D&D 5E On fairies and flying

[Stalker0]

Have you actually experienced as a DM or a player a DM feeling like they lose freedom because of a character creation choice, or is it something you made up for this conversation?

I definately felt that way about counterspell. It changed my entire approach to enemy spellcasters so much that I finally just banned it after several attempts to houserule it. I of course was able to find ways around it....but over and over and over again, eventually I just didn't like being constrained by that one spell.

 

[Stalker0]

Can't all those things be routed by a group with good perception and stealth?

There is a reason that stealth heavy builds have also been brought up frequently in the "is this too powerful" category.

 

[John R Davis]

With flying you can easily destroy the one ring, and often quickly complete other quests

 

[BookTenTiger]

But it's related. Players expect all options on the table. They expect multiclassing...despite it being optional. They expect feats...despite them being optional. They expect to start as superheroes and become gods, not to start as zeros and become heroes. So when DMs who are adverse to allowing flying PCs at 1st level speak up, the players freak out.

Just so you are aware, it is difficult to have an actual conversation if you make blanket statements like this. Obviously, not all players act like this. I've personally never had a player freak out because I don't allow something in a game.

 

[jgsugden]

So despite knowing that I am aware that flight has been a thing for ages, you decided to pretend I didn't. Okay. That makes sense.

I had not read your other later post when I replied, but thanks for assuming the worst.

...It proves that you had fun with flying. The next obvious question is: what did you do in the game? What was the focus? Where and what were the adventures? What was changed to accommodate for flight? The escalation I mentioned up thread.

As a DM: I build a campaign then adjust it to account for the story of the PCs, but not their abilities, except where they have a clear gap in capability I expected them to have (which is insanely rare). If a PC has an ability that trivializes combats, I will sometimes just narrative past the combat, but otherwise I just let them shine, as I discussed up thread. PCs are heroes - and having them be successful is not a problem. I let the heroes be heroes.

As a player - 3 PCs have had a lot of flight in 5E for me. A 4th one just started at 8th level in DotMM. The ability has not been world shaking. It allowed a wizard to avoid a lot of melee, but so did being in the rear of the party for other PCs. It got one PC killed (taken to 0 hp by push/damage, crashed into lava (2 auto failed death saves - fire and fall), then died right after on their turn to a failed death save roll). All in all, it was not disruptive to the game.

Much ado about nothing.

 

[Laurefindel]

heh, who needs the eagles when you have wings yourself!

 

[Dausuul]

I definately felt that way about counterspell. It changed my entire approach to enemy spellcasters so much that I finally just banned it after several attempts to houserule it. I of course was able to find ways around it....but over and over and over again, eventually I just didn't like being constrained by that one spell.

This is really what it's about--when an ability warps the adventure design process so you have to game out "Okay, what will happen when they use X?" every dang time you sit down to plan a session.

Such issues tend to be specific to particular groups and DMs, which makes it difficult to have a productive discussion about them on ENWorld. I have never encountered problems with counterspell, myself. But man, does long-range teleportation grind my gears. Flight is a minor nuisance for me, upgraded to a moderate pain once the entire party can take to the air (hence my "no flight/some flight/all flight" hierarchy above). But I can well believe that many DMs have no trouble at all with flying parties. It's all down to your particular style of DMing and whether it clashes with that particular power*.

Considering how much work the DM has to put in already, I'm a firm believer in the use of precisely targeted bans, announced up front, to let you design the kinds of adventures you enjoy running and spare yourself headaches. If one of the players really wants that thing you banned, you can sit down with that player and work out a solution that satisfies everybody. But I usually find the players just shrug and pick something else.

*And how aggressively and efficiently your players wield that power when given it.

 

[overgeeked]

As a DM: I build a campaign then adjust it to account for the story of the PCs...

I build a campaign world or sandbox, fill it with various kinds of obstacles and challenges and set the PCs loose. The world exists independently of the PCs. If they make some parts trivial, fine, there will be other parts that are not trivial. Where things like exploration in 5E, skip buttons, and flight become a problem is that the game I want to run is focused on exploration. Sandbox hexcrawl. West Marches. Whatever. So for the entire purpose of the game to not be trivialized, I have to make a lot of house rules in 5E that I wouldn't in other games. Throwing flying into the mix is just one more skip button that trivializes the main focus of the game, for me.

If a PC has an ability that trivializes combats, I will sometimes just narrative past the combat, but otherwise I just let them shine, as I discussed up thread.

Sure. Sometimes. Not all the time. Not for the majority of the game. They shouldn't be able to trivialize most of the game from level 1. Exploration focused hexcrawl in 5E...plus flight at first level? Might as well not bother unless you want to make a heap of house rules.

