Level Up (A5E) Why is non-magical flying so limited for PCs?

[lichmaster]

You can have all of the crazy spell combos you want; you just need multiple casters, which I think encourages teamwork and benefits the game.

Not really: you need one caster per spell. The group may not even have more than one caster, and even in that case, you can have one concentration spell per caster at most.
In my next short campaign I'll experiment with lifting this cap on concentration to 1+1/2 proficiency bonus, i.e. casters of level 1 to 4 can concentrate on up to 2 spells simultaneously, casters of level 5-8 on 3, etc.
Or maybe just 1/2 proficiency, we'll see.
I'm quite confident it will make the game way more interesting

 

[xiphumor]

Not really: you need one caster per spell. The group may not even have more than one caster, and even in that case, you can have one concentration spell per caster at most.
In my next short campaign I'll experiment with lifting this cap on concentration to 1+1/2 proficiency bonus, i.e. casters of level 1 to 4 can concentrate on up to 2 spells simultaneously, casters of level 5-8 on 3, etc.
Or maybe just 1/2 proficiency, we'll see.
I'm quite confident it will make the game way more interesting

Your table, your rules. Hope you have fun!

 

[Rebel Mage]

As a game master, I know I could work with unlimited flight. I just don't find it fun. I don't want to add that dimension to my game prep. And that's honestly as good a reason as any to not have it. Because a game master is a player, too, and should have fun.

 

[James Gasik]

An important point that I realized from having this conversation a few days ago is that it’s a very different conversation depending on if you’re speaking as a Narrator or as a designer. A Narrator can make adjustments to their particular table and game and usually challenge flying PCs without too much trouble if they want, but a designer has to consider all possible games and sessions (at least in the abstract), including those with inexperienced Narrators.

It's true that if you're designing an adventure, you can't really take into account whether or not a party member will have a climb/fly/swim speed. I've seen a few encounters completely stymied because someone had a short rest teleport!

Like with anything else, you can't know what a given party is capable of. Now obviously, if the person running the game doesn't want to do the extra work of accounting for a character's special abilities, limiting flight or even banning flying races is an option.

But there are disadvantages to being a character in flight, and plenty of opportunities to make that flight a non-factor. Heck, one thing I noticed a few years back is what actually happens when one player constantly avoids melee combat- the players who can be targeted by melee get beat up more as a result!

Given that D&D is a team game, it may not be particularly useful to be the only guy standing while the rest of your allies are bleeding out on the floor!

 

[James Gasik]

Not really: you need one caster per spell. The group may not even have more than one caster, and even in that case, you can have one concentration spell per caster at most.
In my next short campaign I'll experiment with lifting this cap on concentration to 1+1/2 proficiency bonus, i.e. casters of level 1 to 4 can concentrate on up to 2 spells simultaneously, casters of level 5-8 on 3, etc.
Or maybe just 1/2 proficiency, we'll see.
I'm quite confident it will make the game way more interesting

Generally, I've found concentration to have a strange effect on how spellcasters play- for one, buff spells are rarely used, since they take up valuable concentration slots! You could cast Fly on a melee character or you could lock down half the battlefield with Hypnotic Pattern- I can tell you which of those two options gets taken more!

One thing I've considered is to have the target of a buff spell be the one responsible for concentrating on it.

As far as spell combos go, while I do miss having the option, some are just brutal and not much fun, and you have to keep in mind that suddenly bad guys can use them as well.

The first time you see an ongoing damage effect (like say, Blistering Radiance or Insect Swarm) combined with a spell that prevents enemies from easily escaping, all while the non-casters sit around and watch, it may be less fun than expected. Or more, depending on your group.

 

[lichmaster]

Generally, I've found concentration to have a strange effect on how spellcasters play- for one, buff spells are rarely used, since they take up valuable concentration slots! You could cast Fly on a melee character or you could lock down half the battlefield with Hypnotic Pattern- I can tell you which of those two options gets taken more!

One thing I've considered is to have the target of a buff spell be the one responsible for concentrating on it.

As far as spell combos go, while I do miss having the option, some are just brutal and not much fun, and you have to keep in mind that suddenly bad guys can use them as well.

The first time you see an ongoing damage effect (like say, Blistering Radiance or Insect Swarm) combined with a spell that prevents enemies from easily escaping, all while the non-casters sit around and watch, it may be less fun than expected. Or more, depending on your group.

Those are very valid points, but I also found both as a player and as a DM that concentration spells are often quite bad.
Take Insect Swarm for instance: on paper it's great, but you cannot direct it, so once the enemy moves out (i.e. next round) what's the point of maintaining the concentration? So that the area is "barren"?
Same thing for wall of fire and many others.
Now, if I could move them I'd be ok with them requiring concentration, but like this I find them terrible spells.
Regarding many buffs, I very seldom managed to cast them with a paladin, for instance, since you're supposed to go in melee, and you roll for concentration every time you get hit. Even when I wasn't hit or did manage to maintain concentration, the actual "buffing power" of many of those spells is quite underwhelming given the risk of just burning a spell slot. I got some marginally better use of them with a ranged cleric, but just barely.

My main gripe with many of those buffs is that they often require concentration, have a short duration AND require an action to cast. This combination of factors makes them very unappealing IMO for a melee caster like a paladin, since the action cost is steep, the chances of losing concentration considerable, the duration relatively short (so you can't cast them much in advance), and the buff one gets out of all this is often quite mild.

 

[lichmaster]

I'll add: I like combos especially for buffing. There is a point in limiting the overlap of several de-buffs, damage over time or hard shutdowns, but for many of these kinds of spells the combination of concentration, saves on every round and impossibility to move the effect makes them very unsatisfactory IMO

 

[Steampunkette]

1) Flight reduces risk drastically.
Yeah, some fights might have flying enemies or enemies that focus on ranged attacks/spells/stuff. But unless most of your campaign is built to counter flying characters it's largely going to be something they can fly over.

Also pit traps and such stop working, entirely. Difficult Terrain, too.

2) Exploration is too easy.
Again, you just bypass challenges and things that would otherwise be difficult or dangerous.

3) 3d mapping is HARD.
Making flight work in a game based on 2d assumptions means some weird ways of handling stuff. Some people use tokens or markers on miniatures to represent elevation, some use clear plastic blocks to lift them up. And some people tie miniatures to the ceiling with dental floss or fishing line to show where they are above the battlefield... But even in games which don't use battlemaps flight can get confusing quickly.

For most games flight's really strong and really complicates things, so it's easier to have less of it.

 

[grimmgoose]

Flying PCs are "easy outs" and remove a lot of usable fantasy tropes and challenges for the GM, who doesn't need a harder time making things interesting for the players.

You hit the nail on the head, at least for me.

Can I deal with innate flight? Yes, of course.
Do I want to deal with innate flight? No, absolutely not.

It makes my job harder, without many positives for the game as a whole. Really, the question should be: how does innate flight make for better gameplay?

 

[Stalker0]

Only if the enemies have no way of flying either. I just don't see it happening that often--encounters outdoors and no enemies with flight or ranged weapons/spells. Not unless your narrator is very lenient.

Or uses many monsters or animals. Take a look at the MM, there are LOTS of things in their that have neither a ranged attack nor the ability to fly.

So why force the dms to use only a fraction of the book in order to challenge their PCs? The answer simply...you shouldn't, which is why fly is limited.