D&D 5E Wandering Monsters- Bird People

[I'm A Banana]

In contrast to what others have said, I don't like first level PCs being able to fly. It is a big deal to be able to fly for a lot of reasons; especially in combat.

I think it can be a big deal, and flying PC's probably shouldn't be hard-coded into every game, but I also think that it can NOT be a big deal, and flying PC's should not be disallowed from Level 1. Treating them as opt-in makes a lot of sense for me.

Think of it this way, the normal non-flying PC has 8 directions they can move on a square battle mat.

Yeah, but that's only a problem if you use a battle mat.

Naturally, the increase in movement leads to more options for attack and defense.... You can virtually ignore the defensive set up of a ground based enemy and strike at their valuable assets which are placed behind the front line.

You can also do this if you're a teleporting blink-elf. Or a sneaky rogue. Or a barbarian who goes SMASH and knocks everything aside. Or if you have a bow.

At later levels, spells which allow flight help alleviate this by allowing you to float above the battlefield and rain hellfire down upon your enemy while being safely above the area of effect.

Well, catching yourself in a spell by accident was antiquated right around 2e. I don't think that's much of a concern.

The possible directions which you can fire a bow or throw a dagger increases by nearly four-fold.

Not following you...a dude with a bow in 4e can target pretty much anything on the battlefield. Flying doesn't change that.

A cleric can fly over enemies to reach a fallen ally. A cleric could also float above the battlefield in such a way to heal allies without also healing enemies.

Cleric can also teleport, or smash, or jump, or....

And accidentally healing enemies isn't something D&D has ever had much of...

Exploration and environmental challenges also greatly benefit from being able to fly.

Only if there's no wind, clouds, updrafts, downdrafts, cliffs....not to mention the strength and stamina needed for long-duration flight.

Flying has its own environmental challenges.

 

[1of3]

In contrast to what others have said, I don't like first level PCs being able to fly. It is a big deal to be able to fly for a lot of reasons; especially in combat.

Combat is probably the easiest thing to balance, for example:

Clumsy Fight: While you are conscious and not paralysed or similarly disabled, you do not fall. During your turn you descend 30 ft., unless you take the Fly action. If you take the Fly action, you can keep your altitude or climb 30 ft.

Still useful for scouting, traveling etc.

 

[Klaus]

Combat is probably the easiest thing to balance, for example:

Clumsy Fight: While you are conscious and not paralysed or similarly disabled, you do not fall. During your turn you descend 30 ft., unless you take the Fly action. If you take the Fly action, you can keep your altitude or climb 30 ft.

Still useful for scouting, traveling etc.

Agreed. The problem isn't "flying PCs", it's "superhero-flying PCs". Flying takes a lot of room, so a Small or Medium PC would probably be unable to take off inside a dungeon. Flying is a fast type of movement, making it hard to target grounded targets unless you're very far above them (it's kinda equated with running in circles around a melee and trying to hit a specific person with a thrown rock). And most flying creatures have an ideal flight altitude: they simply can't fly above their top altitude, and if they fly too low they'll be forced to land.

 

[Hussar]

The thing with flight is, unless the entire party has it, it isn't likely to make a whole lot of difference.

The party isn't going to move any faster than its slowest member. Being able to fly doesn't change that. It's not all that much different than having a horse. Sure, you can fly over that ravine, but, since no one else can, you still have to figure out a way across.

As far as combat goes, again, it doesn't generally add that much. For one, if you want to make it interesting on a battlemap, force the flier to maintain at least X distance movement per round to stay in the air. No hovering. Even outdoors, things get tricky with things like trees and buildings in the way. Add in maximum turning per round and you're good to go. Bit complex, but, not a huge deal.

Flying is nice, but, it doesn't really affect the game all that much. Unless, as I said, the entire group can fly, then it makes a big difference.

 

[Argyle King]

I think it can be a big deal, and flying PC's probably shouldn't be hard-coded into every game, but I also think that it can NOT be a big deal, and flying PC's should not be disallowed from Level 1. Treating them as opt-in makes a lot of sense for me.

All I can really do here is agree to disagree. Personally, I feel that flight is something which is a big deal. Are there ways a game can make it not a big deal? Probably, but most of the methods I've seen from D&D (4E in particular) tend to involve methods which bother me for other reasons.

