D&D 5E On fairies and flying

[Paul Farquhar]

So, is the only possible cost death?

It's the only one that matters.

Delay in accomplishing something?

I get to town a day later. So what?

Giving those chasing you a chance to catch up?

Then either the party kills them, or we are back to death.

Needing to spend resources to be pulled out or to recover from injury?

1 gp for a replacement rope? A day's rest for the cleric to recover cure wounds?

Having to face some creature living where-ever you fell?

Either the character kills the creature, or we are back to death.

 

[Umbran]

It's the only one that matters.

Well, at least we now know where you are coming from. It lets us know whether there's much point in dicussing the matter further.

 

[iserith]

It feels like there are a lot of costs short of death that should matter...

Delay in accomplishing something? Giving those chasing you a chance to catch up? Needing to spend resources to be pulled out or to recover from injury? Having to face some creature living where-ever you fell?

I think the argument that was presented upthread from some posters is that overcoming a challenge should come with a resource cost which is what makes a flying PC problematic to them (since some challenges can be overcome with no resource cost by flying).

My response to that would simply be that a lot of challenges can be overcome without resource cost through smart play with non-flying PCs, too. Many aspects of the game incentivize exactly this, if the players can manage it, thus the expectation in my view is players will tend to work toward this goal. So if we replace "should come with a resource cost" with "could come with a resource cost," then that mitigates the objection to flying PCs as I see it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

"Resource cost" is clearly a strawman, since "Find Familiar" allegedly has one.

 

[Cadence]

"Resource cost" is clearly a strawman, since "Find Familiar" allegedly has one.

Find familiar also takes an hour to cast every time it dies (and it seems like it would die more quickly to aerial threats than a character). It also probably can't fly the part across the rive, say, or give you the full combat power of a combatant.

 

[iserith]

"Resource cost" is clearly a strawman, since "Find Familiar" allegedly has one.

In the strictest sense, it does have a resource cost in time and gold. How much that stings is going to vary from game to game. I don't think that's really worth debating though. Rather, the presupposition that a challenge must have a resource cost is what I think bears examining and critique. That strikes me as flying in the face of what the game incentivizes players to do which is minimize or eliminate resource expenditures wherever possible. And non-flying PCs can do this.

 

[iserith]

Find familiar also takes an hour to cast every time it dies (and it seems like it would die more quickly to aerial threats than a character). It also probably can't fly the part across the rive, say, or give you the full combat power of a combatant.

If a flying PC can't wear medium or heavy armor and still fly, why would the DM rule that they can carry non-flying PCs across a river?

Does this perhaps reveal something about how DMs who object to flying PCs are ruling in their games, essentially creating a problem for themselves?

 

[Cadence]

If a flying PC can't wear medium or heavy armor and still fly, why would the DM rule that they can carry non-flying PCs across a river?

Does this perhaps reveal something about how DMs who object to flying PCs are ruling in their games, essentially creating a problem for themselves?

Why would that be true? Do either the encumbrance or flying rules say flying characters can't carry things? (If so, I couldn't find where they did.)

 

[iserith]

Why would that be true? Do either the encumbrance or flying rules say flying characters can't carry things? (If so, I couldn't find where they did.)

Yes, it's true that they make no distinction, but that just leaves space for a reasonable ruling. Why would a DM rule that the flying PC, despite being unable to wear medium or heavy armor and still fly, can just pick up a cumbersome non-flying PC with no issue, then complain that flying PCs are beating all their river crossing challenges?

 

[Bolares]

Yes, it's true that they make no distinction, but that just leaves space for a reasonable ruling. Why would a DM rule that the flying PC, despite being unable to wear medium or heavy armor and still fly, can just pick up a cumbersome non-flying PC with no issue, then complain that flying PCs are beating all their river crossing challenges?

Maybe the armor rule is about freedom of wing movement instead of weight? I could see a Dm rule it like that.