Monster Study: The Aarakocra

[billd91]

It also seems like there's some competing definitions of what a "monster" should be. Some basically see the word as equivalent to "creature," so it would be fine to have monsters who are not hostile combat antagonists (provided, of course, they can provide some sort of interesting encounter). Others seem to agree with 4e's philosophy of "monsters are there for slaying."

Even those folks in the latter camp, however, think there is a place for non-hostile creatures...just not necessarily a place in the "monster manual"...a place in adventures or setting books. This seems a bit odd to me, personally...if they are an interesting encounter, why shouldn't there be a single resource the DM turns to when they want an "interesting encounter" (be it combat or otherwise)?

I've always had the opinion that while any encounter could conceivably end up in a fight, D&D isn't a combat game. It is a game that was developed to be more than just the combat miniature game it grew out of. Combat stats for encounters would thus be useful, but not always resorted to. So I have absolutely no problem, conceptually, with including creatures of any sort in a Monster Manual. It's not just for combat encounters.

 

[Corathon]

Those who have had no problems with flight, what have you done to counteract it? Is it really as simple as "-2 to attack rolls" and to ensure access to ranged attacks to make flight not an issue?

I really haven't seen a problem with this. I don't even use a hit penalty. The flying PC in my game is an illusionist. He rarely makes attack rolls, except with spells like chromatic orb. Since winged flight requires effort, he can no more cast on the wing than he can cast while walking or running, so a hit penalty while in flight would have virtually no effect on the character anyway. His race (a home-brewed one) takes a CON penalty (to simulate the fragility of hollow bones) so he avoids melee whenever he can, but single-classed illusionists or MUs tend to avoid melee in any event.

I haven't seen a problem with this PC negating ambushes. Not that he's never done that, he has. But his wingspread is too big to fly on a forest trail, or other close quarters, and he is seldom willing to be far ahead of the group (he's too fragile) so he doesn't remove the possibility of ambushes or anything like that.

Flying over a castle wall is certainly a possibility, but even if invisible he might be heard and attacked by defenders - another situation he would like to avoid.

 

[Spatula]

I actually had one for a while, but its' not very relevant to this thread. The player wanted to play a kenku, but there are no kenku on Athas. So I told him he could be an aarakocra, but use kenku abilities/stats. (The issue was flavor, not balance.)

Kenku don't fly, though.

Irrelevant tangent: there are kenku on Athas, at least if you go by the 2e books. They were one of the non-DS monsters specifically included in the setting, and were even in one of the adventures. Black Flames, IIRC.

 

[Spatula]

Even those folks in the latter camp, however, think there is a place for non-hostile creatures...just not necessarily a place in the "monster manual"...a place in adventures or setting books. This seems a bit odd to me, personally...if they are an interesting encounter, why shouldn't there be a single resource the DM turns to when they want an "interesting encounter" (be it combat or otherwise)?

I love the idea of an "encounter" book, which would include not just monsters but traps, hazards, social stuff, etc. Perhaps the topic is too broad for a single book, but it definitely makes sense to place all of that stuff in one spot for the DM.

 

[Dausuul]

Is Flight always a problem with a PC in D&D? Are there mechanics that can help? How has PC flight worked in your games?

The extent to which flight is a problem depends on a lot of factors. At-will flight, available to the entire party, of unlimited duration? Yes, this is generally a problem, and I can imagine no mechanic that would cure it; or rather, any mechanic I can imagine that would cure it would utterly shatter suspension of disbelief, because that kind of flight should be a colossal advantage. What it boils down to is that, if I'm playing a PC who can fly, and I am presented with a melee monster, I am going to want to pepper it with arrows or spells from the air. And if I can't, I'm going to want to know why, in the game world, my character cannot do this.

That said, there are various limits that can be applied to flying characters. If only one character can fly, it's not nearly as bad--you can fly away from the monster but it means leaving your friends to die. Likewise, limited duration; stringent encumbrance limits; requiring lots of open space to beat your wings and maintain forward momentum; and resource costs can all make flight less abusable.

