How good is flying?

[Spectre9000]

Say you chose the Aarakocra or winged Tiefling... How good is being able to fly? You ignore difficult terrain, can pass obstacles others have significant trouble with (but are essentially separated from your group), but what other benefits are there?

[BDRook]

Any enemy that doesn't have some kind of ranged attack can't hit you, while you're free to pick them off free of any danger.

[. Shadowblade .]

flying is so useful that DMs disallow these flying races (or nerf them) a lot.

[IShouldntBehere]

More useful in the mountains than it is on a flat prairie. More useful on a flat prairie than it is in a dense forest or crowded city with lots of overhangs. More useful in a dense forest than it is a claustrophobic cave. More useful in a claustrophobic cave than it is underwater. More useful under water than it is submerged in lava.

Consider the kind of terrain you're likely to encounter and judge from there.

[Naanomi]

It varies a lot but the general answer is 'stellar at low levels, pretty great at higher levels; way better than what you 'give up' to get it as a racial option

[BW022]

Say you chose the Aarakocra or winged Tiefling... How good is being able to fly? You ignore difficult terrain, can pass obstacles others have significant trouble with (but are essentially separated from your group), but what other benefits are there?

It breaks a significant number of low-level encounters. It breaks many mid-level encounters if it is at-will and doesn't require concentration.

1. Most monsters do not have ranged attacks or the ability to fly. In any outdoor, city, large room, etc. encounters... it is basically an instant win for any archer or spell caster. A 1st-level wizard with fly can kill a CR 6 mammoth with little difficulty. Further, almost no low-level monsters have ranged attacks or flying. To the point, you might as well meta-game the combat.

2. Even monsters with ranged attacks, are typically much weaker than melee attacks. A great ape is 2x 22hp melee attacks vs. 1x30hp ranged attacks. A flying ranged character dramatically better off than someone on the ground. Often to the point, it isn't worth attacking you.

3. With #1 and #2, such creatures have little chance of fleeing. The flying wizard can easily keep up with the mammoth and (baring cover or buildings) can't escape.

4. With #1 and #2, you can always escape. You always have the option of fleeing.

5. It negates most low-level outdoor encounters. Walls, mountains, raging rivers, etc. are no longer any challenge. Scouting is also easy making it much more difficult to surprise the party. It also makes scouting extremely easy since if you see smoke in the distance, you can fly up 500' and safely see the orc camp, plan routes, etc.

6. It negates most low-level distance issues. You can fly across the city to deliver a message, you can fly to a city in a few hours and buy more potions of healing, etc.

[90sMusic]

Flying is fairly useful as non-ranged attacks can no longer threaten you.

However, you don't see folks saying the Flying spell is OP as everything, people just get really bent out of shape about flying races for some reason. People are weird like that, some of them think being able to fly all the time is crazy strong.

The fact is though, enemies aren't going to let you get away with it. If your party becomes known in the area for being badasses, the enemies you're going to face will know one of you can fly and will bring archers, wizards, whatever else they need to deal with it. They might start laying traps that would affect you as well as your allies or stage ambushes in environments where flying wouldn't give you any benefit like inside buildings or other cramped spaces or with less than 10 feet of clearance.

The biggest advantage to flying is being able to fly over obstacles.

Most obstacles can easily be traversed like flying over a wall is not that different from climbing up the wall, climbing just gives you a chance of failure while flying doesn't. DM's like to see failures. Whether they are sadists or think "failure" makes the game more interesting, most of them want to throw tons and tons of checks at you so that you have more and more chances to fail because they think it makes the game more interesting.

What they fail to realize though, is that it ultimately doesn't matter if you can fly over that wall because your team mates cannot. They will still be climbing it manually, even if you drop a rope down to help them, they could've made a makeshift grappling hook and accomplished the same thing. Yeah you can fly over that chasm and scout ahead, but so could a wizard's familiar. It can still relay all that it sees and hears back to the party, and most people won't think twice about seeing a bird flying around, but seeing a winged tiefling flying around is going to raise a few flags.

It is nowhere near as strong as people want to make you believe it is. It provides some convenience to the player to bypass a handful of challenges, but it doesn't make the character or the party suddenly imbalanced. I'd argue having resistance is much stronger. Fire resist especially since so many things deal fire damage and halving all of it is really nice. It's the same idea though, it isn't going to help you in every situation, but neither is flying. People are just dramatic. :)

[MrStabby]

However, you don't see folks saying the Flying spell is OP as everything, people just get really bent out of shape about flying races for some reason. People are weird like that, some of them think being able to fly all the time is crazy strong.


Yeah, I'm one of those people. For some reason getting a level 3 spell for free with no components needed, no casting time, no spell slot used and no concentration seems good.

Realistically, even if it isn't powerful - it isn't fun for the party. It kind of eliminates a whole bunch of encounter types being viable to challenge the party and pushes combat to being more of the same. Suddenly another player's ability to climb or to swim looks a bit crap.

[Temperjoke]

It's only as good as the DM allows it to be. What I mean is, if the DM doesn't tweak the campaign to account for this ability, then I don't think they're fully doing their jobs. Sure, maybe not every single enemy will have ranged capabilities, but a couple of them having crossbows wouldn't be out of the question. Unless the entire party flies, a single party member flying high is a tempting target for hungry flying enemies, or at least, be easy to spot by pursuing enemies. Depending on the campaign, a party member with big wings will definitely stand out and attract attention, which may not be a good thing, if they're infiltrating or trying to be incognito.

[Spacehamster]

In the end all it does is give the DM more work, let it be useful from time to time but also counter it from time to time. Basically letting the char with flying feel useful and special while at the same time not letting him/her steal the show.

[Sigreid]

It depends on a lot of factors. Really good on a plain or mountain tops where you have good line of sight. Not particularly useful in dense jungle or dungeon. Could be practically inviting the DM to kill you with the rest of the group unable to help.

I do think that if you're going to play a bird man you should play up the claustrophobia and completely freak at the idea of being inside.

[Mellack]

I never understood the idea of birdmen being claustrophobic. Many birds like small confined spaces for nesting. Look at how small a birdhouse is. People generally are not to worried about being indoors either, so I don't see why the combination would be uncomfortable.

[Kane0]

It's as good as your DM lets it be.

Being able to move in an extra dimension compared to your party can be a great boost. It allows you to clear cover, see further, get a good angle, evade people trying to stab you, get attention, flee a situation, etc
On the other hand it makes you an easy target, often leaves your party behind where you can't help each other, is useless in confined spaces, often attracts attention, etc

For every advantage you can think of a competent DM/foe can counter. A good DM/foe won't always do so, else there's no point to having the advantage in the first place, but never submit to the belief that you are superior just because you happen to be in the air.

On a somewhat related note, have you seen the Earthbind spell from the EE player companion? Worth knowing about...

[hymer]

I never understood the idea of birdmen being claustrophobic. Many birds like small confined spaces for nesting. Look at how small a birdhouse is. People generally are not to worried about being indoors either, so I don't see why the combination would be uncomfortable.

Not having seen any studies on bird species' claustrophobia levels, I'll make an assumption: The larger a fully flight-capable bird is, the less does it like to be in an enclosed space. Flight is a main defence against predators, and it needs space to take off. When I see swans or geese, they're pretty much always in open areas, and the biggest eagles like mountainous terrain and the ocean.
I'd suggest that the feeling of claustrophobia would increase drastically if there is also expected danger from enemies in the area. Walking into a good friend's home may be quite comfortable, whereas trying to fight indoors is very unappealing.

That said, I've never yet seen a player roleplay a sense of claustrophobia at times when normal humans ought to show some hesitation - other than trying to get away from squeezing during a fight, you might say.

[JellyPooga]

It is nowhere near as strong as people want to make you believe it is. It provides some convenience to the player to bypass a handful of challenges, but it doesn't make the character or the party suddenly imbalanced. I'd argue having resistance is much stronger. Fire resist especially since so many things deal fire damage and halving all of it is really nice. It's the same idea though, it isn't going to help you in every situation, but neither is flying. People are just dramatic. :)

Pretty much this.

The Fly spell is still much better than mechanical flight due to it being...well, magical. As others have pointed out most of these;
- When you consider that as an Aarakocra or Winged Tiefling, you likely have a wingspan of around 12ft, you're not flying down most corridors without your wingtips scraping the walls.
- When you consider that most rooms have a ceiling of about 8-9ft, you're not getting significant advantage from flying in most buildings or dungeons. Forests have similar problems.
- Then you need to consider that unless everyone is playing a flying Race, you being able to avoid an obstacle doesn't mean everyone can unless you're playing a particularly beefy example of your Race and can carry everyone else over but even then it's going to take time to ferry them all over one at a time (uness the rest of the party is all Halflings and Gnomes, I suppose...).
- Then theres mundane foils to flight; a net thrown almost anywhere in your general vicinity will ruin your day and you can't glide to the bottom of a narrow pit if it takes you by surprise, nor fly your way out.
- Wet wings? Good luck taking off with sodden feathers.

Racial Flight is nice, but it's nowhere near the overpowered game-breaker some people make it out to be. Perhaps it gives the GM a little more work, but no more so than any other specialisation a character might have. Rogue took Expertise in Perception and auto-spots all the secret doors? Bump up the DC on a couple of them. Barbarian in the party? Might want to make that portcullis a little heavier. Player with flight in the party? Hmm, I'll just make that climb a chimney instead of a cliff and equip that group of Hobgoblins with longbows...sorted. It ain't rocket science.

When people say "most monsters don't have ranged attacks"...they're lying. Perhaps there aren't so many stat-blocks in the MM that have ranged attacks, but that doesn't mean you can't equip anything vaguely humanoid with ranged weaponry without any problem. Then there's a whole selection of monsters that also fly; pixies, gargoyles, giant owls, blood hawks, Oni, Imps, Spined Devils, Dragons...it's a pretty exhaustive list and ranges from CR:1/8 all the way up to CR:20+. Certanly no lack of choice. Some can even use ranged weapons too (shocking, right?). Between everything with a (potential) ranged attack and everything with flight, I'd go so far as to say that there's much more things in the Monster Manual that can easily challenge a flying creature than there are that can't. Even then, that's ignoring environmental concerns; Iron Golem in a tunnel? Good luck flying your way past that encounter. Mammoth in a blizzard-blasted ravine? I wouldn't want to take my chances airborne in 50mph winds.

No, flight is very much overrated, in my opinion. Good, yes, but no more powerful than any other Racial feature (and often less applicable).

[Vogonjeltz]

Any enemy that doesn't have some kind of ranged attack can't hit you, while you're free to pick them off free of any danger.

Are you saying that, as a player, you wouldn't have a ranged attack, and if you didn't, you would just sit out in the open?

Most all enemies are going to have access to ranged attacks, flight, or be in an area that constricts flight or limits the actual range for ranged attacks.

