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.