Would you allow this?

[shadowoflameth]

I would allow it. The player and DM could have the understanding that the wings were damaged in a way that could come back later at the coolest possible time. You could even say the damage to them was the result of a curse that the Aasimar started adventuring to overcome.

 

[iserith]

Is there an option for aasimar to have wings outside of the protector aasimar's radiant soul trait? If there isn't, then this seems like exactly the sort of use for which it's intended - a short burst of flight. What am I missing?

 

[mrpopstar]

Interesting question in the OP!

Personally, I wouldn't allow it. I don't think it puts story "first" to permit this type of narrative inconsistency, and I think it's rather disingenuous on the player's part to make a character decision that defines capability only to later thwart circumstance with a ret-con/reneg of that decision.

As a DM, I give my 100% and spend a great deal of time constructing challenges. The ability to fly is an important consideration, and I would approach things differently if that capability was in play.

All that being said, deus ex machina in avoidance of a TPK serves to extend a narrative that might otherwise come to an abrupt end, so, I would probably be persuaded by the rule of cool in this particular instance.

 

[Mercule]

Depends on whether or not I would have allowed a winged aasimar in the first place.

This. I'm not a huge fan of innate flight for PCs. Tends to become a major factor in pretty much all adventure design -- which kinda sucks if the GM is walking in expecting relatively "normal" D&D.

That said, I see nothing wrong with the player later saying, "I'd really like my wings back." Even if it screws up the current scenario, you can always plan for it down the road. They aren't getting anything that isn't theoretically balanced. Not that the WotC always gets it right, but if it's the player saying the ability is OP, not the GM, then you've already made your call on it. If you think the wings are OP, as GM, then make that clear up front and just be clear that (PC) aasimars don't have wings in your campaign.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Here's the thing from my perspective. If the player did not want the wings/flight (because regardless of the mode, whether through wings, magic, or jet engines, that is all fluff for the ability to fly) and requested nothing in place of them, then what you have is essentially a player that simply chooses not to use their ability.

If you had a rogue that didn't want to sneak attack but requested nothing in return, you wouldn't just say "Ok, we delete sneak attack." You just tell them not to use it. A player can choose when, if ever, to use their abilities. Regardless of their reasons, or the fluff, they still have the ability.

How would this be any different from a player that wanted the full Aasimar but just choose to not use the flight until level 17? Would you rule that "Oh, because you never used that ability it withered away"? I certainly wouldn't.

It's different if there was an exchange. Minus flight plus something else. But if no exchange, this just boils down to a player that self-restricted their own character until they decided to remove their own self-imposed restriction.

 

[FrogReaver]

If it was good for the players, the DM and the game then I'm for it

On a more philosophical level the player created a new ability for his pc on the fly. I don't know if I agree that the ends justify he means.

 

[jaelis]

My first inclination is sure, allow it. But...
change the story a little: a player decides to make a character who is missing their left hand. Again they don't ask anything in return. Would I allow them, in a moment of need, to suddenly regenerate their hand? No, I don't think I would. That's just not the way hands work.

The aasimar thing is different, we don't have a built-in expectation for how aasimar wings work. Is that enough different? I'm not really sure. It probably depends on your campaign's concept of aasimar.

(But also: is there really a winged aasimar variant in SCAG? I didn't think there was.)

 

[Hawk Diesel]

My first inclination is sure, allow it. But...
change the story a little: a player decides to make a character who is missing their left hand. Again they don't ask anything in return. Would I allow them, in a moment of need, to suddenly regenerate their hand? No, I don't think I would. That's just not the way hands work.

The aasimar thing is different, we don't have a built-in expectation for how aasimar wings work. Is that enough different? I'm not really sure. It probably depends on your campaign's concept of aasimar.

(But also: is there really a winged aasimar variant in SCAG? I didn't think there was.)

Personally, I think the difference is mechanics versus story, or crunch versus fluff.

If a player wants a character that is missing a hand, that doesn't necessarily have an impact on mechanics. Such a character still has the ability to use shields, two handed weapons, cast spells with somatic components, etc. They may find different ways to hold things, ways to use their stump, or use some kind of graft or prosthetic, but that is only limited by one's imagination. Mechanically, as an example, the only thing that wielding a 2-handed weapon really means, at its core, is that you could not wield this weapon and benefit from a shield or cast spells with somatic components while using it. While the name its given implies needing two hands, that's really just a shorthand way of limiting what you can do while wielding a particular type of weapon that is more damaging than other types.

Following this, a one handed character is no more limited than a two handed character.

That is, until you apply a concrete penalty or mechanical consequence for that character choice. This most often occurs as the result of an injury in game. A character doesn't lose a hand without a mechanical consequence.

But a player could create a character that has only one hand and has no mechanical consequence or limitation. Of course, in this situation, the impact is more on the story/RP/fluff. Such a character could not describe using their stump like a hand, but they could imagine ways to get around that problem. As long as there is no mechanical implication or change, there is effectively no difference.

 

[iserith]

(But also: is there really a winged aasimar variant in SCAG? I didn't think there was.)

I wondered the same upthread. I hope someone can clarify because if there isn't a winged aasimar, this whole example doesn't really work.

 

[5ekyu]

This is a hypothetical situation: I'm asking not because it occurred at the table but because I think different POV's about roleplaying/rules might result in different answers, which might be interesting.

Situation: a player wants to play an Aasimar, but thinks the flying is kind of cheesy/OP, so describes the character as having burn-scarred stumps instead of wings (with an appropriate backstory explaining how this happened.) The player asks the DM for nothing in exchange for giving up this ability.

Many levels later, the player finds him/herself in a desperate situation where a short burst of flight will save the party from TPK. He/she narrates that in a burst of divine energy, newly formed wings burst forth from the stumps, and the character proceeds to fly, as per RAW in SCAG.

Would you allow it? Why/why not?

Yes i would allow it, even likely telling the player from the get go they could chg their mind at anyvtime.

It doesnt upset balance and serves drama.