Should "monsters" always be combat antagonists? Is there room in our Monster Manuals for creatures that might not be battled to the death? What should their "stat blocks" look like?

No, yes, and pretty much the same. I think the MM should heavily favor antagonist monsters, but it should include a handful of friendlies. That said, the abilities of "friendly monsters" should be designed in the knowledge that they are likely to be used for the benefit of, and perhaps at the request of, PCs.

How might you bring the aarakocra into your own games?

I probably wouldn't. Never been very fond of that particular beastie.

 

[Celebrim]

Interesting thoughts so far! I'm especially a little surprised at the diversity of opinions on PC flight. There's a lot of space between the idea that flight isn't that big of a deal, and that flight makes PCs nearly invincible!

I don't worry too much about random encounters. If the PC's random up a tyrannasaurus at 10th level, it's expected that things like invisibility and flight will factor highly in turning the encounter which might be dangerous in a straight up fight into one that is fairly trivial. But when I plan an encounter with a T-Rex, I'm going to assume that the T-Rex has some means of dealing with flying top order predator competitors or else has been placed by someone intelligent as an obstacle who knows that flight might be used to bypass his land bound beast. Or, I'm just not going to put a simple T-Rex there at all and instead have a verminous T-Rex that shoots ensnaring web nets or a half-dragon lightning breathing T-Rex or well, just use a dragon and cover all the bases.

Those who have had problems with flight, what, specifically, in play or in figuring out adventures, have those problems been?

In general, many to most planned encounters take place in a dungeon environment. This simply means that if the monster is land bound and lacking a missile weapon, that you avoid placing it in an lair where it can't reach the ceiling. It also means that above nth level, simple pit traps are no longer a dependable obstacle. These aren't problems so much as things you take into account in the design, unless you've not encountered this problem before and invest emotionally in 'winning' as a DM only to have the PC's easily bypass what you thought was your clever nasty encounter by 'cheating'. DM's ego gaming is usually the root problem with flight IMO. Compared to Invisibility, Divination, clerical Turning, and even a simple Fireball, flight doesn't offer that big of a challenge to the DM IMO provided the DM is ready for it.

The problems I've seen have mostly been with DMs just not taking flight into account in their calculations. For example, the average Brit/American has their image of a castle greatly shaped by the design of Edward I's Welsh Castles - and not just that, but Edward's castles in a semi-ruined state. It's those castles that are most often movie castles or show up in non-fantasy wargames. And, as a castle in a world without flight, they are severely lacking. They have no defenses at all against flight, and are quickly overrun in a world where at least some or all of the enemy can fly. Yet, some DMs will persist in using these castles in the face of a world filled with flying monsters and foes, only to note at too late of a point that the castle offers no defense against flying PC's and indeed - makes things easier for them. So some DMs will argue that castles have no place in a magical world.

But, if you investigate castles more deeply, you'll find that out 'east' in places like Poland or Switzerland or the Czech Republic they built castles which - for various reasons - had features that perfectly well double as defense against flying foes. In some cases, they were just building roofs and small courtyards to keep the cold out, but if it keeps the wind out it generally does a good job keeping a flying monster out. So, if you are ready for it, flight is not a big problem.

Those who have had no problems with flight, what have you done to counteract it? Is it really as simple as "-2 to attack rolls" and to ensure access to ranged attacks to make flight not an issue?

Encounter design. Good encounter design rather than mechanical kludges are the answer to most DM problems. If you can't fly, then you either better have a lair/hunting grounds that renders flying moot or you better be one heck of an ambush predator/grappler. Any monster designed for high level play better have a ranged reply period even if flight is not an issue, because otherwise its too easy for high level PC's to arrange to 'kite' a foe, use a terrain exploit, or lock them down and immobilize them. These tactics may still work to some degree, but at least they won't be absolute win buttons. If gravity isn't a dependable way to victimize the PC's you work around it. Your trapped filled tomb better not be boring to a party with a flying carpet, and that means avoiding not only the pit trap as your primary hazard but the pressure plate as your primary mechanism. There are large numbers of traps that still work with a party that can fly. When the party level is appropriate, utilize them.

