D&D 5E On fairies and flying

[Scott Christian]

My position is that if flying PCs are being banned because the DM's challenges are being constantly thwarted by flying PCs, then it's worth examining the way the DM designs and presents challenges in my view. Just because someone doesn't have certain skills doesn't mean they "suck." Nobody's born being able to design robust challenges. It's something to work at and we all have varying skill levels.

Correct. So until they develop those skills... wait for it...

flying might be a PROBLEM for their campaign.

As per my claim.

 

[iserith]

Correct. So until they develop those skills... wait for it...

flying might be a PROBLEM for their campaign.

As per my claim.

One doesn't develop skills for dealing with things by avoiding said things.

But also, I think this issue often comes down to how DMs are thinking about challenges and difficulty in general. Is, say, an aarakocra PC flying over a pit, river, or gorge, or avoiding attacks sometimes as big a problem as some people would make it out to be? In my experience, it isn't simply because challenges are there to be overcome and lots of non-flying characters also have plenty of means at their disposal to reduce the difficulty of challenges. Why would a DM think that this is a problem?

 

[overgeeked]

Or, you know, the kind of game the DM wants to run is directly focused on the kinds of challenges that are easily avoided by PC flight. So it's not that the DM lacks the ability to completely redesign their entire game to compensate for PCs easily avoiding their encounters, it's that the DM doesn't want to completely redesign their entire game to compensate for PCs easily avoiding their encounters. Personally, I like the zero to hero style. I like the mud, blood, and @#$% style. PCs who can simply fly above it all are counter to the kind of game I want to run. Simple as. Damn, what an arrogant argument you're making.

 

[iserith]

Or, you know, the kind of game the DM wants to run is directly focused on the kinds of challenges that are easily avoided by PC flight. So it's not that the DM lacks the ability to completely redesign their entire game to compensate for PCs easily avoiding their encounters, it's that the DM doesn't want to completely redesign their entire game to compensate for PCs easily avoiding their encounters. Personally, I like the zero to hero style. I like the mud, blood, and @#$% style. PCs who can simply fly above it all are counter to the kind of game I want to run. Simple as. Damn, what an arrogant argument you're making.

If a race, class, feature, spell, or anything else in the game isn't a thematic fit for the adventure or campaign, then it needn't be white-listed in my view. A DM might want to run an "old school" themed game where it's human, elf, dwarf, and halfling only. Aarakocra and fairies as PCs just wouldn't work with this theme.

If a race, class, feature, spell, or anything else just beats all the DM's challenges handily, maybe the issue isn't the race, class, feature, or spell. Perhaps the DM needs to take a closer look at how they create and present challenges. The scope of the challenges could be lacking somehow as might the complexity.

I mean, how many pit, river, gorge, no-ceiling, and non-flying or non-ranged monster challenges does someone even have in their game that this is a real problem? And even if the answer is "a lot," why are these challenges so flat and undynamic that simple flight gets past them ever ytime? And is every PC in the party flying? It's possible, but I've never seen it outside of a themed game like the one-shots I ran where the PCs were all pixies.

 

[overgeeked]

Perhaps the DM needs to take a closer look at how they create and present challenges. The scope of the challenges could be lacking somehow as might the complexity.

Perhaps you could take the stank out of your responses. That would be helpful.

I mean, how many pit, river, gorge, no-ceiling, and non-flying or non-ranged monster challenges does someone even have in their game that this is a real problem? And even if the answer is "a lot," why are these challenges so flat and undynamic that simple flight gets past them everytime? And is every PC in the party flying? It's possible, but I've never seen it outside of a themed game like the one-shots I ran where the PCs were all pixies.

Again, arrogantly assuming a whole lot.

 

[iserith]

Perhaps you could take the stank out of your responses. That would be helpful.

Again, arrogantly assuming a whole lot.

What "stank?" Sometimes DM make challenges that are lacking. We've all done it. There's no shame in it and it's not an insult to point out that it can happen or may be happening. If it is happening, discussing solutions outside of "ban all flying races" can be useful.

As for assumptions, I asked a lot of questions there. Feel free to answer them.

Sometimes I wonder if, in some cases, this issue is really about associating a particular kind of player a DM doesn't like with flying PCs. That guy plays in a way the DM doesn't care for, perhaps in some kind of optimal way to overcome challenges, therefore all flying PCs are bad.

 

[cmad1977]

Had multiple fliers across a few campaigns. It didn’t make any real difference.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My position is that if flying PCs are being banned because the DM's challenges are being constantly thwarted by flying PCs, then it's worth examining the way the DM designs and presents challenges in my view. Just because someone doesn't have certain skills doesn't mean they "suck." Nobody's born being able to design robust challenges. It's something to work at and we all have varying skill levels.

