The Flight Problem - A New Approach?

[Varianor Abroad]

Conscription. That's the notion. Read on....

D&D is a ton of fun. Flight is an obstacle however because it lets PCs avoid obstacles. (Had we wings, I suspect that flight would not be a special ability but a required movement mode, but that's not helpful.)

I've had a lot of fun devising challenging encounters for those who can fly. It's still more work than in game systems where PCs can't just cast a spell or use an item and gain easy access to the third dimension of movement.

I don't want to remove it from D&D because it's such an iconic part of the game. But I do think ways to minimize it, especially in certain lands or cities, might be in order.

Hence the notion of conscription.

What if those who can fly must serve?

PCs might get conscripted for a time, and when their term is done, get out. Characters who start off with flying ability (like wings) can purchase a feat that gets them a mechanical bonus of some type but also makes the service part of their background.

In enemy territory, PCs won't just fly all the time because they fear being "flight ganged". They are still free to fly all the time in the dungeon.

The problem seems slightly restrictive and punishing to those who have these abilities, but I think it's an interesting twist. Thoughts? Flames? Cigars?

 

[hong]

I'm not sure how the prospect of encountering flying opponents will make PCs less inclined to fly. In fact, I'd expect the opposite.

 

[jmucchiello]

Conscription.

This assumes creatures with wings? I think you have a style of game world that makes a lot of assumptions that aren't quite universal. I don't think I've ever started a game in an area where the PCs would get conscripted for anything, ever.

And I agree with hong: the more flight capable opponents the PCs encounter, the more likely they are going to seek out methods of flight. To level the playing field, so to speak.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Nope. If you can fly by natural or spell means, I'm thinking that's sufficient. I have no problem with it encouraging more combats with flying enemies - that's actually more intersting to me because it justifies certain flying encounters. I'm just thinking about the possibilities of being captured when you go into a certain enemy nation that conscripts those who can fly. It's a magical version of the press gang.

 

[Kormydigar]

D&D is a ton of fun. Flight is an obstacle however because it lets PCs avoid obstacles. (Had we wings, I suspect that flight would not be a special ability but a required movement mode, but that's not helpful.)

I've had a lot of fun devising challenging encounters for those who can fly. It's still more work than in game systems where PCs can't just cast a spell or use an item and gain easy access to the third dimension of movement.

In a game where magic is commonplace such as a typical D&D setting, flight is going to be used a great deal. Once PC's reach the mid levels (around 6th-7th) standard obstacles that rely on a group being stuck on the ground won't do the trick anymore. That doesn't mean the DM should design ways to zap PC's out of the air whenever they take flight. Flight powers are just one of many ways that PC's use (hopefully) well earned rewards that come with attaining higher levels. The thing to do is design obstacles that can't be solved without thought or effort just because the PC's can fly. Keep in mind that at these levels if the PC's can fly a lot of the time then they are spending a lot of resources on this (assuming normal wealth levels) Consider:

A 6th level character should have about 13,000 gp of wealth per the RAW

A 6th level sorcerer can cast 3-4 third level spells per day (assume they are all Fly spells)

The fly spell has a duration of 1 min. per level.

So without spending any gold, a sorcerer of 6th level can provide flight for 6 minutes a day for each member of a party of 4 (assuming a Cha score good enough for a bonus spell)
This is not terribly powerful considering it would require the sorcerer to spend all of his/her third level spell slots on flight. If the PC's want to expend that much of thier firepower to circumvent a wall or chasm, then let them.

If magic items are the problem then the PC's may be over equipped for thier level. A Fly potion costs 750 gp, and a scroll costs 375 gp ( assuming no items were crafted by a PC) Thats a lot of gold to spend to keep a party of 4 flying for even 10% of a days adventure time. If that kind of cash is available then the PC's either have very little of thier wealth tied up in permenant items or they are too wealthy for thier level.

All this drivel is assuming something close to RAW wealth guidelines. If that is not the case then how much wealth IS available at these levels?

 

[Ron]

The Fly spell is one of the points where D&D stands way off my personal view of fantasy. I really think that flying characters is more akin to superheroes than fantasy. Once I was playing a game a friend was dming and got very irritated as I couldn't stand seing a party exploring a dungeon with two figthers walking in the front with another two hovering above then. As such, I have being removing this spell from my games for more than a decade.

 

[MarkB]

In a game where magic is commonplace such as a typical D&D setting, flight is going to be used a great deal. Once PC's reach the mid levels (around 6th-7th) standard obstacles that rely on a group being stuck on the ground won't do the trick anymore. That doesn't mean the DM should design ways to zap PC's out of the air whenever they take flight. Flight powers are just one of many ways that PC's use (hopefully) well earned rewards that come with attaining higher levels. The thing to do is design obstacles that can't be solved without thought or effort just because the PC's can fly.

Yep. If you don't like flight, you're going to hate teleport. And if you don't like teleport, you're going to hate scrying.

High level play in a standard D&D setting introduces very flexible spellcasting options. The best solution to these options is not to find ways to stop them working, but to take account of the fact that they do work. Build your campaign with these options in mind, and be ready to be flexible if they surprise you.

The exception is when making plans in-character as the BBEG. He's well aware of such things, and part of his job is to make sure they only work for him, not against him. But your BBEG is not your game-world - most of the time, the players should be enjoying the results of these options, not suffering penalties for them. And some of the time, the players will out-think the BBEG.

 

[Umbran]

Thoughts?

The basic problem is one of plausibility - flight is hardly the only really neat ability available. If they'll conscript you for flying, why don't they also conscript you for being able to toss fireballs around, or cleave seven orcs with one blow, or doing anything else that makes you effective?

If they conscript you for being effective, and displaying flight is just one thing they look for, fine. Otherwise it seems a bit arbitrary.

 

[Nyeshet]

Personally, I like AE's method of dealing with flight: use racial levels, with first level merely granting gliding and true flight taking a full level to gain. As for spells - they are temporary. As for magical items - I make permanent magical items (wondrous, rings, armors, weapons, etc) less common.

Also, the older a permanent magic item is IMCW, the more likely it is to miscast, fail, or otherwise make a mistake. The ambiant magic of the world is slightly wild, so any permanent magical object exposed to it long enough will eventually develop a few errors in how it works, or at least a few quirks. Thus an older magic object that grants flight is unlikely to be used often - or all that far off the ground - out of fear that it could quit at any moment.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

I'd be curious how prevalent flight is in peoples' D&D games and in what light most DMs view it. It's pretty rare in my group.