Would you allow this?

[Hawk Diesel]

Note to self: Next time you make a character that obtains the ability of flight, describe it as a giant claw like in the vending machines plucking them by the collar and lifting them wherever they decide to move.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

The OP's question hardly makes any sense though in terms of this actual ability. I think most people are assuming a situation like a winged tiefling or aarakocra, since that better matches the situation posed.

But for the record yes, if you are playing a protector aasimar and have simply declined to ever use your radiant soul ability, I would certainly say it remains available to you.

True. The OP references the SCAG, so it would seem the player may have been using the Aasimar originally published in the DMG. But in this case, they wouldn't have had flight to start, and would have had options that could have been utilized in place of flight. Especially since the flight ability is an optional exchange for another ability in the first place.

So yea... It is a bit confusing. Either the player choose an exchange from the original ability, but then didn't want it (I don't know how that might happen), or used a Protector Aasimar, but just choose not to fly when using the radiant soul ability, exchanging the description of luminous wings of light for the appearance of ghostly burned off wing stubs.

 

[jaelis]

So then, what would you say if a character was an aarakocra whose player had decided that his wings were amputated? Would you allow them to magically regenerate in a moment of crisis?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So then, what would you say if a character was an aarakocra whose player had decided that his wings were amputated? Would you allow them to magically regenerate in a moment of crisis?

Yes. It's a game with gods, monsters and magic. Fun trumps all, and it sounds like a fun potential plot hook.

D&D has always done a terrible job of simulating reality (where's the PTSD from being attacked so much or the erosion of your sanity from the massive amount of sentient beings you kill?). I'm not going to let that get in the way of a good time.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

So then, what would you say if a character was an aarakocra whose player had decided that his wings were amputated? Would you allow them to magically regenerate in a moment of crisis?

Yea, probably. For the following reasons:

1) Because magic

2) Because fun. Pretty much all Aarakroca get is their wings. Taking away the main reason a player would want to use such a race is incredibly mean and I can imagine that hampering the player's fun very much. If I as a DM took the player's wings, I would not force them to suffer long without giving them the means to get them back.

3) Would you cut off a dwarf character's legs? How long would you force a player to play such a character? This is not much different.

 

[Jer]

So then, what would you say if a character was an aarakocra whose player had decided that his wings were amputated? Would you allow them to magically regenerate in a moment of crisis?

If they come up with a good story for it then sure. Especially if it relates to how they lost their wings in the first place or their own ongoing storyline.

Or, conversely, if they are going to give me license as the DM to mess with them. My players know that there are enough archfey, demon lords, archdevils and outsiders in my games that they can get a massive "pull your fat out of the fire" bennie like that, but it's probably going to come from someone they aren't going to like dealing with and is going to have more strings attached than a marionette.

 

[jaelis]

3) Would you cut off a dwarf character's legs? How long would you force a player to play such a character? This is not much different.

Well be careful, there's a difference between me (as DM) cutting off a dwarf characters legs, and a player deciding it would be interesting to play a legless dwarf.

And of course, no one would force a player to keep using a character they were tired of. If the question was, "Would you let the player abandon their wingless aarokocra and make a new character," I'm sure everyone would say yes.

I don't thing same logic applies to "I would let this wingless aarakocra regrow their wings" or "I would let this legless dwarf regrow their legs." Which is not to say you shouldn't allow those things, I just think those are the more interesting questions.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Well be careful, there's a difference between me (as DM) cutting off a dwarf characters legs, and a player deciding it would be interesting to play a legless dwarf.

And of course, no one would force a player to keep using a character they were tired of. If the question was, "Would you let the player abandon their wingless aarokocra and make a new character," I'm sure everyone would say yes.

I don't thing same logic applies to "I would let this wingless aarakocra regrow their wings" or "I would let this legless dwarf regrow their legs." Which is not to say you shouldn't allow those things, I just think those are the more interesting questions.

Sure, I can see your point. But I also think that your comparison of a wingless Aakroca goes down the same slippery slope as my comparison for a legless dwarf. As I mentioned in a previous post, the lack of an Aarkroca's wings is not necessarily enough to prevent them from using their ability to fly. Flight is a mechanic, the presence or absence of wings is just how you skin the power or describe it. A player that wishes to play a dwarf without legs can do so without it impeding their movement. They can describe them as having ghostly spirit legs, tank treads, spider leg grafts, peg legs, or even just floating their at the height of a normal dwarf. So long as the skin or description does not provide any additional mechanical benefit all things are equal and viable. An Aarakroca always has the power of flight, a Protector Aasimar can always use their radiant soul to gain the ability to fly, and a wizard with fly in their spellbook can always use that spell. Whether or not they choose to use these abilities is different. But simply because a player may "opt out" is not enough reason to never allow them to use their ability. Just as a rogue that does not want to sneak attack always has the option to do so. Unless something equivalent is given to the player in exchange, they should never be cut off from using an ability simply because they have not previously utilized it.

 

[jaelis]

Sure, I can see your point. But I also think that your comparison of a wingless Aakroca goes down the same slippery slope as my comparison for a legless dwarf. As I mentioned in a previous post, the lack of an Aarkroca's wings is not necessarily enough to prevent them from using their ability to fly. Flight is a mechanic, the presence or absence of wings is just how you skin the power or describe it. A player that wishes to play a dwarf without legs can do so without it impeding their movement. They can describe them as having ghostly spirit legs, tank treads, spider leg grafts, peg legs, or even just floating their at the height of a normal dwarf. So long as the skin or description does not provide any additional mechanical benefit all things are equal and viable. An Aarakroca always has the power of flight, a Protector Aasimar can always use their radiant soul to gain the ability to fly, and a wizard with fly in their spellbook can always use that spell. Whether or not they choose to use these abilities is different. But simply because a player may "opt out" is not enough reason to never allow them to use their ability. Just as a rogue that does not want to sneak attack always has the option to do so. Unless something equivalent is given to the player in exchange, they should never be cut off from using an ability simply because they have not previously utilized it.

OK yes, but let's say the player has specifically decided they want to play a flightless aarokocra, or a crippled dwarf unable to walk. Otherwise I think you are just cheating the question a bit.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

OK yes, but let's say the player has specifically decided they want to play a flightless aarokocra, or a crippled dwarf unable to walk. Otherwise I think you are just cheating the question a bit.

In that case, I would seriously question why the player would want to play a crippled character and whether they would be a good fit for the table. Playing a suboptimal character is one thing, but playing one that is crippled in such a way that it is mechanically inferior is different than suboptimal. This would not just affect the player's enjoyment of the game, but the enjoyment for the entire table. I can see other players becoming frustrated by always having to support the weaker character, and such a character potentially taking more of the spotlight because their disability requires greater attention. I would have a long conversation with such a player, and I would offer them some other benefit to balance their disability so as not to cause problems down the line.

I mean, if we compare this to any other game, would a person willingly play monopoly against others without any starting cash? Would a person play Uno with 20 cards while everyone else has 7? What would the other players think of that and would they be ok with that?

Playing a suboptimal build is still putting a player on an even playing field with others, since the game is balanced for both levels of play. But there is a stark difference by purposely crippling your character.