stopping it from killing a Tarasque?'' nothing other than the Tarrasque's reach (he can still reach with his arms right?) and making it an exercise in futility since with its myriad resistances (from my limited reading of that monster) it's like an ant trying to kill Godzilla...

That is the main problem. Low level modules assume the players will not be able to fly. If they have such ability the GM will have to adapt it, and many DM don't have time for it.

Dunno man. Can you think of an example of this from a module? I can't. Whereas I can think of examples in modules where it explicitly says that flying characters can do something, and LMoP (the quintessential low level module) has at least one potion of flying lying about.

I don't know whether I would (or could) say DMs were being lazy. That's not for me to say.

I just can't think of a time where flying has remotely broken a game I've been in, nor can I think of any published adventures which would suffer. But it might be different for other DMs. I just wonder how many of these "problems" are from experience - because I've never thought to myself that I'd never allow aarakocra in a game again.

Are there times when PCs cleverly use flying? Sure. But PCs are clever with familiars, wildshape, speak with plants and all sorts of other stuff too. If you want to kill a tarrasque just get enough longbowmen with magic arrows - that's not a flying problem - it's a lack of ranged attacks problem.

I've never played nor DMed for a naturally flighted PC in 5E. But the very premise of the Twitter thread seems to be a disingenuous trap. "Why do players have constrictions that the DM doesn't have?" C'mon. That's the wrong question/assumes an adversarial relationship between player and DM.

Is there really a question as to why a DM doesn't want level 1 PCs with essentially a permanent 3rd level spell effect on them?

Flight is simply powerful and can turn non-combat challenges from... challenging - requiring checks and rp and gameplay, to trivial - requiring nothing but a statement that it's done from the player, in very obvious and also very unforeseeable ways.

Things that were boundaries are no longer boundaries.

Things that were obstacles are no longer obstacles.

Communication becomes easier.

Exploration becomes easier.

It's a normal part of character progression, and something that reasonably comes with time, as all increases in power do. But again, it's a permanent 3rd level spell. That's power.

Except fly is touch so can be used on anyone - has a faster speed - can be used by characters wearing armour - and is pretty situational anyway.

But this isn't some algebra problem to be solved without actually running the experiment.

If you've never tried it as a player (and your DM allows it) then give it a go.

If you're nervous about it as a DM, then try it out in a oneshot.

If you're a DM who's found it completely broke a game then let us know how - especially if it's from a published module. I'm genuinely interested.

I've played an aarakocra monk. That's two things people like to hate on for being overpowered. None of the other players complained, and the DM had no trouble challenging my PC, and I never felt singled out for punishment either.

Of course, this all really depends on the group you've got together. And yeah, that was a homebrew game so I don't know how it would play out in a published module.

I'm with Adam here: I feel like it shouldn't be a problem. But if you try it and find that it is a problem for you (as player or DM) then I won't think any less of you either.

I mean, take the game of mine that you're in, Adam.

That chase scene? Not a thing anymore, cuz there's an eye in the sky. No one needs to chase them.

The choice between navigating a downed bridge in the mountain, or taking a longer route? Not a choice because the flyer can just fly a rope across the gap.

Not to mention making a trek up the mountain at all. Because that 3 day winding road through the foothills and up the mountain? That's less than a day's travel as the crow flies. Just send the aaracockra! We'll wait here.

That's literally 3/5ths of the gameplay in that game - no longer a thing. No longer requires checks, or rp - no gameplay. It's just done.

I don't have to have played the ability to know these possibilities.

And, sure, in each of those scenarios there are probably things I could do to "counter" a flyer. But then what are we really doing there? Why did I allow the flyer in the first place if I'm just gonna counter them at every turn? Is the player gonna get upset that I "don't let them use" their flight?

What is the point in creating that dynamic? Creating the need for creating all that extra narrative and mechanical artifice?

I don't doubt that it can be fine for some games. But one that's heavily divided in exploration and investigation and communication? It's a legit problem.

I will start of with this quote
however I think one should be able to cope with this ability and if they can't that they would also be removing it from the monsters the characters fought.
now lets turn to the question Should you allow flying? in general my answer would be yes, now I understand the hesitance to have t as a racial ability, I think limiting most powers is a good thing or at least requiring a roll there is no magic missile cantrip that shoots one glowing dart of magical force for a reason, but if you allow flying as a racial ability then you should be prepared for it and expect everyone to have it playing the only Aaracockra in a sea of other people your wings might grow weak from lack of use, however if you are in an Aaracockra city people should be prepared for it.
now lets talk combat, we need features like this to make combat interesting, if all players had were swords and every turn they said
"I swing my longsword" combat would become less interesting then
however it must also be said that if every combat were that it would also become uninteresting, combat should be Interesting
if players don't need to come up with creative ways to solve problems combat becomes boring, and without powers they can't do that if all they have is a longsword all they will do is swing it. his obvious dislike for fighters comes through
if your talking about Official World specific I can't say weather that's true of not it bugs me You Build The World not the game system. also if you know you PC's can fly you shouldn't have a wall be one of their obstacles.
I to have DM'ed IRL with flying characters, and surprise they fly over walls and Ignore the protests of the city guards, also side note to Adam's question I would Like to hear the Opinion of HeroAmongMen who very recently in our combat had to deal with flight.
OK so? build new boundaries, Build new Obstacles. I'm not sure I understand the communication bit?
lastly despite that I think it won't cause a problem I need to agree with Jabes If you find it is a problem remove it.

what are buildings and Trees for? Players would be smart enough to hid under them so NPC's should be able to figure it out to.

