Level Up (A5E) Why is non-magical flying so limited for PCs?

[Stalker0]

In my next short campaign I'll experiment with lifting this cap on concentration to 1+1/2 proficiency bonus, i.e. casters of level 1 to 4 can concentrate on up to 2 spells simultaneously, casters of level 5-8 on 3, etc.

Permanent house rule in my game, 5th level casters (aka when martials get 2nd attack) can maintain concentration on two spells. One concentration check is made, on a failure both spells are lost.

Used it in 3 campaigns so far, never seen a single problem with it.

 

[Faolyn]

Not really: you need one caster per spell. The group may not even have more than one caster, and even in that case, you can have one concentration spell per caster at most.
In my next short campaign I'll experiment with lifting this cap on concentration to 1+1/2 proficiency bonus, i.e. casters of level 1 to 4 can concentrate on up to 2 spells simultaneously, casters of level 5-8 on 3, etc.
Or maybe just 1/2 proficiency, we'll see.
I'm quite confident it will make the game way more interesting

I long for a group with only one caster...

Me, after we've done group worldbuilding: OK, so we've decided that magic is going to be uncommon, because the nobility have the legal monopoly on wizard spells and for a very long time have been oppressing all other forms of spellcasters. Except for artificers, which they've allowed to make them magical creature comforts. Take that into consideration when you make your characters.

The Party: Bard, warlock, sorcerer, wielder, rogue.

 

[xiphumor]

I long for a group with only one caster...

Me, after we've done group worldbuilding: OK, so we've decided that magic is going to be uncommon, because the nobility have the legal monopoly on wizard spells and for a very long time have been oppressing all other forms of spellcasters. Except for artificers, which they've allowed to make them magical creature comforts. Take that into consideration when you make your characters.

The Party: Bard, warlock, sorcerer, wielder, rogue.

I mean, it sounds like the theme that group is asking for is “magica fugitives”

 

[Faolyn]

I mean, it sounds like the theme that group is asking for is “magica fugitives”

Two marauders, a criminal, a gambler, and an extremely sheltered young noble who's gonna get his eyes opened real wide. A bit less fugitives and much more a deliberate "expletive-deleted the system."

Which is fine, I'm just a touch surprised. The bard's player had been quite happy about the marshal (dunno why; he liked the warlord even though he's never played 4e to have any nostalgia for it).

 

[Thomas Shey]

People are weirdly opposed to flight in D&D generally, I find, but only when players can do it. Monsters are fine, but when players get to have the same boon, suddenly the world is ending. It certainly can trivialize many things, but as others have said, only if the GM fails to take it into account.

This assumes its a virtue for the GM to have to take it into account. By its nature it constrains the kind of outdoor encounters he can use without favoring any ranged attacker with fight excessively, and that may just not be something he wants to do.

 

[noodohs]

1) Flight reduces risk drastically.
Yeah, some fights might have flying enemies or enemies that focus on ranged attacks/spells/stuff. But unless most of your campaign is built to counter flying characters it's largely going to be something they can fly over.

Also pit traps and such stop working, entirely. Difficult Terrain, too.

2) Exploration is too easy.
Again, you just bypass challenges and things that would otherwise be difficult or dangerous.

3) 3d mapping is HARD.
Making flight work in a game based on 2d assumptions means some weird ways of handling stuff. Some people use tokens or markers on miniatures to represent elevation, some use clear plastic blocks to lift them up. And some people tie miniatures to the ceiling with dental floss or fishing line to show where they are above the battlefield... But even in games which don't use battlemaps flight can get confusing quickly.

For most games flight's really strong and really complicates things, so it's easier to have less of it.

I honestly don't see any of those as issues. Most traps are in dungeons, dungeons have low ceilings, can't fly if the ceilings are low. Or add a trip wire trap overhead so if someone tries to fly/jump over it, they get a net. The solutions to these "problems" are so simple I really do not understand why people think flight is such a problem. As I said, if it was really so strong, our PC with flight wouldn't have been the first death. It's a minor boon at best.

 

[xiphumor]

I honestly don't see any of those as issues. Most traps are in dungeons, dungeons have low ceilings, can't fly if the ceilings are low. Or add a trip wire trap overhead so if someone tries to fly/jump over it, they get a net. The solutions to these "problems" are so simple I really do not understand why people think flight is such a problem. As I said, if it was really so strong, our PC with flight wouldn't have been the first death. It's a minor boon at best.

It’s not that there aren’t solutions, it’s that:

1. Some GMs shirk at the idea of always trying to adapt their worlds to negate an advantage a player has because it makes the world seem less organic.

2. It sort of cheats the player out of their bonus if the Narrator is constantly working to negate it, like if a character invests in high AC and then the Narrator constantly uses saving throws instead.

3. Designers have to design with all tables in mind. And as I’ve mentioned before, this is a very different conversation from a designer vs. Narrator point of view.

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm with Xiphumor on those answers, Noodohs...

But I'd also like to note that your "Solution" doesn't include problem number 1 or problem number 3 while insulting anyone who has those problems through your dismissiveness over the matter.

I'm glad you're able to perfectly handle and convey 3 dimensional combat to your players without any kind of issues, but it doesn't work that way for everyone.

 

[xiphumor]

I will also add that the very fact we’re having a conversation framed as “flight isn’t very strong as long as you take XYV steps to negate its advantages” suggests that flight actually is quite strong, all other things being equal.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Quick answer regarding PCs with full-time flight:

Flying enemies are a tool in the GM toolbox, a complication for PCs to figure out.
Flying PCs are "easy outs" and remove a lot of usable fantasy tropes and challenges for the GM, who doesn't need a harder time making things interesting for the players.

I know there are many reasons that one or more flying PCs aren't a problem- but these are the off the top of my head reasons that they are.

I see that point, but it is too rooted in gamism for me, and this too verisimilitude-breaking, to accept it. If I have a flying PC, I take that into account. The noncommittal isn't really messed with much anyway unless the entire party has wings.