As a side note, a lot of this 'encounter design' stuff is stuff that anyone playing or building a cRPG knows or learns quickly, but that's because in a cRPG combat is almost there is and if you screw that up you don't usually have much left.

As far as 'monster = there for slaying' goes, I have two responses to that. First, the first edition monster manual listed 'men' as a category of monster. Second, what would a story like 'The Order of the Stick' be like, if all the monsters were simply 'there for the slaying'? How much duller than that then would the story of your game be if the monsters were simply, 'there for the slaying'?

 

[DrunkonDuty]

As far as using flight goes, I'm OK with it.

It's no game breaker. I've got a mate who claims it is and doesn't allow it when he GMs. I think he's just lacking in imagination, frankly.

A critter/character with perfect manoeuverability and no restrictions what so ever is a bit much for most things, although I see Djinn and other Air Elementals being like this. Most critters would not have this, they would find flying a much more strenuous task.

But as a few others have pointed out there are perfectly reasonable limits to impose on flying characters.

Since this thread has the Advanced DnD header I'd like to mention the old Manoeuverability Classes listed in the 1ed DMG. Minimum turning circle, minimum air speed to maintain flight, that sort of thing. There was also a rule that anything that lost more than 1/2 its HP had to make a forced landing. Anything reduced to 1/4 or less of its HP crashed.

And yeah, flying (with wings or something similar) and casting spells shouldn't be allowed. There should be a rather low maximum encumberance. All that.

Also, in a world where flying threats are more commmon there will be more defences against them. Don't want an Aaracokra alighting on your windowsill? Don't have a window sill or have the fantasy gaming equivalent of those plastic anti-pigeon spikes you see all around the place nowadays. Tell your guards to look up occasionally. Have a flier of your own.

Flying will change the tactical situation but it does not remove it from the game.

cheers.

 

[Jhaelen]

Even those folks in the latter camp, however, think there is a place for non-hostile creatures...just not necessarily a place in the "monster manual"...a place in adventures or setting books. This seems a bit odd to me, personally...if they are an interesting encounter, why shouldn't there be a single resource the DM turns to when they want an "interesting encounter" (be it combat or otherwise)?

As i mentioned, I like the separation of 'generic' monsters from 'background' or 'setting' books.

Actually in 4e we've had both:
- MM1-3 are generic monster manuals.
- The Dark Sun Creature Compendium and Monster Vault: Nentir Vale, however, are really setting books. So it's okay to include npcs, terrain features, and organizations in the book that wouldn't have a place in a 'generic' monster manual.

There is a place for both types of products but they really serve different purposes or are interesting for different readers.
The DSCC is basically not interesting if you aren't playing in the Dark Sun setting. It might be of limited interested if you play in a homebrew setting featuring large desert regions but it's a stretch.

Monster Manuals are usually better suited if you prefer homebrew settings. Monsters come without any strings attached. You can adapt them to your setting or even reinvent them as you see fit.

Including non-combatants in such a book wouldn't serve any useful purpose unless it also features rules to design 'creatures' from scratch, i.e. if it's more of a toolbox than a collection of fully realized 'monsters'.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Some specifics!

There is a place for both types of products but they really serve different purposes or are interesting for different readers.
The DSCC is basically not interesting if you aren't playing in the Dark Sun setting. It might be of limited interested if you play in a homebrew setting featuring large desert regions but it's a stretch.