Flight is fun and flavorful, but it carries negative effects and it definitely isn't going to be a panacea.

[RickAllison]

Are you saying that, as a player, you wouldn't have a ranged attack, and if you didn't, you would just sit out in the open?

Most all enemies are going to have access to ranged attacks, flight, or be in an area that constricts flight or limits the actual range for ranged attacks.

Flight is fun and flavorful, but it carries negative effects and it definitely isn't going to be a panacea.

Indeed. They can certainly wreck bears or elephants, but they aren't going to be great against anyone with hands. Oh, and any enemies who can't touch them can still hit their allies.

[Samayu]

We had a winged tiefling in the party until recently. He had huge advantages due to the flight. Particularly being able to avoid difficult ground, and avoiding hazards like cliff faces, rickety rope bridges and such. The disadvantage is that he could easily get out of range of help. This is how he died, in fact. More pluses than minuses, if you ask me. I was a bit annoyed that he was allowed to wear armor without paying to have it altered to fit his form.

[Sigreid]

I never understood the idea of birdmen being claustrophobic. Many birds like small confined spaces for nesting. Look at how small a birdhouse is. People generally are not to worried about being indoors either, so I don't see why the combination would be uncomfortable.

I was strictly going on the description of the race in the book.

[RickAllison]

We had a winged tiefling in the party until recently. He had huge advantages due to the flight. Particularly being able to avoid difficult ground, and avoiding hazards like cliff faces, rickety rope bridges and such. The disadvantage is that he could easily get out of range of help. This is how he died, in fact. More pluses than minuses, if you ask me. I was a bit annoyed that he was allowed to wear armor without paying to have it altered to fit his form.

It should have more pluses than minuses considering that, at least in the case of the aarakocra, that is the ONLY real benefit they have.

[Dr. Cliché]

The Fly spell is still much better than mechanical flight due to it being...well, magical.

To be fair, that also comes with its own downsides. A caster has to use a spell slot every time he wants to fly and can only do so for a short period of time. A winged tiefling can fly whenever he wants.



- When you consider that as an Aarakocra or Winged Tiefling, you likely have a wingspan of around 12ft, you're not flying down most corridors without your wingtips scraping the walls.

To be fair, it's not like magical flight would help there either. Not unless someone has built a corridor that's ~10 feet wide and 50ft tall for some bizarre reason. :smallwink:



- Then you need to consider that unless everyone is playing a flying Race, you being able to avoid an obstacle doesn't mean everyone can unless you're playing a particularly beefy example of your Race and can carry everyone else over but even then it's going to take time to ferry them all over one at a time (uness the rest of the party is all Halflings and Gnomes, I suppose...).

That's true. On the other hand, a flying member can still be a great help by, for example, securing a rope to the top of an obstacle or to the other side of a chasm (which the others can then climb up/across).



- Then theres mundane foils to flight; a net thrown almost anywhere in your general vicinity will ruin your day and you can't glide to the bottom of a narrow pit if it takes you by surprise, nor fly your way out.

Granted. But then, unless you've already cast fly on yourself, it's not going to save you from a narrow pit either.

Also, whilst a net might not be a problem, taking any damage at all whilst using the Fly spell can result in you immediately plummeting to the ground.

[Naanomi]

Better than other racial abilities? Probably. Break the game with an adaptable DM at the helm? Probably not. Absolutely destroy 70%+ of encounters in prepublished modules as written? For sure.

[Armored Walrus]

I never understood the idea of birdmen being claustrophobic. Many birds like small confined spaces for nesting. Look at how small a birdhouse is. People generally are not to worried about being indoors either, so I don't see why the combination would be uncomfortable.

Because Aarakocra natively live on the elemental plain of Air. They spend their whole lives in the air, rarely touching the ground. So going underground or being inside a building is typically completely outside of their experience. If you want a real life analogy, quit comparing aarakocra to sparrows and look at eagles. They live in very large, open nests at the tops of tall trees, not in little holes in the tree. Or condors, again, large nests on cliff faces, not little holes.

Edit: To the OP. I'm playing an Aarakocra warlock in a PoA pbp game right now. I thought I was going to have to hold myself back from exploiting the flying eldritch blast mechanic, but this campaign is mostly dungeon crawling so far, so I've not really used my flight at all. The one outdoor encounter we've experienced had an enemy that also flew.

[Sabeta]

Given an Aaracokra a +1 Longbow and a lot of arrows and watch him solo a Terrasque as early as level 1.

Anyway, if you do allow Birdpeople or Batpeople all you need to do is adjust for that racial feature. I'm running a semi-steampunk campaign so it's easy to justify Goblins with Gliders, but otherwise you can just use the flying version of Kobolds or give people winged mounts and probably be just fine. Or, you could just throw more birdpeople at them.

[RickAllison]

I have played the bird-men twice, and with very different attitudes on claustrophobia. My rogue preferred open spaces and became very paranoid in castles because he went into the military as a scout and was deployed on the material plane. My monk/warlock/sorcerer was deployed into an advance party on the Elemental Plane of Earth, so he didn't really care.

Don't forget that aarakocra adventurers have to have a reason to have left the home plane.

[Addaran]

Edit: To the OP. I'm playing an Aarakocra warlock in a PoA pbp game right now. I thought I was going to have to hold myself back from exploiting the flying eldritch blast mechanic, but this campaign is mostly dungeon crawling so far, so I've not really used my flight at all. The one outdoor encounter we've experienced had an enemy that also flew.

Princes of the apocalypse? I'm DMing it and one of my player is a winged tiefling. There is a lot of places in the dungeons that have a ceilling of 15-30fts, so it should still be useful a lot. Still in range of ranged attacks, but for a lot of enemies, they are weaker then the melee ones.

[Temperjoke]

On a side note, do you think that winged tieflings can wrap their wings around their shoulders a la Gargoyles' style?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2c/52/6b/2c526b9bbea11daa5ce28b6c9d3213f3.png

[Dr. Cliché]

On a side note, do you think that winged tieflings can wrap their wings around their shoulders a la Gargoyles' style?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/2c/52/6b/2c526b9bbea11daa5ce28b6c9d3213f3.png

If I was a DM, I'd definitely allow that sort of thing.

[Asmotherion]

Let's see:

A) If you're a ranged attacker (I am always a blast-lock), you nullify the possibility of mellee till very far into the game, and are virtually unstopable.

B) Fly past enemies.

C) Grapple someone, fly up, let it go when you're 200 feet high for 20d6 dammage can be a very nice strategy

D) Falling damage is (almost) never a threat to you


Well, it's not perfect, it has flaws. For exampl, you can't fly in a dungeon with a low celling, there are always blasters and archers, and there also will be the occasional flying opponent. But, it's definitelly a good oppen field strategy, and the perfect thing to keep things at bay most of the time.

It's also a super-cool RP tool, as both a cool factor, and an item of admiration, envy and superstition. Especially as a tiefling, you will find wizards more willing to chat with you, wile common folk more prone to avoid you. It's all up to how you'll play your character, but by all means, do consider it as if you just chose the "hard" option in the RP menu.

I love to play the Tiefling Varient both because of the bonuses of flying, and because I love my RP dialogues to be "hardcore and unforgiving" by my DM. Say the wrong thing to the right person, and farmers will gather their torches and pitchforks before you know it. XD

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Yeah, I'm one of those people. For some reason getting a level 3 spell for free with no components needed, no casting time, no spell slot used and no concentration seems good.

Realistically, even if it isn't powerful - it isn't fun for the party. It kind of eliminates a whole bunch of encounter types being viable to challenge the party and pushes combat to being more of the same. Suddenly another player's ability to climb or to swim looks a bit crap.

This is pretty much my stance. Flight isn't just strong, it's limiting because it homogenizes encounter types. Have to climb a series of ledges, swim across a lake, navigate a rickety rope bridge, fight on a narrow walkway over lava? Nope, just fly.

Plus, you'd never say "Fireball is a magic spell, a race that has access to it at will from level one isn't that strong".

[Ninja_Prawn]

D) Falling damage is (almost) never a threat to you

I actually think falling damage is more of a threat to fliers, as they spend more time off the ground, so any ability that restricts their movement immediately brings it into play. I recently had my players (three of five have facial flight) fight some giant spiders in a treehouse village type setting. This is (part of) what went down:

The faerie dragon druid flies into clear air, about 55 feet up, harasses the spiders with ranged magic.
One of the spiders hits him with webbing.
He falls out of the sky, almost dies from falling damage.
A swarm of ground-based spiders crawls over him, could have finished him off but missed.
Pixie wizard flies down, makes a strength check (with 5 Strength) to break the webbing... critical success!
He disengages, the (land-based) fighter kills the swarm with fire.
It was fun, and felt like there was some real risk. Especially because the faerie dragon was at the time their main healer (they have a paladin too, but she was tied down elsewhere on the battlefield, and the wizard has since picked up the Healer feat).

So yeah, I'm on the side of 'flying is overrated'. It's good, but it it's not beyond balancing. And I say this as someone who has DMed for a majority-flying party for 15 months.

[Steampunkette]

It's good, maybe great, but not broken.

Yes. There are a lot of creatures in the game who don't have flying. A Lot of those creatures who don't fly also don't have ranged attacks.

And 99% of those monsters will play, at best, a very brief cameo role in any given game.

Most enemies you're going to fight are Humanoids, Giants, Undead, or Fiends. Depending on the game you might fight a boatload of elementals or Fey. But simply due to the nature of storytelling, that is you'll have a setpiece antagonist and force rallying against you with random encounters along the way, most enemies will have something to do with the core story which is usually tied to humanoids, giants, undead, or fiends (With Elemental and Fey centric campaigns being more rare).

Humanoids and Giants either have ranged attacks or can get ranged attacks by grabbing something nearby or stealing a ranged weapon off a downed PC (Or NPC). Undead and Fiends (aside from the lowliest and least intelligent forms) generally have spells, magical attacks, or straight up ranged abilities as well. And even when they -don't- they can also usually use ranged weapons (Skeletal archers, anyone?)

In the rare event that the campaign centers around aberrations (Here's looking at you, C'thulhu) there's enough aberrations that can fly, use spells, or psychically screw you over that it's really not much of an issue even if they decide not to pick up your, now brain-melted, archer's +1 longbow.

Will those ranged attacks be weaker than the melee attacks? Probably. But ranged PCs tend to have less health than melee PCs (Wizards, Warlocks, etc) and tend to go down faster (whether they're on the ground or not), so the lack of damage is pretty much a wash unless it's a Ranger or Archer Fighter. There are exceptions, of course, like Elven Archers who probably dish more damage at range than in melee, and wizardly types who don't care whether you're on the ground or in the air so long as you're in range of their scorching ray or whatever.

