iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Then that DM can only blame themselves when flying PCs ferry non-flying PCs across their river crossing challenges!Maybe the armor rule is about freedom of wing movement instead of weight? I could see a Dm rule it like that.
Then that DM can only blame themselves when flying PCs ferry non-flying PCs across their river crossing challenges!Maybe the armor rule is about freedom of wing movement instead of weight? I could see a Dm rule it like that.
Meh, there are ways to make that crossing challenging. If I allow flying races in my table, it's my job to challenge them. Make it windy when tey are crossing... Also, all the flying races we've seen are small, and ferrying a big fighter in heavy armor may no be possible because of the carrying rules.Then that DM can only blame themselves when flying PCs ferry non-flying PCs across their river crossing challenges!![]()
Yes, it's true that they make no distinction, but that just leaves space for a reasonable ruling. Why would a DM rule that the flying PC, despite being unable to wear medium or heavy armor and still fly, can just pick up a cumbersome non-flying PC with no issue, then complain that flying PCs are beating all their river crossing challenges?
Then that DM can only blame themselves when flying PCs ferry non-flying PCs across their river crossing challenges!![]()
Meh, there are ways to make that crossing challenging. If I allow flying races in my table, it's my job to challenge them. Make it windy when tey are crossing... Also, all the flying races we've seen are small, and ferrying a big fighter in heavy armor may no be possible because of the carrying rules.
Yes, for sure. This is just an example of DMs ruling in a way that makes flying PCs more effective, then complaining that they're now too effective. This was also revealed in another thread a while back on exploration challenges. When we dig into why people are taking issue with something, we can see a lot of DMs are just very handwavy and loose with the rules, ruling way on the side of making certain things too effective, then pointing the finger at something other than themselves as the culprit.Meh, there are ways to make that crossing challenging. If I allow flying races in my table, it's my job to challenge them. Make it windy when tey are crossing... Also, all the flying races we've seen are small, and ferrying a big fighter in heavy armor may no be possible because of the carrying rules.
No rules are being changed here. The carrying capacity rules make no distinction between walking and flying. Fine. But perhaps the matter of carrying a non-flying PC across a river or whatever isn't really one of carrying capacity. Maybe it's just as cumbersome as wearing medium or heavy armor which means no flight is possible. There is space for a ruling here and, if one is inclined to have a lot of river crossing challenges as it seems some DMs in this thread are, then there's a solution - don't rule in a way that makes the flying PC more effective than they already are at certain challenges.Why is it significantly more preferable for a DM to allow a PC race choice, and then turn around and change the rules to nerf one of the main abilities of the race instead of just not allowing it?
Why and How, indeed.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?
I could write a bunch of examples that prove my point, too. But where would that leave us?Why and How, indeed.
This is where we actually disagree. I have stated that for some campaigns, your "how" to deal with it might lead the player to think it is a game of tit-for-tat where they feel targeted. This is especially true if only one PC is able to fly. That is why I gave the examples. But, let me try one more time.
Party of four. One flying. Searching for some lost tomb in the desert.
- Scene 1: Navigation of desert terrain to find the canyon that the tomb is in. Much easier with a flyer.
- Scene 2: Bizarre sand trolls that hunt from on top of the chasm. They toss big rocks down. That's how they kill their food. Pretty easy for a flyer to stay above them.
- Scene 3: Crazy sand worm or scorpions that burrow into the sand and pop out. Flyer stays out of range.
- Scene 4: A steep canyon wall climb to get to the hidden door. Flyer does it no problem.
- Scene 5: Small cave entrance with an iron door. Party huddled inside the door which is trapped. The flyer is just hanging outside the cave.
- Scene 6: Inside finally. The flyer's potential in an Egyptian style tomb is negated for the next four or five scenes.
So the flyer can dismiss half of them. That is a lot. Now, of course any DM can make sure there are stirges next to the scorpions, and the trolls have small rocks too (for whatever reason), and there is always a sandstorm in the distant that makes navigation by air impossible, and the door explodes with gas that just happens to reach the flyer. But, if a DM did do all of that, the flyer might feel targeted.
I don't know. This is just a quick example. But, it demonstrates my point. The "how" a DM handles the flyer, even when doing it right, might still come out as negatively perceived.
I know there are examples on your side. There are also tables where the flying character would expect the DM to go out of their way to target them because they fly. And there are tables where the DM would construct challenges that could be overcome with flying. And in all those cases - the tables would be happy.I could write a bunch of examples that prove my point, too. But where would that leave us?
From your tone and words, it seems as if you believe the DM is the most likely culprit of table difficulty concerning flying. But, I just as that you consider that maybe it's not the DM, but the actual rule and power within the low level structure of the game that is the problem.When we dig into why people are taking issue with something, we can see a lot of DMs are just very handwavy and loose with the rules, ruling way on the side of making certain things too effective, then pointing the finger at something other than themselves as the culprit.
The problem is moreso we're getting into the deeper mess of player character specialitiesSo the flyer can dismiss half of them. That is a lot. Now, of course any DM can make sure there are stirges next to the scorpions, and the trolls have small rocks too (for whatever reason), and there is always a sandstorm in the distant that makes navigation by air impossible, and the door explodes with gas that just happens to reach the flyer. But, if a DM did do all of that, the flyer might feel targeted.
Consider it the party's resources, not the player's resources. If someone's plonking away with arrows at a distance, it means the rest of the party is spending more resources to deal with that.Accept the fact that some DMs use resource management as a way to increase the tension in the game. Yet the flying PC allows those drained resources to keep the tension low. What to do about it?