D&D 5E Flight ability: Does this make the Aarakocra overpowered?

[Rhenny]

As a DM, I don't like any PC having abilities that mean that I regularly have to tailor encounters and adventures to accommodate them. The same goes with disabilities. I never want a PC to play a centaur, as I don't want to be unable to run an adventure that involves a bunch of climbing, or have PCs executed because nobody bothers to take a centaur captive.

There are any number of design decisions a DM can make to rein in the power of a flying PC, I just have enough to think about already, don't want to have to run every encounter through a filter to see if it is still entertaining due to one ability from one PC.

One of the things I did not enjoy about 4th edition was that my high level PCs in the group I was DMing had such predictable encounter powers. Every fight two of them could teleport a bunch of allies around the battlefield. Another could teleport a bunch of enemies every fight. It just made a bunch of otherwise cool encounters boring, it nullified a lot of terrain and positional tactics.

It is not so much that the ability is objectively OP, it is just that I don't want to have to deal with it.

The possible drawback to DM trying to find ways to overcome PC abilities is that the modifications can begin the "treadmill" effect that makes a game feel more artificial (I.e. PC gains +1 to hit, monster gains +1 ac therefore no net gain, so player doesn't feel that PC has improved-the same goes for flight or darkvision or poison resistance,etc.). 5e seems to be designed so that when a PC gains a perk that perk can and will give the PC advantage at least situationally. Therefore, I think it best to design interesting encounters and events and let the pcs special powers overcome or make the situation easier. Flight will help in some situations but not in all situations.

I don't feel that it is necessary for a DM to purposely design obstacles that don't give pc's chances to use their powers.

 

[Mephista]

Q: Are the tengu-like people overpowered, because flight?
A: It depends on the GM and playstyle. Some people have no problems, some do.

Analysis: The biggest problems quoted are 1) kiting with ranged attacks, and 2) somehow evading any speed-bump obstacles in your path. If the character isn't doing the first, and the GM doesn't rely on the second as a main feature of the campaign, its not a problem.

Q: Does the Aara race require you to design encounters and traps around them?
A: Only if your personal GM playstyle is weak to flying powers. Other playstyles are weak to divination specialists. Charm resistance is huge in a social game. Some games are broken by the power-attack features of GWM and SS. Others aren't.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I've heard this before, but I don't think the rules support this reading. What am I missing?

The fact that if you look in the MM (which came out before the DMG) under movment, Flight (page 8), is specifically mentiones hover, indicating that some creatures have that and they are hard to knock out of the air. Looking at animals like Eagle, Hawk, Bat, Owl, etc., they have Fly listed as movement. I've never seen any of those animals "hover" in place for more than a second or two, tops (far less than a round). Bigger monsters like Sphinx and Harpy (probably the closest to an Aarakocra) have Flight but no mention of the ability to hover. However, looking at other monsters like Beholders and Demiliches specifically do list Fly (Hover).

That's where I'm getting my inference. That and it makes sense. If you wanted to be generous I suppose you could say a flying creature could choose to Hover as it's action for the round, owing to the fact that it would take full concentration and physical effort to keep aloft and not moving forward with the whole aerodynamics and lift stuff.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[wedgeski]

That's where I'm getting my inference. That and it makes sense. If you wanted to be generous I suppose you could say a flying creature could choose to Hover as it's action for the round, owing to the fact that it would take full concentration and physical effort to keep aloft and not moving forward with the whole aerodynamics and lift stuff.

That's where I thought you'd go, and I must admit, the mention of "hover" in some flying creatures' descriptions, and not in others, seems significant. However, my reading of that is that you cannot force a creature that has the "hover" word mentioned to the ground simply by reducing its speed to zero, as per the rules for getting a flying creature out of the air. Putting a beholder, say, under the restrained condition will not cause it to plop down onto the ground.

I certainly don't read it as saying that if the word hover doesn't appear in a stat block, a flying creature cannot hover in place. You're suggesting you don't want a deva to be able to hover overhead and pronounce judgement, or an imp to hover at its master's shoulder?