I'm not totally sure I follow your logic, here. You mentioned the MV as a "setting" book, but there's nothing stopping you from using the organizations, creatures, and minions in other settings, even whole cloth (indeed, since the Maths is better, you probably want to use the MV versions instead of the original MM versions). The DSCC is similar: you could easily use any of those monsters or threats out of its native element, perhaps with just a little re-fluffing, perhaps not. I don't see this as functionally any different than the MM1-3's, aside from the latter books being more robust in terms of flavor and inspirational material. DSCC has an obvious campaign-specific bent, but it's interesting for any DM who wants some tactical monster challenges. Nothing about any of the Sorcerer-kings provided therein means you can't rip their stats out and use them as generic epic-level monsters, or even unique non-DS-specific threats, if you want.

I perhaps just don't see the big difference you're seeing between a "monster manual" full of combat stats, and a "setting book" like the MV: full of combat stats, with more fluff. The books seem very similar in audience and in purpose to me.

Encounter design.

I think you're right in that encounter design is "the" big way to make PC flight a non-issue, but I think that might be part of the problem: forcing DMs to design encounters with flight in mind makes flight problematic, since it puts a limit on the DM's ability to do whatever they want. No normal T-Rex (or terrasque) is going to worry a flying character too much. In designing a game for a wide audience, it would seem prudent to avoid anything that forced the DM's hand. Flight would certainly fit in that category.

So that leaves me sort of searching for a way to make flight a non-issue in a way that doesn't make a DMs job harder.

It's possible that flight may be one of those things that separates the game between "advanced" and "basic." Basic D&D? No flight. If you want flight, here's some flying races, and some DM advice on how to make sure they don't spoil your fun. There's no easy mechanical solution, we just need to "train" the DM to keep the fun moving, and not allow in a flying PC willy-nilly, but only after proper DM preparation.

That seems like a tall order, but it might be the way to put back in flying PC's at 1st level. Make them optional, and contingent on the DM learning how to creatively handle flight.

Hmmm....

I love the idea of an "encounter" book, which would include not just monsters but traps, hazards, social stuff, etc. Perhaps the topic is too broad for a single book, but it definitely makes sense to place all of that stuff in one spot for the DM.

It's interesting. I think in previous editions, the Monster Manuals were functionally exactly that: encounter books. Clearly focused on combat, but also with creatures like nymphs and angels and elves that you wouldn't necessarily fight, but that could provide an interesting encounter. It's why there's a Human entry. It's why the Campestri exist. It's why Metallic Dragons are Good. It's the function of the Rust Monster or the Rot Grub (they were traps disguised as monsters!). It even included player abilities -- aerial servants that clerics can summon were in the MMs. Type IV Demons were Type IV because that was what wizards summoned. That list of herd animals was a list of things the druid could turn into!

I personally think there would be a lot of value in returning to something like that model (perhaps absent the player abilities, which should probably be in the player books). I would have hoped that aarakocra would find a place in there as at least a level 1 social skill challenge or something. A lot like their original incarnation.

And maybe they'd find a place in the DMG2 as a race that features flying (along with DM guidelines for flight).

 

[Celebrim]

I think you're right in that encounter design is "the" big way to make PC flight a non-issue, but I think that might be part of the problem: forcing DMs to design encounters with flight in mind makes flight problematic, since it puts a limit on the DM's ability to do whatever they want.

DM's wanting to do whatever they want is the big problem, and not flight. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that so many of the problems encountered at the gaming table are DMs who believe the role entails them to do what they want, have the story they want, and to have as a payout the actualization of the thing they formerly imagined. One of the greatest temptations as a DM is to rehearse the encounter in your mind how you think it will go, always of course enlarging the excitement of the encounter and the glory that is due you from the players. IMO, this is the root of most of the table disfunction that results from the DM side of the screen.

As a DM, I must be on gaurd against wanting the T-Rex to be a big fight. I must be on gaurd against thinking that a T-Rex is the only thing that makes sense in this context. In short, I must be on gaurd against thinking that I'm the only source of material in the story and that I am the sole author and contributer and therefore must have my way.

No normal T-Rex (or terrasque) is going to worry a flying character too much.

Bah. You are not thinking this through.

