D&D 5E On fairies and flying

[Scott Christian]

Maybe it's not all about countering a flying PC but rather just playing the game as it is and sometimes a flying PC is faced with a challenge that's easy and other times they're faced with a challenge that's not. Just like every other character in the party.

It is just like that, except it is not like that for every other character in the party. If an average party of four non-flying characters at first or second level face a warg and some wolves, it can go bad for any of them, at any time. If a flying individual is there, it cannot go bad. Period. Unless the DM tries to target them specifically in some way.
Almost all encounters I have played in for 5e have the ability to go bad for every member of the group. (For reference, I have been in five different campaigns with multiple DMs since 5e has been published. I have watched countless campaigns from other groups. Not a blanket statement, but one I can securely say is probable.)
There is a difference in flying. You can choose to say no and come up with reasons why. You can say it doesn't affect your playstyle. All those are fine. But, what you cannot do is say having a flying character is the same as everyone else. It's not. I have given countless examples. They are handwaved or adjusted, which makes them exactly what I say will happen: tit-for-tat or the removal of natural encounters.

 

[iserith]

It is just like that, except it is not like that for every other character in the party. If an average party of four non-flying characters at first or second level face a warg and some wolves, it can go bad for any of them, at any time. If a flying individual is there, it cannot go bad. Period. Unless the DM tries to target them specifically in some way.
Almost all encounters I have played in for 5e have the ability to go bad for every member of the group. (For reference, I have been in five different campaigns with multiple DMs since 5e has been published. I have watched countless campaigns from other groups. Not a blanket statement, but one I can securely say is probable.)
There is a difference in flying. You can choose to say no and come up with reasons why. You can say it doesn't affect your playstyle. All those are fine. But, what you cannot do is say having a flying character is the same as everyone else. It's not. I have given countless examples. They are handwaved or adjusted, which makes them exactly what I say will happen: tit-for-tat or the removal of natural encounters.

A warlock can climb a tree when faced with wolves and eldritch blast them to bits. So can a number of other casters, albeit it with different cantrips. Maybe there's a problem with warlocks. Or trees.

Plenty of skirmishing or ranged PCs are able to avoid danger quite often in my experience. At least as often as a flying PC. And if they are targeted, say by ranged monsters peppering the back line, at least a non-flying PC doesn't immediately fail a death save by falling to the ground when they drop to 0 hit points.

I'm not sure what you mean by "natural encounters," but if you mean wilderness obstacles or the like, my answer can only be "so what?" They can get across the river or the gorge or fly up to the cliff or whatever. What about the rest of the party? The challenge is still present.

 

[Scott Christian]

A warlock can climb a tree when faced with wolves and eldritch blast them to bits. So can a number of other casters, albeit it with different cantrips. Maybe there's a problem with warlocks. Or trees.

Plenty of skirmishing or ranged PCs are able to avoid danger quite often in my experience. At least as often as a flying PC. And if they are targeted, say by ranged monsters peppering the back line, at least a non-flying PC doesn't immediately fail a death save by falling to the ground when they drop to 0 hit points.

I'm not sure what you mean by "natural encounters," but if you mean wilderness obstacles or the like, my answer can only be "so what?" They can get across the river or the gorge or fly up to the cliff or whatever. What about the rest of the party? The challenge is still present.

This is a quote from another thread in response to something overpowered. It is logical. It has wisdom. Since it didn't come from me, maybe it will offer a new perspective on flying.

The DM has infinite Dragons - of course he can whip up something to challenge the PC and the party.
But that just proves the point - if the DM is consistently "whipping up" something to challenge a specific ability - that shows the ability is overpowered. Said another way: Just because the DM can fix it/rule 0 it/challenge it - does not mean the ability is OK!

That's like saying no ability is broken because the DM can always house rule it! Why should the DM have to.