And if you're playing a Flyer who is a melee character (Barbarian, fighter, paladin, rogue) you're not really getting the full mobility of your flight and that's pretty hardcore of you. You rock.

Can they avoid difficult terrain? Hell yeah, it's probably the best part of being a flying character. Do most DMs actually -use- difficult terrain in their games? Most I've played with barely mention it. Now someone is gonna pop up and say "There are situations where getting to the best position is critical and Flyers are great at it" to which I reply: And in the vast majority of situations it's pretty irrelevant. So nice benefit, but there's a reason it's a Ribbon when Rangers get to ignore difficult terrain.

Yes. You can grapple someone and lift them 200ft in the air before letting them go. But you've gotta fly into melee, grab them, manage to hold onto them to 200ft, and manage to let them go without them trying to hang onto you while you're flying, assuming you've got enough strength to pick them up in the first place (Flight Weight Capacity should max out at light, I think). And that's a hell of a lot more risk than "Darkness. Eyes of the Devil. Eldritch Blast until I get bored."

Getting around hazards like cliffs and rickety bridges: Seriously? Is this really something we're gonna debate? Okay. So. Cliff. The flying character flies to the top of the cliff and ties off a rope. Thus performing all of the amazing benefits of a freaking Grappling hook. Congratulations, you've saved your party several silver pieces and a couple of athletics checks (or attack rolls, whatever the DM calls for) to get it set. Rickety bridge fly-by? Automatic success on a single dex save. Wooptee doo. This is boring stuff, folks. I mean, seriously. If the rickety bridge was going to be a big threat to the party I feel like the party deserves to fall off the rickety bridge. :P

So yeah. Very much a situational benefit. Either it's great in some fairly narrow circumstances, nice in some broader ones, or it's just neat. The only time it ever becomes a hindrance is when you're flying too high for your Hit Points.

[ApplePen]

I'd just like to point out that enemies grabbing your +x longbow mid fight is really not as good as it was in 4 or 3.5, because attunement. They can still shoot, but the weapon becomes normal in their hands.

Flight is *outstanding*.
You basically eliminate 3 skill checks entirely (acrobatics, athletics, stealth) because your answer to any problem where you'd need one is "I fly."
You ignore any non-ranged enemy.
You can therefore spend your resources on being better against ranged attack.
Weather this means focusing on pinpoint damage or on defensive abilities, you end up with fewer threats and the same resources to mitigate them.

The downside is that certain spells really screw you, but hold person would have probably killed you anyway

[MrConsideration]

I haven't banned any flying races. although my players have chosen not to play as them they are now high enough level to have access to Fly and Polymorph though. I do play alongside an Aarackocra Ranger in another campaign, though.

Flying is a powerful ability , but it bring a pretty big pile of potential weaknesses and downsides for a DM to exploit in game, too.

It's completely useless in almost all interiors, where the overwhelming majority of combat takes place. Unless the ceiling is high enough for you to be out of reach, flying serves no purpose.

Being hit with Tasha's Hideous Laughter or Hold Person in the air presumably means you take falling damage on top of the spell's effects, and may land somewhere very inconvenient - possibly among a big crowd of enemies. Having your Aarackocra fall unconscious has a similar effect.

Is overcoming 'there's a scary bridge, roll some dice to use Athletics and move on from this to the good stuff' really that interesting an encounter that having it nullified is a loss? How about: "your party is fleeing a pack of Werewolves and you can either make your stand on the rickety bridge or flee over it, in the midst of a thunderstorm"? It's a more interesting encounter where your flying characters are extremely useful but don't trivialise the encounter at all.

If you're flying in a Dungeon or Forest, you're separated from the party and could easily encounter dangerous enemies whilst alone - there are plenty of flying threats or climbing monsters, or monsters dwelling in the top of dark caves, to threaten lone flying characters.

The vaunted 'fly above the troll, ping it to death with cantrips' strategy doesn't really take into account that Dungeons and Dragons is a team game, and watching your teammates be mashed whilst you're out of harm's way is situationally useful at best.

If your DM pulls creatures with no ranged attacks or movement abilities or spells out of the monster manual, and you fight them in an infinite grassy plain with no terrain features, and the only objective of the combat is to kill the other party. In actual play, it's not that great, because there are always circumstances limiting its use.

[Forum Explorer]

I'd just like to point out that enemies grabbing your +x longbow mid fight is really not as good as it was in 4 or 3.5, because attunement. They can still shoot, but the weapon becomes normal in their hands.

Flight is *outstanding*.
You basically eliminate 3 skill checks entirely (acrobatics, athletics, stealth) because your answer to any problem where you'd need one is "I fly."
You ignore any non-ranged enemy.
You can therefore spend your resources on being better against ranged attack.
Weather this means focusing on pinpoint damage or on defensive abilities, you end up with fewer threats and the same resources to mitigate them.

The downside is that certain spells really screw you, but hold person would have probably killed you anyway

BS

Flying in a forest? Make an acrobatics test.

Flying in a wind (remember, the higher you go the more powerful the wind gets), make an athletics test.

And how on Earth does flying help with stealth? Wings are loud! Even tiny insects make a lot of noise when flying around. Sure, some things fly relatively silently, but they are the exception, not the rule. (The flight spell, doesn't have that problem obviously)


Anyways, I think the power of flying is entirely dependent on the campaign you are playing. Are you in a city 95% of the time? It'll have it's moments, but it's effectiveness is greatly reduced, because most encounters will be inside, or will move inside to avoid you sniping them. Are you doing literal dungeon crawling? It's basically useless. Welcome to having no racial features. Are you doing an open world exploration game? It's downright the best ability you can have at level 1, because you are a better scout, travel further faster, and are safer.

[JellyPooga]

Plus, you'd never say "Fireball is a magic spell, a race that has access to it at will from level one isn't that strong".

Water Breathing and Protection from Elements are also 3rd level spells that certain Races have, at will, from level 1 too. Want to complain about them being OP too?

Half-Orcs effectively get Death Ward, a 4th level spell, 1/day. Is that OP too?

Halflings get the innate ability to re-roll any natural 1's...no spell at all does that. Except maybe Wish I suppose. Quick! Ban Halflings! They have at-will Wish! :smallannoyed:

If you're going to make an analogy, make sure it's a relevant one. No-one is saying flight is weak; it clearly has its uses. It's just not the overpowered game-breaker that some people make it out to be. It can be a game-changer, no doubt, but I challenge anyone to actually break a game with it any more than, say, a Dragonborn might "break" a game by roasting a heap of goblins with his breath weapon, turning a mook fight into a one-round wonder, or a High Elf Rogue might "break" the game by taking BB as his Cantrip and solo-kiting the BBEG to death.

[Vogonjeltz]

We had a winged tiefling in the party until recently. He had huge advantages due to the flight. Particularly being able to avoid difficult ground, and avoiding hazards like cliff faces, rickety rope bridges and such. The disadvantage is that he could easily get out of range of help. This is how he died, in fact. More pluses than minuses, if you ask me. I was a bit annoyed that he was allowed to wear armor without paying to have it altered to fit his form.

Being dead seems like a bigger minus than those pluses...

[Steampunkette]

I
Is overcoming 'there's a scary bridge, roll some dice to use Athletics and move on from this to the good stuff' really that interesting an encounter that having it nullified is a loss? How about: "your party is fleeing a pack of Werewolves and you can either make your stand on the rickety bridge or flee over it, in the midst of a thunderstorm"? It's a more interesting encounter where your flying characters are extremely useful but don't trivialise the encounter at all.

In this encounter, I'd say the flyer is in the most danger.

The people on the rickety bridge in the thunderstorm can fall with a failed save, sure. A save they should probably make once per round when they're hit or the bridge is attacked or something else causes that check to occur. But that birdman or tiefling or kobold should be making athletics checks every single round to maintain their position or get blown out of the sky.

In a storm I'd like to think of flying as swimming in harsh water: You're dealing with currents, eddies, and choppy air that will buffet you around.

As to the comment about flying avoiding acrobatics/athletics/stealth: I'm 100% in concurrence with Forum Explorer. It doesn't negate those skills, it changes their use. Except Stealth: Which you shouldn't be able to do while flying unless you're an owl-person or a pure glider. You have to displace far too much wind for it to make any sense, otherwise.

And Vogonjeltz hit the "3rd level spell" argument on the head.

[Mellack]

Being a flyer also increases your chance of death. If your flyer ever gets knocked to 0 putting them unconcious, they will fall. That falling damage is an automatic failed death save.

[Asmotherion]

A lot of people here emphasise on the scenario were you are targeted by an appropriate spell and fall to the ground. However, I think this logic is a bit irrelevant:

It's about being able to do something or not, and what the trade-off is to do so. It's the same as saying "sleight of hand is a bad skill to have because you could get caught stealing and go to jail" or "perception is a bad skill; you might see the eye of a medusa and get petrified because of it, so better dump it".

As I said, flying is an amazing thing to have, yet balanced. Used corectly it can be amazing, used poorly it can be your demise.

You have to also think of the trade-offs.

As an Aracokra, I'd say the fact you want to be a bird-person is enough of a reason to be able to fly. All races get something after all, and yours just happens to be a cool movement speed.

As a Tiefling, you trade-off some spells... the same spells your iconic class (Warlock) grands you anyway. In case you do not want to be a Warlock, the ability to move in a 3rd dimension is still going to be better for you than some spells, be it because you intend to be a Caster (Keeping things away is one of the best things for a ranged caster), Ranged attacker (Same reason), or Melee attacker (In the case you're against something that can fly as well).

[DrDinocrusher]

Generally speaking, flying is really, really good. Hence why it is often found only as very high level class abilities or requires a spell slot, the bizarrely common boots of flying aside. Yes, you can fall to the ground but that's a risk of aerial combat. Having the option to fly is one hundred thousand percent better than not having it at all. You can ignore ground terrain, falling damage, pit traps, and crevasses. You can make it impossible for enemies to hit you, or prevent them from running away. And the list goes on. It's incredibly strong, which is why aaraccokra are banned in the AL.

[Naanomi]

AL ban on flying races is especially understandable. Most of the 'balances' against fliers require (reasonable) GM intervention that just isn't written into most of the prewritten modules; and AL is intended to run things 'as written' for the most part. That means no handing the goblins bows their statblock doesn't have, no sudden exhaustion levels from high winds, etc

[BlacKnight]

I think flying races are problematic. Notice that a warlock can have an Eldritch Blast with more range than any other weapon or spell. This means that it could easily shoot from a safe high. Without talking about scouting.
Sure, I could avoid situations that make flying races OP, but why should I ?
Why should I reduce the variety of my game ?
If all players were to use flying races I could make scenarios for flying parties, but if it's only 1 player I think it's better to ban those races and have open field battles.

