Of flying speeds and super PCs

Browsing Twitterverse and came upon this little snippet of someone asking the following question:

''Can I ask and please don't get defensive or antagonist, but why is a flight speed for a PC such a game breaking mechanic in D&D? why is it controversial?'' the person continued on saying, ''I guess my thought about it is if the DM can have flying NPCs then why can't the players? Why the hypocrisy?

''Also just because you have one player that can fly doesn't mean it negates all challenge for the players.

I guess I just don't see why it's such a big deal.''

Also it should be said that this is why session zeros are extremely important to have before you play. Talking about player creation/concepts, what kind of game you wanna play in/run, etc. b/c you are all building a world together through said play.

End Quote.

I wanted to just link this on the Discord server but I'd figured that I want to discuss something here in the forums. What do you think about some mechanics not being implemented? is it just because of ''balance''? wouldn't it be better to have a mechanic that can make every campaign unique or will those strange superpower abilities just derail the game?

If the GM is not able to cope with an ability they can say, 'we don't allow that ability here'. It is completely fair and up to them.
I assume the original question was about 5e and flight. Many modules (I assume) are built without the idea of flight, so being able to fly can easily break them. Or at least this is the main complaint I hear. The GM would need to do work to fix things, and they might not have the time to do that, they might want to run the module as written.

Personally I have never had an issue with flying characters, but other players have felt underpowered by comparison. Flying is a thing many people dream about, having one character who can fly (as well as do everything else everyone else can do) could be considered unfair.
The player of the flyer has also sometimes felt a little cheated when the logical consequences of flying come to bear, they wanted the 'free overpower fantasy', so the 'correct ways' for the GM to deal with the power are sometimes frowned upon. 'Might be easier to avoid that situation and just disallow flight' one could be justified in thinking.

In a super-power game, this probably does not come up as often. Everyone is special and has the powers the player chose (hopefully) and flight is a lesser power, and a dangerous one.

If anything derails a game, and the GM is finding it hard to cope, they should speak to their players and work out a solution. Players should not make a GM's lifer harder than it already is.

As a GM, my stance on flight is driven 100% by battle maps. If I'm using maps, PCs won't be flying (at least not at character creation). If we're going theater of the mind, take to the air ladies and gentlemen.

In general, I dislike how precise D&D is with distances and movement. Adding a third dimension to every encounter compounds that. If I'm doing theater of the mind, I can fudge the distances and it isn't really an issue (unless there is a rules lawyer in the group that has a problem with me answering "Am I close enough to--" with "Sure, why not").

Bring out the Pythagoras!

Or a piece of string. :)

but then there are spells like hold person that could easily bring a flying PC to the ground.

And if DMs can use NPCs with innate flying then why not players?

The GM has many ways to 'counter' a flying PC (arrows and no cover up there in the air; anything that knocks them prone; ceilings; 10 foot corridors (a medium creature's wingspan would be at least 15'); ...). But is 'countering' them what you are supposed to be doing? How does that make them feel?

NPCs are not trying to overcome obstacles (they are obstacles), PCs can use flying to overcome a lot of what a normal adventure puts in their way. There is no real equivalency between PCs and NPCs.

Because if the GM brings a flying enemy, the players have to deal with overcoming that extra difficulty once and maybe get creative. If the players bring a flying character, the GM has to deal with it every single combat.

I am not sure a flying PC as any real advantage in combat (alone up there, no cover, easy target = bad idea). It is the non-combat power they bring that many GMs object to. At least, that is my understanding.

Non-combat as well, sure. But I remember how difficult it was when I was GMing Pathfinder to have the wizard fly over the enemies, high enough up that they couldn't reach him, while he could rain down fireballs at them with no issue 😄

To me, it isn't a matter of fairness. I'm not withholding flight because I want to be the only one with flying characters. I'm doing it because I know what I am good at and what I am bad at as a GM. At the table, a flying PC would slow combat down to a crawl as I try to figure out ranges and what not. In pbp it isn't as big of a deal, but it would mean I wouldn't go about creating battle maps for encounters.

My main issue is D&D turning fun things like flying into a chore. If the group is cool with changing all range increments to descriptors (close, near, far, etc) rather than exact distances, then I can handle a flying PC in a D&D game.