As for the bolded part of your comment, you are correct - it can happen. But, their ability to avoid danger can disappear once the opposition closes the gap. And that is the difference. The rogue hiding is safe. But when they are found they are not. The caster or bow person using ranged is safe, until the front line breaks and they are not safe. The flying PC is safe in all of these situations unless the DM targets them specifically by making sure there just happens to be long range or wind gusts or other flying creatures about.
That is the difference.

 

[J.Quondam]

There is a difference in flying. You can choose to say no and come up with reasons why. You can say it doesn't affect your playstyle. All those are fine. But, what you cannot do is say having a flying character is the same as everyone else. It's not. I have given countless examples. They are handwaved or adjusted, which makes them exactly what I say will happen: tit-for-tat or the removal of natural encounters.

I really disagree with this claim of what constitutes a "natural encounter" in low-level D&D.

In published low-level adventures since the very beginning of D&D, there have been flying critters all over the place that could threaten flying PCs if needed: stirges and bugs and bees abound. And 5e's Ice Spire Peak starts with a manticore of all things! Also plenty of encounters where flying PCs are certainly immune to injury, but also irrelevant in a fight; for example in a ground encounter where ankhegs might pull PCs underground. Lots of fights in close spaces, of course, like corridors or forests. Badguys with various ranged attacks. Some big webs flying PCs could get caught in. But also, of course, all sorts of humanoids, beasts, and undead in the open where a flying PC can certainly shine.

Seriously, encounters that could nerf low-level flyers really are no more "unnatural" than anything else in D&D. In fact, they've been in published adventures all along. So please, please, please stop saying that like that's true.

 

[iserith]

This is a quote from another thread in response to something overpowered. It is logical. It has wisdom. Since it didn't come from me, maybe it will offer a new perspective on flying.

As for the bolded part of your comment, you are correct - it can happen. But, their ability to avoid danger can disappear once the opposition closes the gap. And that is the difference. The rogue hiding is safe. But when they are found they are not. The caster or bow person using ranged is safe, until the front line breaks and they are not safe. The flying PC is safe in all of these situations unless the DM targets them specifically by making sure there just happens to be long range or wind gusts or other flying creatures about.
That is the difference.

And the flying PC is "safe" until an NPC picks up a rock and throws it or until there's a ceiling (hopefully with a ceiling fan). Some PCs will have easier time than others in certain situations and that's true of flying PCs and not-flying PCs.

If flying PCs is causing such a problem, maybe it's time to look at how the DM is presenting the game. I'm all for white-listing only certain races for thematic purposes, but if we're banning flying PCs because the DM can't figure out how to challenge a party with some or all flying PCs, perhaps the issue isn't the flying PC.

 

[Scott Christian]

I really disagree with this claim of what constitutes a "natural encounter" in low-level D&D.

In published low-level adventures since the very beginning of D&D, there have been flying critters all over the place that could threaten flying PCs if needed: stirges and bugs and bees abound. And 5e's Ice Spire Peak starts with a manticore of all things! Also plenty of encounters where flying PCs are certainly immune to injury, but also irrelevant in a fight; for example in a ground encounter where ankhegs might pull PCs underground. Lots of fights in close spaces, of course, like corridors or forests. Badguys with various ranged attacks. Some big webs flying PCs could get caught in. But also, of course, all sorts of humanoids, beasts, and undead in the open where a flying PC can certainly shine.

Seriously, encounters that could nerf low-level flyers really are no more "unnatural" than anything else in D&D. In fact, they've been in published adventures all along. So please, please, please stop saying that like that's true.

And the flying PC is "safe" until an NPC picks up a rock and throws it or until there's a ceiling (hopefully with a ceiling fan). Some PCs will have easier time than others in certain situations and that's true of flying PCs and not-flying PCs.

If flying PCs is causing such a problem, maybe it's time to look at how the DM is presenting the game. I'm all for white-listing only certain races for thematic purposes, but if we're banning flying PCs because the DM can't figure out how to challenge a party with some or all flying PCs, perhaps the issue isn't the flying PC.