Yeah, but that's only a problem if you use a battle mat.

Or care about the positions of battlefield pieces in relation to each other.

You can also do this if you're a teleporting blink-elf. Or a sneaky rogue. Or a barbarian who goes SMASH and knocks everything aside. Or if you have a bow.

I can only assume you mean Eladrin here. If that's the case, it's important to point out that Eladrin cannot teleport at-will. So, while there is some thematic overlap in so much that 4E Eladrin also have an option which increases their ability to move, that option is limited. The sneaky rogue and smash-happy barbarian both are still opposed by the enemy.

I'm not quite sure what a bow has to do with it -unless you're assuming a ruleset which allows you to shoot through the enemy. I'll be honest, my knowledge of 4E rules has atrophied quite a bit, but I believe you could not shoot through the enemy to hit foes which you could not see. In other iterations of D&D (as well as other rpgs) your allies get in the way as well. That being said, a flying combatant with a bow most certainly could fly to a higher altitude for the purpose of being able to hit a specific target without needing to worry about obstacles in between.

Well, catching yourself in a spell by accident was antiquated right around 2e. I don't think that's much of a concern.

Some 4E Burst and Blasts targeted anyone inside the area of effect. Having an ally who is capable of doing battle with the enemy will also being above the area of a harmful effect is an advantage. In other versions of D&D (and other rpgs) there are other considerations as well.

Not following you...a dude with a bow in 4e can target pretty much anything on the battlefield. Flying doesn't change that.

Again, I'll admit to my knowledge of 4E suffering from atrophy, but I'm of the belief you cannot shoot through enemies to hit enemies who are behind them. Also, not all versions of D&D follow the same rules as 4E; some gave penalties for firing through your allies, into melee; as well as a variety of other modifiers.

Cleric can also teleport, or smash, or jump, or....

At-will and at level 1?

I'll give you the jumping though; especially if we're looking at 4E. Jumping over foes was a tactic I used a lot; it wasn't hard to get a good enough athletics check to bound over foes. I'll again also say that a cheesy (but effective) 4E tactic was to jump before using a Burst or Blast so as to hit a bigger area.

And accidentally healing enemies isn't something D&D has ever had much of...

See some of my comments concerning burst and blasts above, but read being able to hit the enemy without hitting an ally as being able to heal and ally without hitting the the enemy instead.

Only if there's no wind, clouds, updrafts, downdrafts, cliffs....not to mention the strength and stamina needed for long-duration flight.

Flying has its own environmental challenges.

While I agree such things should be a factor, and I also agree that turning radius and maneuverability (as mentioned by Hussar and Klaus) should be concerns, such things often are not when playing D&D. I would be supportive of a system in which they are, and that would make me more inclined to view flight as possibly more balanced against other advantages, but I'm admittedly skeptical that baseline 5th Edition would handle 1st level flight in a way I'd find balanced against some of the other options. That's not say D&D never handles flight well; the 4E Pixie came across better than I expected, but -in general- I've found the implementation to be somewhat poor. 3rd Edition has a plethora of rules for handling flight and maneuverability, but they tend to be somewhat clunky, and it's a rare group that I've played with that pays any attention to them -though I can hardly fault the game for a group playing a game while ignoring some of the rules. My experience with 1st and 2nd edition isn't enough for me to have a knowledgeable opinion.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't care much for bird people. In my experience they are, as has been pointed out, almost universally just plopped out of nowhere into a setting for no apparent reason. There's no bird-people civilizations(except in forests where they're basically flying elves), there's no bird-people artifacts, there's no bird-people ruins.

I mean what feature do bird people have going for them that isn't already covered by some other race? Savage fighters from a desolate land raiding peaceful villages? Orcs. Tree-hugging, nature-loving hippies? Elves. Cultured and developed society? Japanese humans. Isolated but industrious underground society? Dwarves.

I just don't see where bird-people(differentiated from non-civilized bird-monsters such as Harpies) fit into the D&D puzzle. Humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, even orcs; these races conform to the "what you'd expect to see in a humanoid on a regular basis." But bird-people don't. It's not simply excess hair or funny teeth or a short/fat/skinny green skin, it's feathers, maybe even wings for arms, beaks, tails, talons for feet. It's jarring. Bird-people are simply so exotic they require a very cosmopolitan setting, or a very exotic one where the "human" model is not the standard.