Ya, that is true, and every GM will need to deal with that eventually. :(
I tend to run complex, mutli-level (level=height) combats, at various ranges, in terrain full of options. The enemies can often find cover from a flyer.
If that flyer also has better range than any of them, it can suck, this is a general balance issues though (which DnD is bad at). Too many encounters start at 30' from the enemy. How many times have we not heard that the feat that extends spell range is pointless with the Warlock's cantrip (don't ask me to remember names, it has been too long since I ran DnD) or that a Dark Elf's extended darkvision makes no difference... I think those are both very strong options in a more complex battlefield. This range issue is not a flying issue. Flying removes all the option the flyer has to make use of terrain and cover, if the group is not using such things then flying is even stronger.

So true. This is a very good reason to ban things.

Oh, I definitely was at fault for that situation as well. I'm not great with encounter design, especially not on the fly (badumm tss).

But sometimes, I hated that player because flying was just always so useful 😅 As were all the other utility spells.

Though one issue was also that my players fought me tooth and nail on actually implementing the rules for movement in the air, which I'm sure would have helped nerf flight a good bit

Which is the issue. Flying is strong. Having it a 1st level can be hard to deal with, others who don't have it can feel left out. Not allowing it is a quick and easy way to deal with all those issues.

To me, it's about balance in 5e's design. If this were some type of multiplayer game where various characters needed to be somewhat balanced, flying would be nerfed or deleted immediately. Let's look at it from a game/adventure design standpoint, given standard fantasy-level technology: Walls around a noble's house/land? Negated without rolls. Cliffs? Negated. Climbing? Big guys with swords? Lots of enemies between you and a squishy wizard-type in combat? Negated, negated, negated, all without spending a single resource. It also removes a lot of the tactics in combat due to how opportunity attacks work. You can't block a flying character from getting anywhere, and paired with a "Dash as Bonus Action" ability, players can wreck an encounter very quickly. It's no longer a challenge. (I get that it's important for characters to shine occasionally, but this takes it a bit too far in my opinion)

It's an extremely powerful tool that I have no problem with the players having, provided the have to spend a resource or roll any dice (no risk). Flying as a racial ability is difficult for the GM to handle, and too strong because it can be done for free.

I know a lot of people feel differently, but I think it's too much, at least as a racial ability. If the dice dictate that the players find Boots of Flying in a treasure chest, then so be it.

Part of the problem is that in worlds with flying creatures and/or people, defense hasn't kept up.
If there are things that can fly...put nets over your court yard.
String very thin wires between towers and watch pieces of your enemies get sliced off as they fly by.
Research spells that increase gravity.
If people can fly, people will come up with ways to fight it.

It always boggles my mind that, in a world where the enemies (NPCs) regularly fly, the defences have not kept up with evolutionary pressure.
This does show that DnD is not designed to cope with flying.

I think for PCs with innate flight it should be made into a very situational ability, like all abilities. You shove my aaracokra anywhere underground in a dungeon and they aren't flying anywhere... or in any dungeon which have traps (the traps are usually installed in tight spaces anyway most of the time other than open areas)

I guess for some people it's not as make or break a mechanic as it is for some...

1. The flavor of challenges in low-level games
Often, low-level games and high-level games have different challenges to overcome. Low-level games can make a cliffside that you have to climb into a real obstacle while high-level characters can generally deal with it easily. Drop flying into it, and you remove one of the major types of obstacles players at low-level deal with: terrain. This includes walls, cliffs, chasms, mountains, forests.

2. Combat
Flying characters CAN make it harder to run certain types of fights. Rabid brown bear rampaging through the forest? Flying character can EASILY deal with it. At high level, creatures and encounters tend to have better ways to deal with issues like flying, but low-level combats might not.

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.

I don't think the reason is that they're not as useful as people think, but because it just doesn't fit the character concept they're going for. I love playing heavily armored paladins, so chances are I'm not going to play an aarakocra even if given the choice.

I think it's because people usually pick flavor over mechanics. On GP at least

A familiar is squishier and has much less utility and ability than a PC. Basically no ability to end the scenario there even if conditions favored it/were non-hostile.
You can totally stealth in flight.
You can totally wear light armor in flight as an aarakocra at least, so this is a gross mischaracterization of RAW. Nothing says you couldn't even have a shield. So AC is not a problem.

If you're flying out of range of most (why not any?) ground attacks, unknown terrain isn't a threat until you have to go in for your target. At which point you stealth. At which point you have armour. At which point you have the utility of a full PC. Just like normal scouting, except you got there way faster and can get back way faster.

And to make that not viable, basically what I'm hearing is you end up having to target the PC with combat. Which means you end up having to insert combat into your game, everywhere. Somehow. Even if there wasn't "supposed" to be hostile forces at the destination. Even if you are trying to run a low combat game...

...