PCs are heroes - and having them be successful is not a problem. I let the heroes be heroes.

It's not an issue of letting the heroes be heroes, it's an issue of how much of the game they can trivialize. The quantity of skip buttons in 5E is ridiculous. I'm down with letting the PCs shine, I'd just like to have some game left to actually challenge them after they're done shining.

As a player - 3 PCs have had a lot of flight in 5E for me. A 4th one just started at 8th level in DotMM. The ability has not been world shaking. It allowed a wizard to avoid a lot of melee, but so did being in the rear of the party for other PCs. It got one PC killed (taken to 0 hp by push/damage, crashed into lava (2 auto failed death saves - fire and fall), then died right after on their turn to a failed death save roll). All in all, it was not disruptive to the game.

At higher levels of play...where flight is expected and generally accounted for. That's not permanent flight from 1st level. They are drastically different beasts.

 

[Mind of tempest]

With flying you can easily destroy the one ring, and often quickly complete other quests

Nah they just get corrupted thus failing the quest.

This is really what it's about--when an ability warps the adventure design process so you have to game out "Okay, what will happen when they use X?" every dang time you sit down to plan a session.

Such issues tend to be specific to particular groups and DMs, which makes it difficult to have a productive discussion about them on ENWorld. I have never encountered problems with counterspell, myself. But man, does long-range teleportation grind my gears. Flight is a minor nuisance for me, upgraded to a moderate pain once the entire party can take to the air (hence my "no flight/some flight/all flight" hierarchy above). But I can well believe that many DMs have no trouble at all with flying parties. It's all down to your particular style of DMing and whether it clashes with that particular power*.

Considering how much work the DM has to put in already, I'm a firm believer in the use of precisely targeted bans, announced up front, to let you design the kinds of adventures you enjoy running and spare yourself headaches. If one of the players really wants that thing you banned, you can sit down with that player and work out a solution that satisfies everybody. But I usually find the players just shrug and pick something else.

*And how aggressively and efficiently your players wield that power when given it.

I thought that was the point of osr where people try to outwit and play each other?

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I don't quite understand why so many folks are "against" flight at low levels.

Actually, scratch that. I have a theory...

Many of the DM's who poo-poo flight ability at low level are likely the type of DM's who like their "Adventure Paths & Stories" to unfold as they expect them to. I'd also say that many of the DM's who have no problem with it are the type of DM's who like the story to unfold as the Players dictate. (basically, "new school" versus "olde skool", I guess).

For me...a decidedly "Olde Skool" DM... I present the world as I see it in my minds eye. The Players react to that as they see fit. So, in my game, a sextet of adventurers find themselves at an impasse; a HUGE river, 2 km wide, probably with huge crocodiles in it (or worse!).

Now, a "new school" DM might be expecting the PC's to build a raft out of the wood from the collapsing ruins of an old log cabin, make their way across, get attacked by the giant (and hungry) snapping turtle that lives in the water (and is why the cabin is deserted...it's owners having been eaten years ago). BUT...if the PC's have a means of flying everyone over the river...well...then this "cool and climactic battle" that the DM was looking forward to and ties into a Druid NPC they can meet on the other side...is decidedly FUBAR. Ergo, the DM feels "cheated" that they didn't get to run the encounter, didn't get to hurt the PC's (and thus have them be in debt to a Druid's help), and the hour and a half he spent "designing the encounter" is wasted. So... "Flight is bad!"

On the other hand, an "olde skool" DM presented with the same scenario wouldn't have the same reaction. Sure, there might be disappointment that the "cool water fight with the turtle" didn't go down, but the general mindset isn't of "presenting a story" so much as it is "letting a story present itself". The OSDM wouldn't be expecting the PC's to do anything specific other than "get to the other side" (and even that is up for grabs!). So if the PC's fly across, decide to walk downstream or upstream, or even just turn around and say "Nope. Not crossing that river"... that's all fine. The challenge is "here's a river" in the OSDM's mind...in the NSDM's mind it's more "here is an encounter in a river".

I hope this is making sense. Basically, "expectations of play". "Specific storyline oriented DM's" might be more prone to annoyance with Flight-capable PC's because it messes with the "narrative the DM want's to tell", I guess is what I'm trying to say. I, as an older style DM, don't care what the PC's do or the choices the Players make...whatever they do, THAT is the story being told. That's one of the main reasons I love DM'ing...I never know what the PC's will do or what turn the story will take!

^_^

Paul L. Ming