D&D 5E On fairies and flying

[Scott Christian]

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.


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.


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.

I am inferring from your tone. I asked to see if my inference was correct. You answered it with the bolded above. And I questioned your creativity because that is all you see those obstacles as, a river a PC can fly over them. You are the one that stated DMs are creating "flat" or "undynamic" encounters if they have "river crossings" where a PC can just fly over them.

I get how skill checks work. It just seems to me that if flying is never a problem for you, then you might not use the types of skill checks other DMs use. I mean, there can't always be a gust of wind. So if you want any type of "river crossing" to happen, there is no skill check for your players. I just read a book of traps. Flying can avoid half of them. Climbing, crossing, jumping, landing, balancing - all negated with flying. That seems like a pretty large part of a pillar. Not to mention how useless it makes the person who took acrobatics look.

It is all based on the campaign, as I have said a hundred times. For some campaigns, flying will be problematic, especially at lower levels. It has been my claim from the beginning.

 

[iserith]

I am inferring from your tone. I asked to see if my inference was correct. You answered it with the bolded above. And I questioned your creativity because that is all you see those obstacles as, a river a PC can fly over them. You are the one that stated DMs are creating "flat" or "undynamic" encounters if they have "river crossings" where a PC can just fly over them.

I get how skill checks work. It just seems to me that if flying is never a problem for you, then you might not use the types of skill checks other DMs use. I mean, there can't always be a gust of wind. So if you want any type of "river crossing" to happen, there is no skill check for your players. I just read a book of traps. Flying can avoid half of them. Climbing, crossing, jumping, landing, balancing - all negated with flying. That seems like a pretty large part of a pillar. Not to mention how useless it makes the person who took acrobatics look.

It is all based on the campaign, as I have said a hundred times. For some campaigns, flying will be problematic, especially at lower levels. It has been my claim from the beginning.

I'm not sure what you gain by making a claim nobody disagrees with repeatedly. Yes, some DMs will have a problem with flying PCs outside of thematic concerns - some are even emotional about it by the looks of it. That some DMs have a problem with flying PCs seems to be what the thread is about since the first post. The question is why and what to do about it.

To that I say: The problem is mitigated if the DM works on how to create and present challenges with the possibility of flying PCs in mind. Also, it's worth examining in my view how the DM thinks about challenge and difficulty as concepts in general. Building on what you are saying, is it actually a problem in general that players can position their characters to overcome a challenge with no ability check or resource expenditure?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I'm not sure what you gain by making a claim nobody disagrees with repeatedly. Yes, some DMs will have a problem with flying PCs outside of thematic concerns - some are even emotional about it by the looks of it. That some DMs have a problem with flying PCs seems to be what the thread is about since the first post. The question is why and what to do about it.

To that I say: The problem is mitigated if the DM works on how to create and present challenges with the possibility of flying PCs in mind. Also, it's worth examining in my view how the DM thinks about challenge and difficulty as concepts in general. Building on what you are saying, is it actually a problem in general that players can position their characters to overcome a challenge with no ability check or resource expenditure?

You presented two cases....

1. It's OK to not want flying PCs for thematic reasons.

2. It's not OK to not want flying PCs because you are unable to challenge a party with one present.

But you skipped a major third reason, which is what most anti-flying PCs are stating....

3. Its OK to not want flying PCs because you dont want to have to design (or alter published) adventures to challenge them in ways you don't have to do with the rest of the party. Note the difference between 2 and 3 is ability versus desire.

 

[iserith]

You presented two cases....

1. It's OK to not want flying PCs for thematic reasons.

2. It's not OK to not want flying PCs because you are unable to challenge a party with one present.

But you skipped a major third reason, which is what most anti-flying PCs are stating....

3. Its OK to not want flying PCs because you dont want to have to design (or alter published) adventures to challenge them in ways you don't have to do with the rest of the party. Note the difference between 2 and 3 is ability versus desire.

I have not said it's (emphasis mine) "not OK to not want flying PCs because you are unable to challenge a party with one present." I've said it might be worth looking at how the DM creates and presents challenges. That's not me saying it's "not OK." It seems like certain posters really want to insert things into my statements that aren't there.

I've also presented a third possibility: That it's worth examining how the DM conceives of challenge and difficulty, which in many cases covers the issue of ability versus desire. I don't, for example, go out of my way to create or present challenges specifically with flying PCs in mind, even though I have the ability. Sometimes it just so happens that a challenge is more difficult for fliers - it might turn out to be a day with strong wind or there's a lot of flying or ranged monsters coming up when rolling for random encounters, or the sorts of exploration challenges present in the adventure site don't overly favor flying PCs. This informs my concept of challenge and difficulty which is, taken across the full spectrum of challenges one might encounter in a typical D&D game, some PCs will simply do better in certain challenges than others, whether they are flying PCs or non-flying PCs. When this is understood to be the case, then objections to flying PCs tend to, well, fly away in my experience.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Being able to overcome a majority or 50% of the obstacles by using a power that isn't even a resource is the problem.

So you ban find familiar, and skill use?

But in your view, the DM just has to change the encounter.

No, the DM should leave it alone. It doesn't matter if some encounters are easy.

Hence, it can be a problem for some campaigns.

If the campaign doesn't feature any encounters other than "here is a chasm you must cross" maybe. That would be a very boring campaign.

I mean, are the acrobatics and athletic checks only for combat in your games?

You can't have those, they don't use resources. And the outcome is irrelevant unless you are going to kill characters because of an unlucky dice roll.

 

[Cadence]

So you ban find familiar, and skill use?

No, the DM should leave it alone. It doesn't matter if some encounters are easy.

If the campaign doesn't feature any encounters other than "here is a chasm you must cross" maybe. That would be a very boring campaign.

You can't have those, they don't use resources. And the outcome is irrelevant unless you are going to kill characters because of an unlucky dice roll.

It was pointed out earlier that there was a difference between a familiar flying and a character, and at least the familiar had a cost associated at some point.

The point was in some cases it was a lot of encounters.

No one said that it was all of them.

Slippery slope into the sphere of annihilation on a failed roll?

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Folks,

It looks like several of you are engaged in a pretty unproductive discussion. It is probably time to ask yourself why, and what you want to get out of it going forward. If your answer is basically, "Shut the other guy up," then I implore you to find some other discussion.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It was pointed out earlier that there was a difference between a familiar flying and a character, and at least the familiar had a cost associated at some point.

You count a one off fee of 10 gp a cost?!!!

And neglect the cost of not having any racial ability you could have obtained by choosing a race without flying.

Slippery slope into the sphere of annihilation on a failed roll?

You don't need spheres of annihilation for a character to die on a failed roll.

Player: "I swing across the chasm on a vine."
DM: "make an athletic check"
Player rolls a 2.
DM: "Your character falls into the chasm taking 20d6 bludgeoning damage. You are dead, go home."

My point is, I think many tables would consider that unfair and a arbitrary. But if the character fails the skill roll and doesn't die, there is no cost. They might just as well have flown across. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

 

[Cadence]

My point is, I think many tables would consider that unfair and a arbitrary. But if the character fails the skill roll and doesn't die, there is no cost. They might just as well have flown across. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

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?

 

[Umbran]

But if the character fails the skill roll and doesn't die, there is no cost.

So, is the only possible cost death?