I think we can do this all day. Which is, again, why I don't think it's too fruitful to dissect specifics. Specifics are just one instance. The instances are unlimited. Flight literally adds a whole new dimension to the game. For one player.

And I think you don't see multiple aarakocras likely has just as much a combination of a lot of ppl don't like to double up on character concepts (which is to say, they have an abundance of things they want to try) and simply a lot of ppl don't seem to care for anthropomorphic PCs as much as "the classics".

I hope people pick flavor over mechanics! at least in my games, if your not in my games you can do whatever you want :)

True - but aarakocra are much more flavourful than the boring humans, dwarves and half-orcs I always choose.

but less common, playing a human helps your group feel like it fits into the world. Flavor
maybe it's not for your character specifically but if to many people play out there races the race tends to get ignored.

Nah. I think I’m just basic.

I think this boils down to intent and the meta no? How much flight speed? Is it at no cost of resource to the user to continuously use? Is there a chance of failure? Is it nigh perfect form the get go or horribly dangerous and possibly life threatening for the user.

If one player hears it's a low fantasy world low magic world and the other two people are a girl from a pig farm with a pitchfork and a boy who can make charcoal and hunt with snare traps and they 'say' they get it. If they ask why they can't play a dragon (not a hatchling, big fang hoard having kingdom destroying dragon) that's half god and it gets shot down I don't know why they can be shocked or talk about fairness to their player agency. If they say they'll compromise with just being able to fly as fast as a dragon would with their starting character or they don't play it's suspect. I'd say thank you for the incite but I don't think we require a character of this concept at this time...

That said lets say someone else, they are playing a gnome that wants to fly like a bird. They have it they dream of it, anything flying in the air, even leaves, they're studying how things fly and are constantly tinkering between adventures and any downtime... One day they're take to the sky for 'personal reasons I don't know, I'm Batman?' But eventually (possibly GM Setup for it) they see it hopefully. The player announces "THIS IS IT!" and the gnome pulls cords and cranks on their backpack and they have a hang glider looking contraption with moving flappable wings and pulling down googles (cus safety). Yeah this one please try to fly as the GM, you've established the background and did the ground work. You might do this amazing thing and have that solo moment where you have an inner monologue about all the hours spent working on this, all the crashes, broken bones, near death experiences being worth it. But also you might fail, you might have a busted up arm but you still have the clarity to write some post flight notes for Mark XXV now that you're ironed out another kink in the design while the rest of the party sighs again.

I think this boils down to honestly what's fun for a player (singular) versus what's fun for a player (With a Party and GM).

You want to fly at the speed of sound and you've harped on it coersed and bullied your way into having it, cool, devil in the details GM lets you fly you have no idea how to stop abruptly and no one can hear your screams of help since you move at the speed of sound. Sometimes the GM is the like Genie in Aladin movies, don't make them into the legend of the Monkey's Paw.

Maybe, but it's not a bad thing.

I'd like to point out that this is what I said in my original post on this thread.

The twitter user asked the wrong question. Came at the issue at the wrong angle.

They set the DM and the Players needs against each other, like a competition. When they actually have the same needs.

It's very easy for a flying PC, which is fun for the PC, to make things not as fun for other players, or even the DM.

Where's the middle ground?

I don't think it's wrong just worded in a way to be misinterpreted by not the question answer, not a wrong angle just a viewpoint they solely looked at, I guess the middle ground would be have a conversation at a session 0 to discuss what everyone wants and what would be fun for everyone.

Rolling for bugs in the face/mouth would be a thing for me though depending on the season.

Sorry. You’re right - light armour is allowed, I misremembered that (gross mischaracterisation is a little much for my mistake!) - although whether a character can stealth I think is up to the DM.

But the middle ground? Try it. It’s not what you think it is. Or listen to other people who’ve tried it.

Or don’t. Ban flying PCs if you want - I’m not going to insist you use them or that you’re wrong to ban them.

But you won’t convince me that my games were broken by flying PCs- I was there.

I want to play an Aaracockra in heavy armor now :)

I heard a lot talk about 'the GM should be able to cope...' and it would be nice if all GMs were experts, but some are beginners, can't, or would prefer not to have to deal with edge-cases. That is their right. If the GM says 'no' you can have a conversation with them, but do not pressure them into accepting your ideas.