 

[Balesir]

I'm not quite sure what a bow has to do with it -unless you're assuming a ruleset which allows you to shoot through the enemy. I'll be honest, my knowledge of 4E rules has atrophied quite a bit, but I believe you could not shoot through the enemy to hit foes which you could not see. In other iterations of D&D (as well as other rpgs) your allies get in the way as well. That being said, a flying combatant with a bow most certainly could fly to a higher altitude for the purpose of being able to hit a specific target without needing to worry about obstacles in between.

You can shoot through enemy in 4E (with a modifier for cover) and you can shoot at things you can't see (Total Concealment modifier applies). Not trying to argue against your basic points, but correcting some mistaken ideas you seem to have about 4E.

Some 4E Burst and Blasts targeted anyone inside the area of effect.

True, but I can't think of any healing ones that do that.

Again, I'll admit to my knowledge of 4E suffering from atrophy, but I'm of the belief you cannot shoot through enemies to hit enemies who are behind them. Also, not all versions of D&D follow the same rules as 4E; some gave penalties for firing through your allies, into melee; as well as a variety of other modifiers.

And I'll correct this again: you can shoot at (and generally use Ranged or Area powers against) enemies that are behind other enemies in 4E - you just take a 'cover' penalty for doing so.

I'll give you the jumping though; especially if we're looking at 4E. Jumping over foes was a tactic I used a lot; it wasn't hard to get a good enough athletics check to bound over foes. I'll again also say that a cheesy (but effective) 4E tactic was to jump before using a Burst or Blast so as to hit a bigger area.

Jumping up in 4E doesn't get you any more area from a Close Burst at all. It gets more volume, but that is often not very useful, if all your foes are on the ground, say. A more effective use of 3D space is actually to target a burst high enough to miss the close-to-ground layer entirely, when you are facing Large or bigger foes who extend higher than the ground layer - but (non-epic) jumps won't get you that high.

To get through 'front lines', there are generally better ways than jumping. Navigate crowds (or the Rogue version of it), teleports (Fey Warlocks are good at this), bashing/manoeuvring (Footwork Lure and/or Tide of Iron are both Fighter At Wills) and other tactics can work without the Opportunity attacks jumping over the line will attract.

We have had flight as a PC option for some while in our 4E and, to be honest, it has disadvantages as well as advantages. It may give you good sight lines, but it also makes you a target and gives good sight lines to you (as our Wizard has found from time to time). If you are facing flying enemies it gets even worse, since they can now isolate the flyer and mob it (somewhat like birds do IRL), because forced movement upwards works on flyers.

Over all I'm with [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] on this - disallowing flyers completely is just banning some folks' fun. Make it an option - "non-core" if you insist on all that core/optional baloney - for people who want a 'full fat fantasy' experience. Form a combat-tactical point of view, if nothing else, it's great - not because it's "powerful", but because it enables lots of fun fantasy tactics - a game that has tactics all of its own, rather than being hidebound to what we imagine real world historical tactics to have been (often wrongly).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

True, but I can't think of any healing ones that do that.

The only D&D healing I can think of that can hit unintended targets was from the Sacred Healing feat from CompDiv.

Anyway...

I like various anthro races, but don't use them all that often...though I did have one homebrew in which all of the native races were anthros of some kind.

I probably wouldn't use all or even several bird races in a given campaign, and those I did use would probably be used as a replacement for an extant race. For instance, I'd more likely use Kenku as a replacement for halflings than allies/rivals.

 

[pemerton]

I voted for Kenku and Tengu to be merged, as variants of the same basic fey race. And I don't like the idea of these "Asian" creatures being quarantined away in their special setting book, so I voted against that.

 

[avin]

Next question: "What do you think of the Dire Corbies connections?" WHY does everything have to be connected to something or the other? They're evil bird-men monsters. They want to attack and kill you. If you're also evil maybe you can (as evil folks do) coerce them into serving/attacking stuff cuz you say so. Connections done. Why do they have to be bred by Drow? Or "Underdark" connected at all. How about just in normal depth caves/caverns or rocky areas?

Couldn't agree more. Enough of lazy design choices, make races impo9rtant and interesting on their own.