We could have done that with a familiar - and it was in a vineyard so you could have nixed both of them with line of sight. But do we think that Marie's tabaxi dash invalidated the chase?
And, be honest, that would have been much much cooler.

And anyway we could probably have rigged something to fire an arrow across, but I think we just felt like taking the scenic route.
Without us having the slightest idea what would happen to them when they got there?!
I disagree with the fraction, and I certainly disagree with the no rp or gameplay. But so what? Some parts wouldn't have been how you originally planned.

This bears repeating.

Harsh. LOL

As mentioned, it's not that it can't be dealt with but again, there is the question underlying the "git gud" rebuttal.

Which is, why allow it, why create a more complex narrative and gameplay dynamic, if the expectation then becomes that I just need to do more work as DM? If it's gonna create a dynamic where I'm giving with one hand and immediately taking with the other?

As DM my goal is to (hopefully) create interesting and meaningful choices and scenarios and gameplay for the players to choose and pick their way through.

It seems to me that a flighted level 1 PC can easily make choices less interesting, can easily make gameplay less interesting (often centering in flight).

That's what I see.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Just wanted to put the counterpoint out there.

Also, when's Marabi gonna react to this summoning circle? ;)

I meant cooler than our disastrous athletics rolls!

Dude, you set up your game the way you want. We're enjoying it so it's working, right? That's the only real measure of success. Is it a fun game?

If someone said "we just outfitted the aarakocra with bottles of oil and torches and firebombed our way through the giants of SKT" then it's broken because it's not fun. Those are the stories I want to hear.

But my point is, I've never seen an aarakocra be anything other than a fairly useless flying open target with a certain specialised occasional utility. They add a fun and unique skill but don't break anything (that I've seen). They're also quite fantastical which is a nice change in a fantasy game. But as a DM, I find myself adding bits just to allow their skill to shine.

It's interesting that you thought they'd break the 5LR game as I wondered about it too (before you posted). The chase was the only bit where I thought we might have tried it. I couldn't see us splitting the party to send off a PC by themselves, but I suppose you know what's behind the screen.

Okay, point made - posting for Marabi soon.

Yea, I mean, I hate dissecting specifics, as that's not what this is really about.

But, what I would do as a flighted player, or as a group with one, would be to send off the flighted PC to scout, while we set off on foot. Even if you wait to do so until the group is closer, there's still potential in such a scenario to "lose" gameplay. As if once the flighted PC gets there and there's no problems? If the journey was the challenge? Scenario over. OR I gotta do mental gymnastics to put something there to counter the flight, at which point we're doing the give-only-to-take thing.

I cannot confirm or deny whether there will be a problem in the game specifically ;)

But I think it's undeniable that flight just expands the literal dimensions and scope of the game and narrative, and so fundamentally expands gameplay - but for one player only, and so I think it's undeniable that it changes challenges, changes narrative - naturally tho that expansion again is only with regards to the one flighted player and so those changes will often only be reflected in that one player's spotlight. Or, again, I gave only to take

Again, I'm sure it works fine for some games, particularly games with plenty of dungeons and roofs 😅, but I can also see it really "messing things up" for others.

I have DMed for flying PCs several times in D&D 5e and found it wasn't a problem. Those players had unique tools to solve problems, but most characters do. They occasionally made short work of certain situations. Great! Players love feeling like their choices mattered. It was also a great detriment when they got Hold Person'ed or just knocked unconscious. But there again, their choice mattered.

A raven familiar 100' overhead who can communicate telepathically already makes a flying scout in the wilderness if one is required. The wizard can even lose 6 seconds to look through their eyes. But a stealthy rogue or ranger can at least be a hidden scout and wear armour whilst doing it.

An unarmoured PC flying in the open over unknown terrain is not a long term strategy (unless you have an unlimited number of aarakocra that you don't care about).

But if the players found a better way to scout - good for them. I want the PCs to succeed, and they'd still have to work out what to do about the baddies they've scouted.

I think the real test is - in games where aarakocra are allowed, why are there so few of them? Why doesn't everybody choose it? I think it's because people quickly work out they're not as useful as you think they'd be.

I want that!

I don't disallow flying characters in my games at all, but I understand and sympathize with the reasons that people might not allow them.

As for the bear thing, fighting a rabid bear at low level is dangerous, whereas it wouldn't be if you could fly. I'm not saying it's a huge deal, just that it can trivialize what might have been a tense scenario.

But like I said, I don't stop people from making flying PCs anyway.