With regard to the question of having seen problems. As mentioned somewhere in the depths of this thread: I have had very few problems with this issue. The only ones I have seen come up a few times are other players being a bit dissatisfied that their personal gimmick is not as cool --I think we can all agree that 'flying is cool'. I have also had a few 'power-gamer' types (and I use that in the pejorative sense) get miffed when I point out some of the valid problems with being the sole flyer in a battle, or the many times when flying is not an option (and, yes, I try to give as many chances as possible for players to 'use their cools', but a dungeon might not be the right environment for flight... except in exceptions).
These two problems make me think twice about allowing such things in games with players I don't know. Conversations need to had first (and are soon forgotten).

I don't remember the rules, but do the Flying Tieflings also have the 'only light armor' restrictions? Can't they were heavier stuff?

Winged: You have a flying speed while you aren’t wearing heavy armor.
Guess you get medium, but that wasn't the Point I like playing against the type.

There’s a lot of truth in that. It can be very annoying when players can’t use their "special thing".

The map I showed earlier was from a PbP game. I’d be interested to know whether Rattila felt their aarakocra got to use their special ability. They got places fast, but I remember them being bugger all use when they arrived. But perhaps Rattila didn’t feel that way.

My main memory was how well R played the race flavour. They’re not long lived, and Erios was a gentle philosopher - I miss that guy.

I think they can have Shields also. The armor thing featured prominently and intentionally in your argument, but 'gross' might have been a bit much. Sorry.

RE: Stealth, raptors use tactics like flying with the sun at their back, or skimming very low to the ground, as well as different modes of flight (not flapping), for stealth all the time. What ground is there to deny a PC those tactics? Not to mention of course something like clouds.

I've never banned flying PCs in a game (I've also only ever DMed 2 propper 5E games :P), but I have put book restrictions on both of those games. And that's entirely because I want to have a feel for "the basics" before I welcome in the whole world of crunch. I'd totally give Aarokocra's a try some time. Particularly as a player. But in running the right campaign too.

And I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone at all, really, of anything. Just lending my voice to the counterpoint for the consideration of anyone who wants to consider it.

Also, I think it's important to point out, my belief isn't that it breaks the game. Flying comes along sooner or later in D&D, the game is made to handle it.

Rather my belief (or my concern) is it can (at lower levels) make otherwise interesting choices, gameplay, and narrative less interesting, because it's such an easy/at-hand and diverse tool that it can replace outright other things, other PCs skills and abilities. There's a reason it's a 3rd level spell.

Damn it...I just want t play an aaracokra that can fly...or mermen that can swim...

Anyway, I think it's on the mindset of ''if it can fly, then it can negate a lot of things'' But I think A well placed Fireball spell or any high damaging or high utility ability also negates a lot of things yet they are widely accepted. I think the reward of (limited) innate flying is the same as the aforementioned well placed Fireball...

Unlimited Fireballs at level 1? Sign me on. :)

I played a Dragonborn bard in a 5e campaign that took Dragonwings for his feat at level 4 or 5. Honestly, it was mostly for flavour. Movement speed was the same, didn’t help with combat since he couldn’t hit the broadside of a barn, so hovering 20 feet in the air wouldn’t make a difference. I had discussed with the GM (Qralloq) prior to next game to make sure it wasn’t an issue. We decided to have my character slowly begin transforming into a dragon, as part of his longer storyline, so the wings were a good first step. But it honestly didn’t hinder the gameplay at all.

Interestingly, one of the other players had a problem with it, which was funny since he was a half orc barbarian that dominated any battle and didn’t require any other character’s help.

I play much more for character and story than mechanics, so for me it was just interesting and added to the fun. I personally think that if someone is playing D and D to win, they’re missing the point of role playing.

I think this is really only an issue in the lower levels, hence the Aaracokra hate at level 1. Games starting at higher levels probably don't have this come up.
Having wings but not being able to use them due to character build (no range) is as good as not having them from a mechanical perspective.

I think most of us agree with that.

My PCs fly when they get grappled by gargoyles. Then they ‘fly’ straight down.

Interesting discussion. It's been said here and there, but my $0.02 is that it's just about the kind of game you're playing. The tone, the reality distortion level, the whole atmosphere of the thing.

In supers games, including many that I've run, people are flying like crazy. No biggie! For fantasy, though, I prefer the low variety, mud and blood and such, so the PCs generally don't fly. But there are a lot of other things they don't do as well, because we're striking for something specific in terms of story. This is actually why I don't play 5e (not to make it that discussion) -- the mechanics are fine from what I know of them, but I don't tend to like high fantasy where the PCs are, for example, flying. I know I'd be a drag on what many people are after, so I just avoid playing so I'm not the anchor holding everyone down.

Scuttles back into cave.

-