[Vogonjeltz]

AL ban on flying races is especially understandable. Most of the 'balances' against fliers require (reasonable) GM intervention that just isn't written into most of the prewritten modules; and AL is intended to run things 'as written' for the most part. That means no handing the goblins bows their statblock doesn't have, no sudden exhaustion levels from high winds, etc

Away from book, but I thought goblins already had bows in their stat block.

[ApplePen]

BS

Flying in a forest? Make an acrobatics test.

Flying in a wind (remember, the higher you go the more powerful the wind gets), make an athletics test.

And how on Earth does flying help with stealth? Wings are loud! Even tiny insects make a lot of noise when flying around. Sure, some things fly relatively silently, but they are the exception, not the rule. (The flight spell, doesn't have that problem obviously)


Anyways, I think the power of flying is entirely dependent on the campaign you are playing. Are you in a city 95% of the time? It'll have it's moments, but it's effectiveness is greatly reduced, because most encounters will be inside, or will move inside to avoid you sniping them. Are you doing literal dungeon crawling? It's basically useless. Welcome to having no racial features. Are you doing an open world exploration game? It's downright the best ability you can have at level 1, because you are a better scout, travel further faster, and are safer.

Sure you can create new acrobatics/athletics checks, but if they miraculously coincide with every obstacle the rest of the group has to deal with?

Every bridge, chasm, pit trap, ledge, and wall that they would have had to make a check for is now irrelevant. If you want to create new obstacles at the same time, you the DM are now specifically adjusting the world to challenge the flying guy.

Which is the definition of OP.

[Forum Explorer]

Sure you can create new acrobatics/athletics checks, but if they miraculously coincide with every obstacle the rest of the group has to deal with?

Every bridge, chasm, pit trap, ledge, and wall that they would have had to make a check for is now irrelevant. If you want to create new obstacles at the same time, you the DM are now specifically adjusting the world to challenge the flying guy.

Which is the definition of OP.

I think I may be misunderstanding you here, but I'll try and elaborate.

There are and will be tests in Acrobatics and Athletics that are exclusive to flying. Situations where if you want to fly effectively, you'll have to make an Acrobatics/Athletics test. And failing those tests will have consequences, just like failing an Athletics test to cross a river would have consequences. Yes, you could avoid them by staying grounded, but now you aren't getting to use your racial feature that you gave up so many bonuses for.

And I'm fine with some obstacles being rendered irrelevant by their flying. That's fine, and they aren't the entire party. Everyone else will still have to overcome the obstacle, it's not like the flying guy is going to go on solo adventures while he waits.

As for specially adjusting the world, I do that anyways. I build my encounters with the PCs in mind. And I try to include encounters that some PCs will find trivial, and other encounters that are tailored to target those same PC's weaknesses.

I may throw a sudden squall at the party to challenge the flying guy. I may have the halfing rogue arrested by a racist guard for a crime they didn't commit. I may have a succubus target the lustful bard. And on other hand I may have an impassible cliff be solved by the flying guy, a lock for the rogue to pick, a maid with a secret for the bard to seduce. That way, the players will hopefully feel like their strengths and their weaknesses matter.

[Steampunkette]

"I have to change things to account for the strengths and weaknesses of the party I'm running a game for?! UNACCEPTABLE!"

Seriously, though. That's a terrible argument.

Darkvision is too OP because you don't have to make Perception Checks to see people in dark rooms! You also don't have to take disadvantage on Investigate or attack rolls on targets within range on Moonless nights! OP!

Overpowered is out of line with the power of the game. A flying character is no going to hit harder, more often, or get hit less than any other character. They'll get hit for less damage than melee characters, but so will literally any archer or mage who is smart enough to stand at range to fight.

Or is having Ranged Attacks OP because the mammoth can't reach the archer to squish him while fighting against the barbarian?

[BlacKnight]

"I have to change things to account for the strengths and weaknesses of the party I'm running a game for?! UNACCEPTABLE!"

Seriously, though. That's a terrible argument.

Darkvision is too OP because you don't have to make Perception Checks to see people in dark rooms! You also don't have to take disadvantage on Investigate or attack rolls on targets within range on Moonless nights! OP!

Overpowered is out of line with the power of the game. A flying character is no going to hit harder, more often, or get hit less than any other character. They'll get hit for less damage than melee characters, but so will literally any archer or mage who is smart enough to stand at range to fight.

Or is having Ranged Attacks OP because the mammoth can't reach the archer to squish him while fighting against the barbarian?

Except that a flying character is going to be hitten less than any other character in the game. As I already said a Warlock with the right feat and invocation can hit from range 600. There is nothing that could reach them at such altitude. Sure it doesn't work indoors, there could be enemy flyers, there could be adverse weather but why can't I have adventure in the open with good weather without flying enemies everywhere ?
Normal ranged characters have a problem: they need a meatshield. Flying warlock doesn't. They could literally solo an encouter in the right circumstances, and these circumstances are far too broad.
They don't make a drove of angry mammoths or a gang or bandits on horse easier encounters. They make them irrelevant.
I can't think of another type of character with a similar impact on the game.

[Ninja_Prawn]

As I already said a Warlock with the right feat and invocation can hit from range 600. There is nothing that could reach them at such altitude.

Can you even see targets at 600 feet? You certainly can't at night unless someone gets close enough to light them up for you. Or in any kind of terrain (forests, swamps, jungles, crop fields, mountains, caves, indoors, even at sea there is probably a mess of sails and rigging in the way). Terrain makes fights interesting; if your DM is halfway competent, you're only going to see this 'empty battlefield' is a tiny fraction of battles.


They don't make a drove of angry mammoths or a gang or bandits on horse easier encounters. They make them irrelevant.

That isn't true at all. Why is your theoretical character even fighting the mammoths in the first place? It's almost certainly because they are a threat to someone who can't just fly away. No just goes around killing mammoths for fun (at least not in a D&D game). And the bandits? Maybe they have hostages. Maybe they're robbing a bank. Sniping at them from 600 feet is probably a losing strategy in those encounters.

In my experience, encounters that can be completely trivialised by fliers are far less common than you are suggesting. Yes, it's a great ability, but it's no better than the many other great abilities PCs could have.

[Dr. Cliché]

Can you even see targets at 600 feet?

Of course you can.

So long as nothing is blocking your LoS, you can see for miles.

The question is whether you can accurately aim spells at that range. :smalltongue:

[JellyPooga]

Of course you can.

So long as nothing is blocking your LoS, you can see for miles.

The question is whether you can accurately aim spells at that range. :smalltongue:

As the Stealthy Crustacean says though, being able to do something doesn't make it a good plan under the circumstances. Yes, in a fight in the open, during the day, in good weather, where there's no other goal except "kill the enemy", natural flight is great...but how many of those encounters are you going to have in a day? In a week? In an entire campaign? I'm guessing very few.

Warlocks aren't the only ones capable of engaging at that range either; an enemy counterpart (the "evil twin" trope is pretty common), for one, can snipe you just as easily as you can snipe him. Enemy spellcasters can easily engage at such ranges, whether by responding in kind, summoning a flying ally or two (pixies, mephits, an air elemental, etc.). A Fly spell cast on your enemies will leave you separated from your allies, at least 6 rounds straight flying away (unless you want to risk falling...) and engaged by potentially multiple foes (or one very tough one). Large scale fixed emplacements, such as ballistae, can put you under threat. Then there's foes with flight of their own...

Sure, being able to engage at altitude is a handy boon, every now and then, but it's simply not breaking anyones game.

[Dr. Cliché]

As the Stealthy Crustacean says though, being able to do something doesn't make it a good plan under the circumstances.

I didn't say that it was a good plan, only that it was perfectly possible.

[Citan]

How good is flying?
I'll plus the answer "as good as your DM let it be".
Before the DM puts some stops through encounter design, there are many great things you can do.

Even in dungeons corridors, mind you, flying can be useful. If only to avoid fall pits or hidden ground triggers for other deadly traps. ;)
Of, if ceiling is high enough, simply passing above enemy lines to reach one particular target. ;)

[BlacKnight]

Can you even see targets at 600 feet? You certainly can't at night unless someone gets close enough to light them up for you. Or in any kind of terrain (forests, swamps, jungles, crop fields, mountains, caves, indoors, even at sea there is probably a mess of sails and rigging in the way). Terrain makes fights interesting; if your DM is halfway competent, you're only going to see this 'empty battlefield' is a tiny fraction of battles.

And there are also grasslands, deserts, high mountain without vegetation, crop fields not of corn and other. Notice that this are not empty, they could have all sort of interesting elements like pits, hills, rivers... too bad these things don't give cover from the high.


That isn't true at all. Why is your theoretical character even fighting the mammoths in the first place? It's almost certainly because they are a threat to someone who can't just fly away. No just goes around killing mammoths for fun (at least not in a D&D game). And the bandits? Maybe they have hostages. Maybe they're robbing a bank. Sniping at them from 600 feet is probably a losing strategy in those encounters.

Bisons were killed for fun. Ivory can be sold and meat is always useful.
I was talking about bandits that were supposed to attack the PCs. You know the typical desert bandits that attack the caravan. Except that they would be spotted and killed by flying snipers.


In my experience, encounters that can be completely trivialised by fliers are far less common than you are suggesting. Yes, it's a great ability, but it's no better than the many other great abilities PCs could have.

Maybe because your players are passive and you throw adventures at them. If PCs are active and decide what to do they will search for chances to use their abilities they best they can. If they see that flying make them OP in some environment they will try to exploit it. For example they could raid all the caravans that go trough the desert or ask for a toll. Obviously the GM could send flying cops to catch them, but hey at this point we can say that casters weren't OP in 3.5, you only had to make all the enemies casters too...

Probably we see this differently because you are watching it from an adventure designer point of view. You can make whatever encounter you want and PCs are going trough it because they are going to do the objective.
I'm wathing it as a worldbuilder. In a sandbox PCs are going to do wathever they want. You can't have entire environments when they can auto kill everything that doesn't fly. It's a recipe for problems.




Warlocks aren't the only ones capable of engaging at that range either; an enemy counterpart (the "evil twin" trope is pretty common), for one, can snipe you just as easily as you can snipe him. Enemy spellcasters can easily engage at such ranges, whether by responding in kind, summoning a flying ally or two (pixies, mephits, an air elemental, etc.). A Fly spell cast on your enemies will leave you separated from your allies, at least 6 rounds straight flying away (unless you want to risk falling...) and engaged by potentially multiple foes (or one very tough one). Large scale fixed emplacements, such as ballistae, can put you under threat. Then there's foes with flight of their own...

To my knowledge there are no spells or weapons with a range of 600 (except obviously EB with the right invocation and Spell Sniper). Ballistae have a range of 480, cannons reach 600 but are not something that exists in all settings, mangonels and trebuchets have enough range but realistically speaking they can't engage flying enemies.

