D&D 5E On fairies and flying

Bolares

Hero
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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
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

Legend
Supporter
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.
 


iserith

Magic Wordsmith
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

Legend
Supporter
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.
 
Last edited:

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
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

Magic Wordsmith
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

Explorer
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...
 


iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I think aarakocra should be banned altogether just because it's an annoying word to spell.
Now there I will agree!

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 think this speaks to a point I made upthread that often the objection to the flying race is the kind of player that is attracted to it or the tactics the player is using. So it's not really about the tool but the person wielding it and how.

I have a human wizard in my swamp hexcrawl right now who rolled poorly on Constitution, so the running joke is that he always stays on the very edge of the map, face down in leafy water, to avoid any attention. This disincentivizes ranged attacks against him and, provided the rest of the party does their job, the melee monsters are not getting up to him. So for all intents and purposes, this character may as well be a flying PC in that I rarely get to him. And even ranged attacks against him are problematic as compared to attacking a flying PC!
 


ad_hoc

(he/they)
I highly dislike the DMing philosophy of altering challenges based on the character's abilities.

If I'm playing a rogue I don't want there to be more locked doors just because I'm a rogue. Instead of helping with the doors now I'm just making it worse by conjuring them into the world.

There is much more player agency in being able to have abilities that can address the challenges that are going to be there regardless. And then there are challenges where no one has expertise and they need to get creative.

Having a flying character and then changing the game around that is a hard no from me.
 


Bolares

Hero
I highly dislike the DMing philosophy of altering challenges based on the character's abilities.

If I'm playing a rogue I don't want there to be more locked doors just because I'm a rogue. Instead of helping with the doors now I'm just making it worse by conjuring them into the world.

There is much more player agency in being able to have abilities that can address the challenges that are going to be there regardless. And then there are challenges where no one has expertise and they need to get creative.

Having a flying character and then changing the game around that is a hard no from me.
I agree with some of this. But I think it's a Dm's job to mold the encounters around characters abilities, to correctly challenge them. I think you should let the players use their features to solve the encounter, but not trivialize it every time. A flier should be able to use their flying speed to win some encounters, but creating some encounters were flying isn't possible/doesn't give tactical advantage is okay.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
I agree with some of this. But I think it's a Dm's job to mold the encounters around characters abilities, to correctly challenge them. I think you should let the players use their features to solve the encounter, but not trivialize it every time. A flier should be able to use their flying speed to win some encounters, but creating some encounters were flying isn't possible/doesn't give tactical advantage is okay.
I have a player pool with more players than available seats for a given session. And often each player has 2 PCs, if not more, one of which they can play per session. So I honestly don't know which PCs will be in a session until we turn up to play. Thus, it would be something of a waste of time for me to try to tailor challenges for specific characters. Instead, I simply make sure that my prep is focused on producing robust challenges regardless of who is playing and sometimes they have a composition that just rocks it and sometimes they don't. That strikes me as the right balance.
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
I agree with some of this. But I think it's a Dm's job to mold the encounters around characters abilities, to correctly challenge them. I think you should let the players use their features to solve the encounter, but not trivialize it every time. A flier should be able to use their flying speed to win some encounters, but creating some encounters were flying isn't possible/doesn't give tactical advantage is okay.

Then you don't agree with it at all.

This is exactly what I'm against and hate when it is done.
 


cbwjm

Legend
I tend not to specifically target my players skills, rather I set up an encounter or obstacle and it is up to the players to look at their skills and abilities to figure out how to defeat or bypass it. It's probably why I don't really worry about flying PCs, and wouldn't make any changes to something like Tomb of Annihilation. I'm running some old Thunder Rift modules and haven't changed a thing (unless something, normally a monster, doesn't exist in 5e, then I might make a replacement). One of the players is playing a homebrewed pixie that can fly and turn invisible, he'll often scout out a large portion of the dungeons, but the thing is, the players still have to get through the dungeon.

With homebrewed adventures, the only things I specifically tailor to my players are items that might be useful and fun for their class. I don't do this for all items, but just enough that each player ends up with something. For the Thunder Rift modules though, I just throw in whatever the modules have. Players are getting a heap of items and treasure, I'd almost forgotten how much these modules gave out, but then considering how deadly they are, I guess you kind of need them.
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top