First of all, no encounter which is optional - that is where the player has no stake in continuing or winning it - worries a character with the ability to flee. Flying gives you in many cases the ability to flee if for no other reason than it usually about doubles your movement rate. However, assuming that the T-Rex must be defeated, there are numerous ways to make the T-Rex relevant even against a party where everyone has wings.

a) Thick Foilage: If the T-Rex's lair is a dense jungle where a canopy of leaves and branches provides a partial ceiling and underbrush limits vision to 10-15', the flying character will have limited or no ability to take advantage of its mobility. If it flies above the T-Rex the jungle canopy provides 100% concealment and significant cover. It cannot fly among the canopy without colliding with the many obstacles. If it flies below the canopy, then either its within range of the snapping jaws or else neither can be seen nor can see its foe to utilize ranged attacks. And if it lacks less than excellent manueverability, the foilage will make engaging while flying very difficult. Close range against a feathered tiger striped T-Rex (very likely the 'normal' sort given what we know now) in a gaudy dense jungle is I think appropriate enough to not be considered pure metagaming.
b) Cave or Dungeon: The usual combat environment is enclosed, so that the ceiling might not be very far above the T-Rex's massive head. There is no where for a flier to hide or to evade to. Note that if you want to do this in a wildnerness setting, simply put the lair in the ruins of a megalithic temple. Sure, there may be some gaps allowing in sunlight, but they are likely to be too small to fly through. If the PC's flee the temple complex, then have it surrounded by terrain as #1 above.
c) Protect the innocent: One way to force a player to go into close combat is force the character to choose between evading and loosing something that they may prize. If the T-Rex is about to scarf down a maiden sacrifice, the PC's may have no choice but to interpose themselves between the potential victim and the threat, and this means quite certainly not flying up above the T-Rex's reach but rather going into base to base and putting some threat zones on the monster. It need not only be an innocent in distress. A treasure which is about to be devoured by a fire elemental/rust monster/disenchanter/black pudding/etc. should work out as well.

Again, encounter design. Good encounter design not only makes the encounter more tactical in nature, it also makes it less redundant and more emmersive. This increases the emotional payout for winning the scenario. A T-Rex in an effective 60'x80' flat square space (whether explicitly dressed as such or not) is not very interesting whether or not the PC's can fly. So don't design that encounter even if you've taken flying out of the mix, and indeed expecially if you've taken out the the 'this is boring, I win' button.

And I want to point out that this is limiting, but its not restraining. If you are shooting a movie and you wish to have the T-Rex be a threat to the good guys, you are going to do this same sort of encounter design for similar reasons. Sure, you could in theory put the T-Rex into a shot on a broad flat plain where he can be seen at a great distance quite clearly, but if you do this then it won't be this T-Rex at this time which is going to be a threat to your movies protagonists. Rather, this will be an establishing shot where we hang Chekov's T-Rex on he wall and say to the audience, "Keep this in mind." The good movie maker is going to have that T-Rex jump out and attack the party when its in a claustrophobic situation and when the protagonist is unready and unable or unwilling to escape. He does all this for the same reasons that the good game master does.

In designing a game for a wide audience, it would seem prudent to avoid anything that forced the DM's hand. Flight would certainly fit in that category.

It doesn't work that way. There is no substitute for good DMing. Period. The necessities of good DMing are the only things that force the DM's hand. Everything else is negotiable. To say that you need a game that avoids the necessity of good encounter design is like saying you want a language that avoids the necessity of good writing, or a film medium that avoids the necessity of well shot visuals. The game is the encounter design; it is the heart and soul of the game. This is most obvious in games of the normal sort that only provide a single scenario, rather than in RPG's which are more like scenario toolkits, but its just as true of RPGs. You can make the toolkit as high of quality as you like, and that's great, but without craftsmanship the game will still suck. Taking away flight doesn't reduce the necessity of craftsmanship; it merely reduces the number of tools in the toolbox.