[RickAllison]

my knowledge there are no spells or weapons with a range of 600 (except obviously EB with the right invocation and Spell Sniper). Ballistae have a range of 480, cannons reach 600 but are not something that exists in all settings, mangonels and trebuchets have enough range but realistically speaking they can't engage flying enemies.

Longbows, for one. Cannons actually go to either 1200 or 2400.

[Temperjoke]

And there are also grasslands, deserts, high mountain without vegetation, crop fields not of corn and other. Notice that this are not empty, they could have all sort of interesting elements like pits, hills, rivers... too bad these things don't give cover from the high.



Bisons were killed for fun. Ivory can be sold and meat is always useful.
I was talking about bandits that were supposed to attack the PCs. You know the typical desert bandits that attack the caravan. Except that they would be spotted and killed by flying snipers.



Maybe because your players are passive and you throw adventures at them. If PCs are active and decide what to do they will search for chances to use their abilities they best they can. If they see that flying make them OP in some environment they will try to exploit it. For example they could raid all the caravans that go trough the desert or ask for a toll. Obviously the GM could send flying cops to catch them, but hey at this point we can say that casters weren't OP in 3.5, you only had to make all the enemies casters too...

Probably we see this differently because you are watching it from an adventure designer point of view. You can make whatever encounter you want and PCs are going trough it because they are going to do the objective.
I'm wathing it as a worldbuilder. In a sandbox PCs are going to do wathever they want. You can't have entire environments when they can auto kill everything that doesn't fly. It's a recipe for problems.




To my knowledge there are no spells or weapons with a range of 600 (except obviously EB with the right invocation and Spell Sniper). Ballistae have a range of 480, cannons reach 600 but are not something that exists in all settings, mangonels and trebuchets have enough range but realistically speaking they can't engage flying enemies.

So, does the player hide the fact that he's a flyer the whole time, or is he flying above the caravan scouting? Because if the bandits were watching the caravan, waiting for a chance to strike, they'd probably see the flyer, and either come up with a way to counter him, or decide to attack a different caravan. Or maybe not worry about the lone flyer, as they quickly work to wipe out the rest of the caravan, since your example of eldritch blast isn't any worse than someone attacking with a weapon, even if it is at range.

[Addaran]

Except that a flying character is going to be hitten less than any other character in the game. As I already said a Warlock with the right feat and invocation can hit from range 600. There is nothing that could reach them at such altitude. Sure it doesn't work indoors, there could be enemy flyers, there could be adverse weather but why can't I have adventure in the open with good weather without flying enemies everywhere ?
Normal ranged characters have a problem: they need a meatshield. Flying warlock doesn't. They could literally solo an encouter in the right circumstances, and these circumstances are far too broad.
They don't make a drove of angry mammoths or a gang or bandits on horse easier encounters. They make them irrelevant.
I can't think of another type of character with a similar impact on the game.

That same warlock without fly can already kill most enemies without them having any chances at all. Every turn, he step 30 feet back and his EB blast push the enemy 10 feet back. Even with dashes, and quick enemies like horses, they'll need like 10 turns to reach him. With a little spell called expeditious retreat, they'll never catch the warlock.

[JellyPooga]

To my knowledge there are no spells or weapons with a range of 600 (except obviously EB with the right invocation and Spell Sniper). Ballistae have a range of 480, cannons reach 600 but are not something that exists in all settings, mangonels and trebuchets have enough range but realistically speaking they can't engage flying enemies.

As RickAllison points out, Longbow has a max range of 600ft (without Disadvantage if you have Sharpshooter or an alternate source of Advantage).

Aside from those high level spells with a range in miles (e.g. Control Weather, Meteor Swarm), a Distant Ice Storm (4th level) or Distant Insect Plague (5th lvl, if you're a Druid/Sorcerer), for example, have a range of 600ft. Then there's a whole slew of spells that will negate the advantage of being at that kind of range; Fog Cloud, Darkness, Leomunds Tiny Hut, Wall of...well, anything really, illusions...the list goes on. Basically any spell that blocks line of sight or line of effect will prevent a flyer from being able to capitalise on his advantage. Who cares if he can stay up in the sky if he can't do anything useful while he's there?

Do remember also that we're talking about one specific Cantrip, cast by one specific Class, with one specific Invocation AND a specific Feat, all to take advantage of a Racial feature only two non-Core Races can have. That's pretty damned niche. If a Player wants that specific niche character, it'd be churlish not to let them use it every now and then, just as it'd be a poor GM that didn't give a muscle-bound Barbarian something heavy to lift or tough to break every now and then. As has been pointed out, it's a rare encounter that they'll even have a chance to so-called "abuse" their flight in the first place.

[Temperjoke]

I wonder if anyone has worked out a diving melee attack, sort of like a falcon stoop for flying creatures and players? You'd have to make some sort of save to prevent splatting into the ground, but it might be worth the risk, adding impact damage to weapon attack?


https://youtu.be/r7lglchYNew?t=1m18s

[IShouldntBehere]

I wonder if anyone has worked out a diving melee attack, sort of like a falcon stoop for flying creatures and players? You'd have to make some sort of save to prevent splatting into the ground, but it might be worth the risk, adding impact damage to weapon attack?


https://youtu.be/r7lglchYNew?t=1m18s

Do falcons regularly face-plant into the ground? It would seem like most anything or anyone capable of such a feat would only employ it if they can pull it off consistently. Whatever feat/feature/skill is involved in picking up the ability would seem to by default include whatever precision or practice needed to not face-plant with any regularity.

If we want a drawback it would seem to be more sensible to add some kind of increased execution or recovery time on the attack, representing the more extreme measures needed to execute it safely vs a regular charge. Reduced accuracy or requring the expenditure of something like inspiration would seem more desirable than a regular fumble occurrence

Which isn't to say a fumble couldn't happen under extreme or unusual circumstances or even just against certain targets, but it'd be odd as a regular part of the ability.

[Temperjoke]

Do falcons regularly face-plant into the ground? It would seem like most anything or anyone capable of such a feat would only employ it if they can pull it off consistently. Whatever feat/feature/skill is involved in picking up the ability would seem to by default include whatever precision or practice needed to not face-plant with any regularity.

If we want a drawback it would seem to be more sensible to add some kind of increased execution or recovery time on the attack, representing the more extreme measures needed to execute it safely vs a regular charge. Reduced accuracy or requring the expenditure of something like inspiration would seem more desirable than a regular fumble occurrence

Which isn't to say a fumble couldn't happen under extreme or unusual circumstances or even just against certain targets, but it'd be odd as a regular part of the ability.

Well, maybe it'd be a low risk save, but falcons don't necessarily do that sort of dive against ground foes, so face plants are less of a danger. I'm not an expert in falcon and other predatory bird behavior though. Just an odd thought I had while perusing the discussion.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Well, maybe it'd be a low risk save, but falcons don't necessarily do that sort of dive against ground foes, so face plants are less of a danger. I'm not an expert in falcon and other predatory bird behavior though. Just an odd thought I had while perusing the discussion.

I'd certainly consider making that sort of thing a feat, if I had some aarakocra in my game. As it is, I don't think pixies are all that into dive attacks.

@BlackKnight: ah... yeah. I see what you mean from a worldbuilding perspective. If intelligent flying humanoids were widespread in a setting, that would definitely have implications. That's a different angle from where I was coming from.

[JellyPooga]

I wonder if anyone has worked out a diving melee attack, sort of like a falcon stoop for flying creatures and players? You'd have to make some sort of save to prevent splatting into the ground, but it might be worth the risk, adding impact damage to weapon attack?


https://youtu.be/r7lglchYNew?t=1m18s

There's a Feat for that...it's called Charger.

[Asmotherion]

Except that a flying character is going to be hitten less than any other character in the game. As I already said a Warlock with the right feat and invocation can hit from range 600. There is nothing that could reach them at such altitude. Sure it doesn't work indoors, there could be enemy flyers, there could be adverse weather but why can't I have adventure in the open with good weather without flying enemies everywhere ?
Normal ranged characters have a problem: they need a meatshield. Flying warlock doesn't. They could literally solo an encouter in the right circumstances, and these circumstances are far too broad.
They don't make a drove of angry mammoths or a gang or bandits on horse easier encounters. They make them irrelevant.
I can't think of another type of character with a similar impact on the game.

As someone who has played the mentioned "Flying Warlock" (and countless variations), I have to say it's not nearly as much of an issue as you might theoretically think; Sure, once in a wile there were encounters were I took 0 Damage, but most often than not the DM would either include a flying opponent or 2 or someone that could hit me. Overall, flying can be seen as an additional level of deffance: Overpowered 'till level 5, then gradually becomes less and less relevant as a defencive ability, and simple remains what it is: a movement speed.

[ApplePen]

"I have to change things to account for the strengths and weaknesses of the party I'm running a game for?! UNACCEPTABLE!"

Seriously, though. That's a terrible argument.

Darkvision is too OP because you don't have to make Perception Checks to see people in dark rooms! You also don't have to take disadvantage on Investigate or attack rolls on targets within range on Moonless nights! OP!

Overpowered is out of line with the power of the game. A flying character is no going to hit harder, more often, or get hit less than any other character. They'll get hit for less damage than melee characters, but so will literally any archer or mage who is smart enough to stand at range to fight.

Or is having Ranged Attacks OP because the mammoth can't reach the archer to squish him while fighting against the barbarian?
Let me put it to you like this;
Compare two people. One is a standard race and the other is a flying race.

Standard race guy gets +1 to two different stats, flying guy gets the ability to fly.

Let's assume they both play exactly the same, and flying guy only flies when doing such would be advantageous, sticking with the party on the ground the rest of the time.

So you want the party to cross a narrow chasm? Flying guy flies to the other side with a rope, hammer and piton, and trivialized that terrain feature for the party.
Need to climb a wall? Flying guy takes a rope and flies to the other side, holding one end, trivializing it for the entire party.

Pit trap? Flying guy starts to fall, but then flies instead. You could argue that if the trap is short enough of a fall that failing the dex save makes him take damage, but if it's 30 ft he's got plenty of time to open his wings and safely land. The dex save normally represents the split second one has to grab a ledge or jump out of the area prior to falling. He has plenty of additional opportunities to not take damage.

So that trivializes a number of situations without ever trying to capitalize on flight. Now let's look at some other things people could do;

See that keep you worked so hard on for 2 days preparing? Flying guy just flew up a parapet at night with a rope. The party is stealthing it and ignoring the encounters unless you modify it on the fly.

The party is low on funds? Good thing flying guy can just go kill mammoths, dinosaurs, or other large beasts at will (even with just a longbow) to generate cash.

That example with bandits deciding to attack a different caravan because of flying guy? You just admitted he trivialized and solved the encounter without combat. You owe him XP.

You would be amazed at how often being able to move freely in three dimensions is a huge advantage. You will try to adjust for it, and find that you have to either use a wider assortment of enemies specifically designed to counter his ability to fly, or otherwise he will simply win entire adventures by way of flying.

