D&D 5E On fairies and flying

[Bolares]

You're the DM. You get to decide this. If you decide it in a way that makes fliers more effective, you can't complain that fliers are now too effective.

I don't get why using the encumberance rules (or my understanding of the rules) make the flier more effective (wich I don't find to be a problem btw).

Maybe RAW is not clear (I think it is), but Crawford has said that emcumberance applies both to walking and flying speeds didn't he?

 

[iserith]

I don't get why using the encumberance rules (or my understanding of the rules) make the flier more effective (wich I don't find to be a problem btw).

Maybe RAW is not clear (I think it is), but Crawford has said that emcumberance applies both to walking and flying speeds didn't he?

What was linked to the thread was that the rules "make no distinction," leaving room for the DM to make one. Also, there's an issue with credibility when it comes to Jeremy "Shield Master" Crawford in my view. His read on the rules is no better than any other DM's (and often much worse).

 

[Cadence]

You're the DM. You get to decide this. If you decide it in a way that makes fliers more effective, you can't complain that fliers are now too effective.

It's the default rule for how that rule works. The decision is between keeping the default rule or to change it to make that mode of movement less effective. And sure, I guess it's the DMs fault for leaving in rules that they don't like. Although I think many on here would argue such conversations about changing rules should be done in conjunction with the other players.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As I mentioned, if you want to avoid getting into the (not very good) encumbrance rules, then just use the "mounted" rules: in order for a creature to carry another creature it much be at least one size larger.

 

[iserith]

It's the default rule for how that rule works. The decision is between keeping the default rule or to change it to make that mode of movement less effective. And sure, I guess it's the DMs fault for leaving in rules that they don't like. Although I think many on here would argue such conversations about changing rules should be done in conjunction with the other players.

Another way to look at it is that when faced with adjudicating a flying PC carrying another PC across the river (for example), you're choosing to use the carrying capacity rules to resolve whether the action is successful. You could choose otherwise. The rules don't actually say that carrying capacity applies the same way to flying as they do for walking. The DM gets to say. If you as DM have been saying that it does apply equally to walking and flying in the past, then past being precedent, it's a good idea in my view to have a discussion with the players about that. Setting expectations up front is ideal. But again, if you're ruling in a way that makes fliers more effective, it makes complaints about them being too effective ring pretty hollow in my view.

 

[Cadence]

The rules don't actually say that carrying capacity applies the same way to flying as they do for walking. The DM gets to say.

Do the rules say it applies to walking or running or skipping or carrying in hands vs backpack either?

So sure. It's just like the DM can adjudicate when a PC wants to carry a PC piggyback on land, or walk on a narrow path with something bulky, or if a Ghostwise Halfling wants to carry a lot, or if the party is carrying something up a gentle slope vs. down, or if the character is wearing high heels while marching, or anything else. Changing to make everyone happy with things seems good.

 

[Cadence]

As I mentioned, if you want to avoid getting into the (not very good) encumbrance rules, then just use the "mounted" rules: in order for a creature to carry another creature it much be at least one size larger.

"not very good" is a bit nicer than I would have been

I have to confess I wouldn't have thought of putting in rules for going piggy back though. Using mounted ones makes sense and put lots of comedy with the reduce spell back on the table.

 

[iserith]

Do the rules say it applies to walking or running or skipping or carrying in hands vs backpack either?

So sure. It's just like the DM can adjudicate when a PC wants to carry a PC piggyback on land, or walk on a narrow path with something bulky, or if a Ghostwise Halfling wants to carry a lot, or if the party is carrying something up a gentle slope vs. down, or if the character is wearing high heels while marching, or anything else. Changing to make everyone happy with things seems good.

Right, the rules don't really say what it applies to exactly, leaving room for the DM to decide in particular situations. This goes back to my point about how the DM adjudicates and how that impacts the efficacy of certain approaches the players may try. The rules simply can't account for this.

 

[Norton]

I think aarakocra should be banned altogether just because it's an annoying word to spell.

But seriously, I really want flying PCs in my game. I love the dramatic aspect of having encounters on the Y axis. But it's a drag a lot of the time. Yeah, you can do this and that with setting and range fighting to accommodate a flying PC but there you are, doing it, putting their advantages before your imagination. Or ignoring it, and having them park somewhere and meta the hell out of everything.

And boy, if you do hit one with a range weapon after they haven't taken damage in a dozen or so straight encounters, be prepared for the moaning. I have a player who is still complaining about getting hit by a longbow from a Yuan-Ti Abomination once. Apparently it's preposterous that a creature of this kind would have one. Wait until he runs into my dwarves with home-brewed bola-bows.

I would have thought it totally legit to make an aarakocra fly more like a chicken, or like that first gliding motorcycle you get in GTA – where range is limited to bursts and there's a small cool-down period. It would make it more special, in my view, and incentivize players to be creative with flight. How thrilling to see a PC run from a high precipice after climbing there (to save his charge) and bursting into range for something cool. Cheers all around. Maybe in the third tier he can choose to buff his strength score to power up the ability?

Now I'm considering a flying-squirrel race. Hmm...

 

[Bolares]

As I mentioned, if you want to avoid getting into the (not very good) encumbrance rules, then just use the "mounted" rules: in order for a creature to carry another creature it much be at least one size larger.

That's a great rulling!