I think it's largely imagined. People think flying is an issue, or, if they have seen flying make some obstacle seam easy, they don't realise that it would also have been easy if there had been no character with flying. 5e has lots of different tools for bypassing terrain hazards, and most of them are low level and cheep.

But also, I think this issue often comes down to how DMs are thinking about challenges and difficulty in general. Is, say, an aarakocra PC flying over a pit, river, or gorge, or avoiding attacks sometimes as big a problem as some people would make it out to be? In my experience, it isn't simply because challenges are there to be overcome and lots of non-flying characters also have plenty of means at their disposal to reduce the difficulty of challenges. Why would a DM think that this is a problem?

Either the obstacle is on the critical path, in which case the party will get past it. And, with 5e they will do so cheaply, because it has no "high cost" get me past an obstacle abilities - unless the DM is willing to kill characters because of a bad roll on a skill check.

Or the obstacle is not on the critical path, and the party goes around it.

My advice to DMs is physical barriers can never be more than minor speed bumps in 5e. If you want to play against the terrain rather than fight monsters you need a different ruleset.

Sometimes DM make challenges that are lacking

There is no harm in having some easy challenges. In 5e the PCs are heroes. They need a chance to feel heroic by breezing through some challenges.

 

[Scott Christian]

Why would a DM think that this is a problem?

Overcoming a difficulty is not a problem. Most DMs I know enjoy it when their players overcome obstacles. Being able to overcome a majority or 50% of the obstacles by using a power that isn't even a resource is the problem. But in your view, the DM just has to change the encounter. But that is not always how DMs like to build.

Hence, it can be a problem for some campaigns.

Aarakocra and fairies as PCs just wouldn't work with this theme.

See, here you can even agree with my claim. The difference is, you won't actually say it. You tiptoe around it, instead of just saying: "Flying could be a problem for some campaigns or DMs." You even made the claim that a new DM has to learn how to build encounters. The simple fact that it is not innate shows flying might be problematic.

I mean, how many pit, river, gorge, no-ceiling, and non-flying or non-ranged monster challenges does someone even have in their game that this is a real problem? And even if the answer is "a lot," why are these challenges so flat and undynamic that simple flight gets past them ever ytime? And is every PC in the party flying? It's possible, but I've never seen it outside of a themed game like the one-shots I ran where the PCs were all pixies.

No offense, but I think this shows your lack of creativity, as opposed to other DMs making things "flat" or "undynamic." A river crossing isn't just a river crossing. It can be a hundred different things: right by a waterfall, thin iced, illusionary crossing, Indiana Jones rope bridge, King Kong log over deep river gorge, net trapped, isthmus with strong ocean currents, etc.
Edit: A quick question: Why would you not want your players to use their skills on these varied terrain features? I mean, are the acrobatics and athletic checks only for combat in your games?

 

[iserith]

Overcoming a difficulty is not a problem. Most DMs I know enjoy it when their players overcome obstacles. Being able to overcome a majority or 50% of the obstacles by using a power that isn't even a resource is the problem. But in your view, the DM just has to change the encounter. But that is not always how DMs like to build.

Hence, it can be a problem for some campaigns.

We're back to my original position: If most of a DM's challenges are overcome by one or more PCs flying, the DM may benefit from looking to how they are creating and presenting challenges.

See, here you can even agree with my claim. The difference is, you won't actually say it. You tiptoe around it, instead of just saying: "Flying could be a problem for some campaigns or DMs." You even made the claim that a new DM has to learn how to build encounters. The simple fact that it is not innate shows flying might be problematic.

I'm not tiptoeing around anything. I've made my position clear several times: If the DM is not white-listing flying races for thematic reasons, great. If the DM is not white-listing flying races because the DM doesn't understand how to challenge flying PCs, then maybe work on that skill. This doesn't strike me as controversial.

No offense, but I think this shows your lack of creativity, as opposed to other DMs making things "flat" or "undynamic." A river crossing isn't just a river crossing. It can be a hundred different things: right by a waterfall, thin iced, illusionary crossing, Indiana Jones rope bridge, King Kong log over deep river gorge, net trapped, isthmus with strong ocean currents, etc.
Edit: A quick question: Why would you not want your players to use their skills on these varied terrain features? I mean, are the acrobatics and athletic checks only for combat in your games?

Those examples all basically boil down to an obstacle a flying PC can fly over if that's all there is to the challenge. My mention of "a river" is a broad category of all those things, not an indicator of my range of creativity.

I don't really understand your question though. My players describe what their characters do and, if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure, I ask for an ability check. I'm not sure where you're getting that ability checks only happen in combat.