Saying "it's not op because I can adjust for it" is a terrible argument. You are the DM. No matter how OP something is you can adjust for it. It is OP because you HAVE TO.

Looking at it from a long game perspective it gets even better later, as it's effectively a lv 5 concentration spell he gets for free. If he's any kind of caster that allows for further shenanigans and aerial supremacy vs anyone who casts fly. Imagine how good flying with invisibility gets when everyone else has to pick one or the other.

[Knaight]

That example with bandits deciding to attack a different caravan because of flying guy? You just admitted he trivialized and solved the encounter without combat. You owe him XP.

You don't get XP every time an armed group chooses not to fight you. This particular argument is just ridiculous.

With that said, I do agree that flying is ridiculously powerful (at least at low levels), and while it could be made differently such that it wasn't so powerful (starting with having flapping wings actually be an impediment to trying to fight with your arms) as is it's downright overpowered.

[JellyPooga]

Standard race guy gets +1 to two different stats, flying guy gets the ability to fly.

This is hardly a fair comparison. A better comparison would be flying guy vs. Resistance to fire damage, or flying guy vs. any two of the traits a Halfling gets. Better still, seeing as Tieflings get this exact option; flying guy vs. a Cantrip, a 1st lvl spell 1/day and a 2nd lvl spell 1/day.

Will those spells completely trivialise an encounter? Probably not but, on the other hand, those spells are much more likely to be used on a regular basis.

Flight is great, yes, but you can't avoid the probablility that you're only going to get to use it every now and then and further, that the encounters you're trivialising weren't that hard to deal with in the first place. I mean, come on, crossing a rickety bridge? Climbing a wall? Fighting a mammoth? These aren't exactly "defeating Tiamat solo" level challenges.

[ApplePen]

You don't get XP every time an armed group chooses not to fight you. This particular argument is just ridiculous.

With that said, I do agree that flying is ridiculously powerful (at least at low levels), and while it could be made differently such that it wasn't so powerful (starting with having flapping wings actually be an impediment to trying to fight with your arms) as is it's downright overpowered.

It was a specific example with a caravan the party needed to protect from bandits. The bandits spot flying guy and decide not to engage, allowing the caravan through unmolested. It completes a sidequest at the very least without any combat.

The bandits would have attacked but for flying guy. In that case it really is a player solving the encounter, like if the bard used persuasion or the ranger cast pass without trace to avoid them.

[Ninja_Prawn]

It was a specific example with a caravan the party needed to protect from bandits. The bandits spot flying guy and decide not to engage, allowing the caravan through unmolested. It completes a sidequest at the very least without any combat.

The bandits would have attacked but for flying guy. In that case it really is a player solving the encounter, like if the bard used persuasion or the ranger cast pass without trace to avoid them.

What kind of two-bit bandit doesn't carry a bow? Especially when the spell Fly isn't exactly rare...

[Naanomi]

What kind of two-bit bandit doesn't carry a bow? Especially when the spell Fly isn't exactly rare...
Several in published modules...

[JNAProductions]

Several in published modules...

The published modules... They aren't that good, in my experience.

[ApplePen]

This is hardly a fair comparison. A better comparison would be flying guy vs. Resistance to fire damage, or flying guy vs. any two of the traits a Halfling gets. Better still, seeing as Tieflings get this exact option; flying guy vs. a Cantrip, a 1st lvl spell 1/day and a 2nd lvl spell 1/day.

Will those spells completely trivialise an encounter? Probably not but, on the other hand, those spells are much more likely to be used on a regular basis.

Flight is great, yes, but you can't avoid the probablility that you're only going to get to use it every now and then and further, that the encounters you're trivialising weren't that hard to deal with in the first place. I mean, come on, crossing a rickety bridge? Climbing a wall? Fighting a mammoth? These aren't exactly "defeating Tiamat solo" level challenges.
It's not a win everything forever ability, but it's certainly a very strong option. My examples were not exhaustive, merely representative of the types of challenges a flying guy can trivialize without any forethought.
A first and second level spell one/day is less than a fifth level spell at will. It's quite a gap really.

Tieflings should take the wings every time, unless RP reasons to do otherwise.

[Naanomi]

The published modules... They aren't that good, in my experience.
They have ups and downs to be sure, but it is that kind of thing that that makes the flying race ban in AL understandable

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Water Breathing and Protection from Elements are also 3rd level spells that certain Races have, at will, from level 1 too. Want to complain about them being OP too?
Half-Orcs effectively get Death Ward, a 4th level spell, 1/day. Is that OP too?

First, Once/day is very different from at will.

Second, when it comes to water-breathing and Protection from Elements, they get heavily nerfed versions of the spell (for example, Water Breathing effects up to 10 willing creatures not just one), whereas non-magical flight is in most situations actively better than the Fly spell because it doesn't take up your concentration and can't be disrupted by failing a Con save when you take damage or dispelled and both versions only affect one creature at a time.

[Steampunkette]

Let me put it to you like this;
Compare two people. One is a standard race and the other is a flying race.

Standard race guy gets +1 to two different stats, flying guy gets the ability to fly.

Let's assume they both play exactly the same, and flying guy only flies when doing such would be advantageous, sticking with the party on the ground the rest of the time.

So you want the party to cross a narrow chasm? Flying guy flies to the other side with a rope, hammer and piton, and trivialized that terrain feature for the party.
Need to climb a wall? Flying guy takes a rope and flies to the other side, holding one end, trivializing it for the entire party.

Pit trap? Flying guy starts to fall, but then flies instead. You could argue that if the trap is short enough of a fall that failing the dex save makes him take damage, but if it's 30 ft he's got plenty of time to open his wings and safely land. The dex save normally represents the split second one has to grab a ledge or jump out of the area prior to falling. He has plenty of additional opportunities to not take damage.

So that trivializes a number of situations without ever trying to capitalize on flight. Now let's look at some other things people could do;

See that keep you worked so hard on for 2 days preparing? Flying guy just flew up a parapet at night with a rope. The party is stealthing it and ignoring the encounters unless you modify it on the fly.
Let me put it like this: IF a narrow bridge or a pit trap is meant to be such a big danger or encounter to the party that someone getting around it, without making a skill check, is considered OP then you're designing your game wrong.

A fighter with a grappling hook and a line can "Trivialise" those encounters you listed just as quickly, and all you'd be asking for is a single skill check to do it: Athletics. The Bird-person managed to save the party a whole athletics check. And even scaling a wall with a rope the paladin in plate armor isn't gonna be too stealthy about it.

Or maybe save herself with a dex save for the pit trap. Though if the party had anyone who was looking for traps that encounter would be trivialized by a single thieves tools check (Or whatever other solution the party provides). Flying just gives another option in literally every example you've posted. An option that saves the party a skill check or two.

That's no OP. It's just a nice benefit.


The party is low on funds? Good thing flying guy can just go kill mammoths, dinosaurs, or other large beasts at will (even with just a longbow) to generate cash.

...are you serious with this one? "Yeah! I can hunt a mammoth!" or I can make a survival skill check to grab 5-10 pounds of food along with everyone else in the party rather than tracking down dinosaurs, mammoths, and other animals that may or may not be in the immediate area. But sure! Go on a side quest to track down a mighty beast to grab food that we could pick up literally on the way to wherever we're going. See you when we get there! Hope you can carry the Mammoth Meat by yourseeeeellllf!


That example with bandits deciding to attack a different caravan because of flying guy? You just admitted he trivialized and solved the encounter without combat. You owe him XP.

...when did I admit anything about that? I didn't even talk about this. Even still: An encounter avoided is generally worth XP but you have to DO SOMETHING to avoid it. Not just exist in the area. You don't get XP for avoiding a million Red Dragon fights every day you don't fight every single Red Dragon in the world.


You would be amazed at how often being able to move freely in three dimensions is a huge advantage. You will try to adjust for it, and find that you have to either use a wider assortment of enemies specifically designed to counter his ability to fly, or otherwise he will simply win entire adventures by way of flying.

No. I REALLY wouldn't. I've played Flying Characters. I've run Superhero games and had flying tieflings in my tabletop, before. I wouldn't be surprised about it at all. The difference is that, like when I plan for any character's abilities in encounters, I plan for all of the character's abilities in encounters. You know.

Like a DM.

I don't write out a whole campaign months in advance and then ask people to create characters and throw my hands up, wailing in despair, when one of them wants wings. Even if I did the first part of that I'd just adjust encounters accordingly 'cause that's the role of a DM: Challenge the players with the story you're creating together.


Saying "it's not op because I can adjust for it" is a terrible argument. You are the DM. No matter how OP something is you can adjust for it. It is OP because you HAVE TO.

No. It really isn't. A Fireball Spells is perfectly balanced in the game. It's not the spell designer's fault that you didn't consider it when you filled every room of the castle with tightly packed low-HP enemies meant to swarm over heavy plate wearers and the party has a wizard with the necklace of fireballs who is laughing with malicious glee.

If you design your game around precarious bridges, animal intelligence monsters, and situations where a rope and a grappling hook trivialize encounters then yeah: Maybe don't allow flying in that game. But that doesn't make it OP


Looking at it from a long game perspective it gets even better later, as it's effectively a lv 5 concentration spell he gets for free. If he's any kind of caster that allows for further shenanigans and aerial supremacy vs anyone who casts fly. Imagine how good flying with invisibility gets when everyone else has to pick one or the other.

Giant "Meh".

IF you play a flying caster, then yes. You can get those benefits. And it's pretty cool. You're still a big target making whooshy sounds as you try to hover while enemies pelt you with arrows and spells with the same perception check and disadvantage they'd have if you were standing on the ground.

You are severely overblowing the power of flight.

[BlacKnight]

I didn't remember that longbows have a range of 600 foots. Given that there are no rules for height adjustments I concede that RAW flying PCs are not immune to every weapon.
Still I can't accept that in my games, same way I can't allow for trebuchets to be used against flying targets.
My point is that unlimited flying is OP in a medieval setting. To counter flying you need casters or flying beings, given that any realistic weapon can't hit something that high.
A point of 5E was to make low level threats a thing for everybody, so making a PC immune to every mundane weapon every time he is outdoor from lv 1 seems wrong to me.

[JellyPooga]

It's not a win everything forever ability

No, it' not "win everything forever", it's "win a few things occasionally that were easy and possibly badly designed anyway". That's quite a difference.


A first and second level spell one/day is less than a fifth level spell at will. It's quite a gap really.

Fly is a 3rd level spell. That's less of a gap. "At Will" is only as good as "As Often As Needed" and if you only get an opportunity to use it every now and then that "At Will" has a high probability of functionally being used less than 1/day. Spells like Hellish Rebuke and Darkness might not have the raw "win button" effect of Fly but you're much more likely to use them on the daily basis that you have them.