 

[Aenorgreen]

Hover will only effect creatures who have no room to move. Unless the Aara is trying to fly in a small diameter room that has no effect. It takes its move to go in a circle and shoots. It really maters only if you have some way of restraining the flying creature. Flyers are very good if they are outside and skilled with missile weapons. Indoors and dungeon craws they will usually be no different.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

That's where I thought you'd go, and I must admit, the mention of "hover" in some flying creatures' descriptions, and not in others, seems significant. However, my reading of that is that you cannot force a creature that has the "hover" word mentioned to the ground simply by reducing its speed to zero, as per the rules for getting a flying creature out of the air. Putting a beholder, say, under the restrained condition will not cause it to plop down onto the ground.

I certainly don't read it as saying that if the word hover doesn't appear in a stat block, a flying creature cannot hover in place. You're suggesting you don't want a deva to be able to hover overhead and pronounce judgement, or an imp to hover at its master's shoulder?

I'd rather err on the side of caution than open that can of worms wide open. By interpreting Flight this way, it's MUCH easier for me as a DM to give out exceptions for certain creatures than it is for me to do it the other way...especially when it comes to PC's.

Basically I think of the most likely scenario that a power-gamer would try and "interpret" something and I decide if that's going to be a good or bad thing for my campaign. If it's the later, I take steps to fix it. So, with the Aarakocra, a power-gamer may decide that he'll be able to bypass the whole "concentration" problem that wizards have with Fly by taking Aarakocra as a race. Now he has just overcome a HUGE balancing factor for wizards and the fly spell. No other wizard can do this, for a reason; game balance. And, if the PC can do this...why haven't NPC's? Why haven't entire countries tried to get flying creatures on their side? (or capture, raise, train....griffens, pegasus, etc). The only reason is simple: it's not worth it, overall. Maybe for special, select situations, but overall, it has to be "not worth it". By having flying creatures not be able to, by default "hover", that criteria is satisfied.

Of course, some DM's like more "fantastical" campaign settings where this kind of thing is the norm. For my current D&D game campagin, however, this is definitly not the case. So...F"ly != Hover" for me.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Mephista]

And, if the PC can do this...why haven't NPC's? Why haven't entire countries tried to get flying creatures on their side? (or capture, raise, train....griffens, pegasus, etc). The only reason is simple: it's not worth it, overall. Maybe for special, select situations, but overall, it has to be "not worth it". By having flying creatures not be able to, by default "hover", that criteria is satisfied.

Monitarily, its not worth it, but the MM actually does address having griffin and other flying mounts being raised by kingdoms. Its expensive, and most creatures don't come with natural weapons beyond claws and bites, making it difficult to maintain air superiority when the equivalent of dropping RL bombs is a fireball spell that wizards can use without needing flight flight spells.

So, its not that air superiority isn't a thing, its that when magic replaces technology, you're depending upon wizards and dragon breath, not archers, for the same equivalent.

Imagine using the mass combat rules with a PC on a griffin or hippogriff. They would slaughter. A handful of people, maybe up to a company? Possible and very deadly. The hundreds of archers needed in a fantasy army, let alone the training? Nope.

Aarakosha are also native to the plane of air, if memory serves. Good luck hiring them en masse.

 

[justinj3x3]

^_^

off topic but where do I know the piece I quoted? Masterworks forums maybe....?

 

[pming]

off topic but where do I know the piece I quoted? Masterworks forums maybe....?

I have no idea... I've been using that little "anime emoticon" for ever and for gods-know what reason. I've seen it used only a handfull of times where I normally roam, but I probably picked it up at a "learn japanese" or "anime art" site waaaaaaay back when (like, mid 90's).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[justinj3x3]

I have no idea... I've been using that little "anime emoticon" for ever and for gods-know what reason. I've seen it used only a handfull of times where I normally roam, but I probably picked it up at a "learn japanese" or "anime art" site waaaaaaay back when (like, mid 90's).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Gotcha. Ok, cool.