How two sides are not represented is beyond me. I have to think, at this point, it's just baiting.
For every example you give of something that can reach flying, there is an example of one that can't. This is especially true at low levels. This is true for published adventures too. Yet those are dismissed as if they aren't real. I don't get it. The claim, a flying PC can easily escape danger during a plethora of encounters (especially low level) is easily proven. I have listed several examples. If you choose to not believe them, or want to play the game of tit-for-tat with your players, fine. No problem from me. But it can be a problem for some campaigns and some low level groups.
Again, the fact that it is dismissed just means so many things.

 

[J.Quondam]

How two sides are not represented is beyond me. I have to think, at this point, it's just baiting.
For every example you give of something that can reach flying, there is an example of one that can't. This is especially true at low levels. This is true for published adventures too. Yet those are dismissed as if they aren't real. I don't get it. The claim, a flying PC can easily escape danger during a plethora of encounters (especially low level) is easily proven. I have listed several examples. If you choose to not believe them, or want to play the game of tit-for-tat with your players, fine. No problem from me. But it can be a problem for some campaigns and some low level groups.
Again, the fact that it is dismissed just means so many things.

Maybe I'm not understanding your point?
I, at least, am not "dismissing" you. Of course flying PCs can often escape certain low-level encounters. And I'm not saying that flying PCs at low levels isn't necessarily a problem. That's for a table and their GM to decide, I suppose.

What I'm saying is simply that structuring low-level encounters that nerf low-level flying PCs is not especially unusual, and it doesn't require any adversarial GMing. Just as you've offered examples of such a PC escaping an encounter, there are-- and have always been-- lots and lots of published low-level encounters that can threaten low-level flying PCs.

Those encounters have been there all along, even if they weren't necessarily intended specifically to be used like that. This is not new, it's not "unnatural," and it doesn't necessarily signify any sort of "tit-for-tat". It's just bog-standard D&D! I'm just not certain why you seem so inclined to dismiss that?


* edit: "disbelieve" to "dismiss" to match verbiage in post I'm responding to. (I apparently misread that word!)

 

[iserith]

How two sides are not represented is beyond me. I have to think, at this point, it's just baiting.
For every example you give of something that can reach flying, there is an example of one that can't. This is especially true at low levels. This is true for published adventures too. Yet those are dismissed as if they aren't real. I don't get it. The claim, a flying PC can easily escape danger during a plethora of encounters (especially low level) is easily proven. I have listed several examples. If you choose to not believe them, or want to play the game of tit-for-tat with your players, fine. No problem from me. But it can be a problem for some campaigns and some low level groups.
Again, the fact that it is dismissed just means so many things.

Except I'm not dismissing that flying PCs can have advantages in certain challenges. But so too can non-flying PCs in the same situations. It's a wash in my view and not worth any serious concern. If a DM's challenges are constantly thwarted by a flying PC, that says more about the DM's challenges than the flying PC. What I suspect is that this issue with flying PCs is just mostly forum hyperbole.

 

[Cadence]

Hell, you’re weirdly assuming that castles aren’t built to minimize damage from aerial projectiles in a world where this tactic is as effective as you think it’d be.

Not to mention the wealthy (which are who own castles) are likely to have magical artillery in a world with artificers, magical shielding around castles, etc.

As an aside, does anyone know of a good book that discusses castles that would actually be useful in a fantasy world full of dragons, rock-to-mud, passwall, fly, and teleport, that could actually be built at the levels the owners would have access to by RAW?

Or do denizens of D&D worlds where those things are super rare just all realize they'll have to rebuild a lot whenever they face something that's the equivalent of a coordinated airstrike hitting them? Does that mean the coordinated airstrikes would be pretty rare, or that rebuilding castles is a major driver of the economy?

 

[Cadence]

If the party travels by land the have land-based encounters, if they travel by sea the have sea based encounters, if they travel by air they have air based encounters.

What are the classic air based encounters that would go after a flying party, but wouldn't go after them on land?