@AMShikomeKidoMi : See above comments about At Will vs. 1/day. Fly also has multiple targets when cast above 3rd lvl spell. Care to comment on how that compares to racial flight as well? Sure, having solo flight is great, but using one spell to give the party flight? That's better.

I agree that not losing Concentration is great. It's countered somewhat by more limited use; as has already been pointed out in this thread, winged flight has some limitations that magical flight does not. That shouldn't be ignored.

Spell vs. Natural isn't a direct comparison, no, and if that's your point then it is well taken. If you're trying to say that natural flight is better than the spell Fly you're wrong; there are benefits to both sides of that coin. Just as there are benefits and downsides to Natural vs. Spell when it comes to Resistance, Water Breathing or any other racial ability. Does this make those things "OP" as racial abilities? No. Despite emulating relatively high level spells of similar function, they aren't breaking the game because they are too situational. Flight is less situational than Water Breathing, sure, but where a Water Genasai shines, an Aaracokra is a damp turd.

[JellyPooga]

A point of 5E was to make low level threats a thing for everybody, so making a PC immune to every mundane weapon every time he is outdoor from lv 1 seems wrong to me.

Uh...what? You're just going to ignore the range of a longbow to claim flight is OP? You're also going to ignore that the 600ft Eldritch Blast only comes online at (a minimum) lvl.4? At level 1, Eldritch Blast has a range of 120ft for any race with natural flight.

[Steampunkette]

Uh...what? You're just going to ignore the range of a longbow to claim flight is OP? You're also going to ignore that the 600ft Eldritch Blast only comes online at (a minimum) lvl.4? At level 1, Eldritch Blast has a range of 120ft for any race with natural flight.
^All of this.

Also: Let's go ahead and assume that it 'requires' spellcasters to defeat.

SO WHAT?!

There's spellcasters all over D&D. Mages and Cultists and Shaman and on and on and on and on.

EVERY High Elf gets a cantrip they can fire at will forever, even if they're not spellcasters.

So not only is that argument an attempt to ignore the mechanics of the game in favor of simulationism on only one side of the field (The NPC side), it also ignores the very reality those mechanics are formed in.

[ApplePen]

Pelting a mammoth to death is more for the Ivory that the meat in the example.

The thing I'm trying to express here is not that flying wins everything, but that it wins at a bunch of different things at will, without a skill check in most cases.

Yes, I do prep work on my adventures. I try to keep things sensible within the area and world it's set in. I don't do moduals, but I know people who play them at the local game store. Flying PCs obliterate low level encounters without even trying. Mid levels they still have an advantage in most situations.

So basically, if you preplan or go off of published adventures, fly is really powerful. If you modify your campaign on the fly to include a bunch of anti-flier stuff, it's not an issue.

I do actually include a few rooms with low level goons to make the players feel awesome or punish poor ability management. I preplan all of the encounters that my players will face so I don't have to stop the game and look things up. It's all already on a flash card.

You're supposed to award players XP for circumventing challenges as well as solving them or fighting through. Less for circumventing, but still some. When I preplan all the encounters and put them on cards, if one comes up and they've scared off the bad guys that counts.
It's not the same as "not fighting all the red dragons each day" because that encounter was planned and they caused it to not happen. I flip over the card because the bandits don't want to fight that sure-loss battle and the players get a bit of XP.

If they fight the same bandits later, I deduct the XP already given from the rewards at the end.

It's a very different thing.

[BlacKnight]

Uh...what? You're just going to ignore the range of a longbow to claim flight is OP? You're also going to ignore that the 600ft Eldritch Blast only comes online at (a minimum) lvl.4? At level 1, Eldritch Blast has a range of 120ft for any race with natural flight.

Maybe you should read my post more carefully, I wrote: "Given that there are no rules for height adjustments I concede that RAW flying PCs are not immune to every weapon."
And to nitpick it's true you need lv 4 for 600ft range, but at lv 2 you can have 300ft with the right invocation.




Also: Let's go ahead and assume that it 'requires' spellcasters to defeat.

SO WHAT?!

There's spellcasters all over D&D. Mages and Cultists and Shaman and on and on and on and on.

No, there aren't. Low magic is supposed to be a thing in 5E. NPC casters in the MM are usually not that great. Sure, you can put casters with class features everywhere. But notice that you don't have to do it without flyers.


EVERY High Elf gets a cantrip they can fire at will forever, even if they're not spellcasters.

Their cantrips don't have enough range. And not all casters can counter flyers, they need long range spells with Spell sniper feat or the metamagic that increase range. Or summon flyers.


So not only is that argument an attempt to ignore the mechanics of the game in favor of simulationism on only one side of the field (The NPC side), it also ignores the very reality those mechanics are formed in.

How the hell I'm supposed to apply simulationism to magic ?
And I'm not applying it only to the NPC. Gravity works also for the one that is shooting from above to below.

[JellyPooga]

Maybe you should read my post more carefully, I wrote: "Given that there are no rules for height adjustments I concede that RAW flying PCs are not immune to every weapon."

You also said that you "can't accept that in your games". If you're changing the RAW, expect imbalances to arise. That doesn't make the RAW imbalanced.


And to nitpick it's true you need lv 4 for 600ft range, but at lv 2 you can have 300ft with the right invocation.

300ft is half the range of a longbow and well within range for many other weapons. We're hardly taking about "immune" to anything that can wield a weapon and that's assuming you take Eldritch Spear. Still niche, still not OP.

[Steampunkette]

A PC with cantrips or a bow atop a ridge or in a tree or whatever other elevated position they're in is just as good at mammoth slaughter. Yeah, it takes more setup but so what? That's all the flying benefits them.

Alternatively: On the same level just far enough away to avoid being trampled while staying in range of ranged attacks and spells. Sure trees and foliage can get in the way, but the same can be said for the flying character.

If you preplan and specifically create a bunch of encounters that don't have any ranged attacks in them that's your own fault. Not just for flying characters, but for literally ANY ranged character. Whether it's a spellcaster or an Archer. If you're accepting of that sort of thing for spellcasters and archers then the issue isn't "Ranged attacks are negated!" it's specifically a dislike of flying that is at issue.

As to officially released content. Lemme open Storm King's Thunder. What's the first enemy players are liable to run into... Goblins? GASP! Shortbows!

Every single enemy in Nightstone has a ranged attack except for a Tressym that really isn't meant to be fought (and can fly). Even the Guards (Who aren't explicitly enemies but are statted out for combat) have ranged attacks (Albeit short ones in the form of thrown spears).

Bandits and their Captain? Light Crossbows and Thrown Daggers.

Whether you're 30ft south or 30ft above the NPCs, they're all equipped to attack you. Now maybe if you make a level 1 spellcaster you can get out of some of those ranges, but you could do that just as easily on the ground. More easily, in fact, as most of the encounters happen in and around buildings.

I understand your arguments, Applepen. I just find them lackluster because of literally everything else in the game. How skill checks work, the functions of the various encounters that get designed, the way campaigns flow, and the way the NPCs and Monsters have been designed.

Adding a third dimension to combat surely gives players (And monsters) some new options. But all it really does is give players options in overcoming static encounters (Bridges, walls, etc), a new attack vector which follows all the normal range rules, cover, and so forth, and cause them to risk their lives with a dangerous fall if they don't land before 0.

In some incredibly specific encounters (Beasts in an open field with nowhere to hide, armies that forget to bring their ranged units, getting past a certain location) it gives the flying character a marvelous advantage... and leaves their party members to their doom.

Y'know. Like a Spellcaster does.

[Dr. Cliché]

Only a D&D forum could arrive at the conclusion that personal, at-will flight is "meh".

[RickAllison]

Only a D&D forum could arrive at the conclusion that personal, at-will flight is "meh".

Oh yes. I try and get at-will flight on all of my characters not because it is particularly powerful (the only things that needed flight were rescuing an NPC who fell overboard and getting up on a ledge on a non-Thief/Monk to disarm some crossbowmen), but because it is awesome. There is significant joy in being able to fly up to a chandelier and cut it down rather than doing so with a ranged attack, or in flying up to a belltower to sleep so I can save a few gold on the inn.

Heck, the most OP ability I've had was just being a Warlock 3 and having twice/short rest Invisibility. If you don't need to attack or cast other spells, that is just ridiculous for that level! I just went around screwing with guards' hats and blaming it on my enemies, pocketing gold from street vendors trading, laying out traps, and so on.

[Willie the Duck]

Only a D&D forum could arrive at the conclusion that personal, at-will flight is "meh".

It's not that it is meh, I'm sure for the character themselves, it is amazing. However, as the player of said character, what do you do with it? Let's say I give you (because in this example, I apparently can) a helicopter. A real, functional, News Team Six - style two-person helicopter. Let's even say it never runs out of fuel and it comes with a trained pilot. What does it actually allow you to do?

Same thing with the flight in-game. It allows one character a certain level of access and protection but doesn't necessarily help them accomplish their goals (which usually are situated on the ground) significantly better than any other specific benefit.

[Steampunkette]

It's not that it is meh, I'm sure for the character themselves, it is amazing. However, as the player of said character, what do you do with it? Let's say I give you (because in this example, I apparently can) a helicopter. A real, functional, News Team Six - style two-person helicopter. Let's even say it never runs out of fuel and it comes with a trained pilot. What does it actually allow you to do?

Same thing with the flight in-game. It allows one character a certain level of access and protection but doesn't necessarily help them accomplish their goals (which usually are situated on the ground) significantly better than any other specific benefit.

AND it does so in a particularly obvious manner.

[Steampunkette]

For the Record:

I don't think Flying is "Meh".

I think flying is a cool and fun ability. It adds new options and angles. It creates interesting roleplaying possibilities and allows players to think outside of the box in a three dimensional way. Flying is awesome!

Flying also has some drawbacks. Using it ruins any chance at stealth, for example. Falling can be immediately deadly. Separation from the party can royally screw you over. Things like that.

I find a lot of the arguments about flying being "OP" to be Meh. A GM that can't, or won't, adjust to their players and changing circumstances is going to wind up with either a ton of TPKs or Cakewalks unless they go item by item down a list of things players cannot have, which is pretty dull.

And if a rope flown across a rickety bridge, up a cliffside, or hung above a pit trap so people can swing across it is too OP for your party: Your party probably belongs at the bottom of the pit/cliff/canyon/whatever. Buy some grappling hooks.

[BlacKnight]

You also said that you "can't accept that in your games". If you're changing the RAW, expect imbalances to arise. That doesn't make the RAW imbalanced.

I'm not seeing your point.
I said that they are not immune to everything in RAW.
I'm free to change rules in my games, and to change how many of them as needed to make things balanced with each other.


300ft is half the range of a longbow and well within range for many other weapons. We're hardly taking about "immune" to anything that can wield a weapon and that's assuming you take Eldritch Spear. Still niche, still not OP.

It's outside of the range of all melee attacks, short range weapons and a lot of spells. It's long range for other ranged weapons, thus disadvantage to attacks. This means that flying is "every outdoor fight you are immune to half the attacks and the others have disadvantage" and you have a great mobility advantage. Not OP, but better than other tiefling features for sure. Or would you say that if we replace Darkness once per day with Flying once per day would be the same ?



A PC with cantrips or a bow atop a ridge or in a tree or whatever other elevated position they're in is just as good at mammoth slaughter. Yeah, it takes more setup but so what? That's all the flying benefits them.

Alternatively: On the same level just far enough away to avoid being trampled while staying in range of ranged attacks and spells. Sure trees and foliage can get in the way, but the same can be said for the flying character.

If you preplan and specifically create a bunch of encounters that don't have any ranged attacks in them that's your own fault. Not just for flying characters, but for literally ANY ranged character. Whether it's a spellcaster or an Archer. If you're accepting of that sort of thing for spellcasters and archers then the issue isn't "Ranged attacks are negated!" it's specifically a dislike of flying that is at issue.

So now ranged attacks from the ground are the same as ranged attacks from the sky... sure.
You should go and tell that to the military. Who need an air force when we have artillery ?


and cause them to risk their lives with a dangerous fall if they don't land before 0.

Good luck reducing their speed to 0 considering that Web spell doesn't have enough range.


For the Record:
I find a lot of the arguments about flying being "OP" to be Meh. A GM that can't, or won't, adjust to their players and changing circumstances is going to wind up with either a ton of TPKs or Cakewalks unless they go item by item down a list of things players cannot have, which is pretty dull.

The problem isn't adjusting to something. It's what effects such adjustments have on the game.
You can adjust to high level casters in 3.5, but you are going to play something more similar to Dragonball than a classical fantasy.
The problem here is that you can have two between flyers, not absurd archers and balance. You can't have all three.

[Steampunkette]

BlacKnight: The rules of the game do not accurately reflect reality. Because it is a game and not a simulation of physics. Hunting Mammoth with a bow is significantly different than using a mortar compared to a sidewinder missile. And within the simplistic rules of the game, elevation is elevation whether levitation, flying, or standing atop a rampart.

As to the "Absurd archers" thing: There's dragons, dude. Dragons and Mind Flayers and Magic Using Mushroom People. Gods actively reach down into the world and slap around their followers or give a big thumbs up. Either get over it, or stop using it as an argument for flying being OP in -the- game as opposed to your personal games where you specifically make archery suck.

[Dr. Cliché]

It's not that it is meh, I'm sure for the character themselves, it is amazing. However, as the player of said character, what do you do with it? Let's say I give you (because in this example, I apparently can) a helicopter. A real, functional, News Team Six - style two-person helicopter. Let's even say it never runs out of fuel and it comes with a trained pilot. What does it actually allow you to do?

I think your example misses the point a bit. A better example would be an easy-to-use Jetpack that never runs out of fuel. (Alternate examples include extreme genetic engineering. :smallwink:)

Anyway, the thing about wings is that it's you who's flying - you're not being driven around in a huge, bulky contraption. You have the sky all around you, you can feel the breeze running through your hair, you can move around as you please in three dimensions. It could be considered the ultimate freedom. Achieving such flight has been one of the greatest dreams of man for centuries, if not millennia.


Same thing with the flight in-game. It allows one character a certain level of access and protection but doesn't necessarily help them accomplish their goals (which usually are situated on the ground) significantly better than any other specific benefit.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure that flight can at least help your goals to some degree. It probably won't solve all your problems, but it will certainly give you a leg up on several of them.

Also, perhaps most importantly, it's just fun, not to mention providing some great RP opportunities. Even if you somehow can't find any possible way for flight to help you with your goals, just have fun with it. Annoy the guards who refuse to open the city gates. Insist that you can't decide on a tavern without first seeing it from above. Or that meals taste better when consumed on the highest point in the city. See if you can drop a copper piece into the beggar's bowl from 500ft.

[Ziegander]

"One of my players is really good at a thing, potentially game-breakingly good, a thing I approved and allowed as DM, so I should adjust my encounters to make sure that thing they are good at isn't actually game-breaking or even much of an advantage at all," -- when did this become good DMing? Someone honestly suggested raising Perception DCs against Rogue Expertise and increasing Strength check DCs against the raging Barbarian in the same breath as adding ranged attackers to half of your encounters against an Aarocokra as if all of these are legitimate ways to limit your players' success.

Excuse me, no.

It's not the DMs job to limit his or her players once they're at the game table. During character creation? Sure. But at the game table, once you've approved and allowed everything on their sheets, if you're adjusting your game so that stuff you've approved can't be used to its best potential, then you're just a bad DM, plain and simple. If you're raising check DCs to stifle Expertise, then you're basically taking Expertise off the character sheet, but worse than that, now everyone without Expertise fails at those checks all the time. If you're going out of your way to hedge archers into every encounter, then you'll come across as blatantly hostile to the player with a flying race, essentially adding enemies to the game whose obvious purpose is to attempt to kill their character specifically. That's ridiculous. Flying is only good if the DM doesn't try to kill the character constantly? Are you joking?

[Citan]

Flying also has some drawbacks. Using it ruins any chance at stealth, for example.
I just fail to see any basis to this assumption.
Sound? Very DM dependent because there is little to be said about official rules about hearing, but you could easily argue that you can take height then just glide, no no wing flap sound. With Fly spell, it may be even easier, as nothing at all is specified on how it actually works. So it may be easy to say "magical = thought is enough to move".

Visuals? While any reasonable guard would obviously spot it, any reasonable DM could give some leeway if you just want to hide from normal people or busy crowd, who have little reason to check above their head. You could also use existing cloud or create them with the help of a caster. Or ask for a friend to create a distraction on ground strong enough to allow a Hide check, depending on DM goodwill.
Or use any illusion spell either self or from a friend.

[ApplePen]

It is very good at low levels, where very little has the range required to hit you, and you can plink with a longbow.
Mid level, if you are any kind of caster (and in 5e, everything but Barbarian and monk are caster capable) you can add in another defense spell, even one which is concentration. Other fliers do not have this luxury unless in a party with Multiple casters who are buffing each other.
High level, you finally end up on mostly even... Air... With other flying things that can cast. So for the most played portions of the game you get a significant advantage.

Flying allows you to do so much more than +1 to 2 stats and dark vision, or even a couple cantrips. I'd say it's in line with a feat for certain, and possibly even a bigger thing.

I don't go out of my way to give everyone multiple attack options. There's really little reason to do so.
High STR enemies usually have a melee weapon and a thrown weapon, which fliers gleefully ignore.
High Dex enemies favor shortbows in most cases I've seen, and the range on that isn't great.

Basically all the enemies need to have longbows or heavy crossbows to be an equal threat to flying guy as they are to his party.

Which opens up a different can of worms.

[Willie the Duck]

I think your example misses the point a bit. A better example would be an easy-to-use Jetpack that never runs out of fuel. (Alternate examples include extreme genetic engineering. :smallwink:)

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not sure what the difference between a small helicopter and a jet pack is. It is personal flight. It allows one character (the person with the ability) to be safely in the air, commit ranged attacks, and perhaps deploy items to places this ability gives them access to (such as securing a rope at the top of something for others to climb). In comparison to something like an jet fighter or a troop deployment chopper, the jet pack and personal helicopter give you roughly the same advantages.


Anyway, the thing about wings is that it's you who's flying - you're not being driven around in a huge, bulky contraption. You have the sky all around you, you can feel the breeze running through your hair, you can move around as you please in three dimensions. It could be considered the ultimate freedom. Achieving such flight has been one of the greatest dreams of man for centuries, if not millennia.

I am confused. I specifically stated, very deliberately, in the comments you actually quoted, that it would be very cool for the character themselves. This entire avenue seems to be a very strong argument against just about any comments except the ones I made.



I don't know, I'm pretty sure that flight can at least help your goals to some degree. It probably won't solve all your problems, but it will certainly give you a leg up on several of them.

I don't think anyone is arguing that flight isn't beneficial. It is a question of how beneficial. My point, and I will elaborate more, is that one character flying is nice and all, but it is not as game changing as an entire party being able to fly. Even that, while it makes many scenes or adventures (especially those which involve travel), is not the be-all and end-all because most of the game goal-posts if you will are on (or in) the ground. You can fly out of the way of the enemy? Great. The enemy still has the captured Duke you were trying to rescue. etc. etc.


Also, perhaps most importantly, it's just fun, not to mention providing some great RP opportunities. Even if you somehow can't find any possible way for flight to help you with your goals, just have fun with it. Annoy the guards who refuse to open the city gates. Insist that you can't decide on a tavern without first seeing it from above. Or that meals taste better when consumed on the highest point in the city. See if you can drop a copper piece into the beggar's bowl from 500ft.

That's true, but it is true of every form of variety. Is being an flying creature fun? Absolutely. Is being a lizardfolk fun? Absolutely. Is being a goblin who insists he's really a gnome who ran into a polymorph trap fun? For at least one gaming session.

We might simply be trying to answer different questions. I'm decidedly more answering the question "do people think that flying is the best racial ability around?" than I am answering "would you ever want to play a flying race?" because the answer to the latter is of course going to be "sure, sounds like fun."

[Knaight]

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not sure what the difference between a small helicopter and a jet pack is. It is personal flight. It allows one character (the person with the ability) to be safely in the air, commit ranged attacks, and perhaps deploy items to places this ability gives them access to (such as securing a rope at the top of something for others to climb). In comparison to something like an jet fighter or a troop deployment chopper, the jet pack and personal helicopter give you roughly the same advantages.

The helicopter is a big vehicle, and as such its something that you're going to have to spend a lot of time away from. The hypothetical jet pack is attached to you at all times. On the other hand, the helicopter also has vastly better cargo capacity, weather protection, etc.

I mean a skateboard and a car are both personal ground movement devices used to go faster than walking. It doesn't make them the same.

[Ninja_Prawn]

This conversation is definitely going in circles now so I'm going to bow out, but I just want to pick up on one thing:


Flying allows you to do so much more than +1 to 2 stats and dark vision, or even a couple cantrips. I'd say it's in line with a feat for certain, and possibly even a bigger thing.

I don't disagree with this. When I'm designing races, I use a points system: +1 to a stat is 1 point, darkvision is 0.5, a cantrip is 0.5, a free feat is 4 points (assuming the player can pick any feat)... flying I rate at half a point per 5 feet of flight speed. So 50 ft fly is 5 points - more than a feat and a race with that much flight won't be getting much else (I would say that the EE aarakocra specifically does have too much stuff). The PCs in my game, however, have 30 or 35 ft flight speeds, which might be part of the reason I have found it not to be gamebreaking.