So that would mean they still hover in the air then right? Because hover states if you fall prone you do not fall to the ground.
Falling prone is not the same as falling unconscious. At this point in the thread, it feels kinda like you're grasping for advantageous loopholes.
No, the guy I responded to said "If a character is unconscious, they automatically fall prone," so I assumed their point was falling prone is what made them fall to the ground, but per the hover rules prone doesn't do that. I've read other threads and actual I found many that say you would still hover if unconscious since there is no rule anywhere that states you don't. But if you know of a rule that does i'm interested to know.
If a character is unconscious, they automatically fall prone, per the Unconscious condition rules.
So that would mean they still hover in the air then right? Because hover states if you fall prone you do not fall to the ground.
I mean, you can debate the RAW on it, I guess, but if I were DM, there's no way I'd let you just float there in the sky. Whatever is keeping you up, is something that requires some kind of effort on your part. Even if it's not concentration, you're doing something, and you can't keep doing it once you're unconscious. What's more, being stuck up there could work against you. If you're out of range of healing word, none of your allies will be able to heal you or otherwise stabilize you. You'd be at the mercy of the death saves; and if you stabilized, its 1-4 hours before you wake up.
And that just gave me the image of the party lassoing you and dragging you around like a Thanksgiving Day parade balloon.
I used to be VERY against the idea of "free at-will" flight for low-level PCs, because as others have mentioned, it makes many obstacles trivial. However in practice I've never seen it become huge problem.
Sometimes I wish there were some more limits such as altitude or how long you can stay aloft... but I certainly don't want to return to the AD&D other editions' methods of "flight categories"... anyone remember that? "you need to fly at least x feet forward, can only make a 30 degree turn...."
Those rules were awful. that was half the reason I never even tried to fly in those editions was the complexity of trying to turn. maybe that was the point, a back door way to stop people flying.
Thats fine and i'd expect most DM's to agree, i'm just saying, as you noted, per RAW it seems like you wouldn't actually fall. That can be a good way to penalize flyers, if they go unconscious and healing word can't get to them the party needs to think quick or hope you pass your death saving throws. and ya you could lasso them and just drag them back down. But again i'm fine with a DM deciding either way.
Quite frankly, every character has cool abilities that they should be able to use to bypass encounters some time, so that they feel good about themselves + their character. Flying does help adventurers overcome some challenges, though it isn't actually that powerful since the DM can just design things differently to account for this.
That being said, your Dungeon Master has every right to ban this ability, because it can be annoying and they're in charge of the game. Since Genie Warlocks only get access to this by level 6, it might make sense to ask whether flying may work since you have to wait a bit to get it, or to see if you could get a replacement feature or feat for the ability you're losing as a result of this rule.
Ya thats what I was thinking too, maybe a replacement ability or feat if they really don't want the flying. Really need the Imp to be able to fly though, thats a deal breaker haha
To be fair, he doesn't like using flying monsters either so its not like he'd throw flying creatures at as and then say we can't fly, it goes both ways.
So... they're taking the Dragons out of Dungeons and Dragons?
If you stop and look - there's a metric ton of monsters that have the flying ability. And if they're not using flying monsters, because they fly - that seems absolutely wild.
And if they're using flying monsters but removing their flying ability - that seems wild too. Because that's part of their DC is the fact that they can fly.
The DM is missing out on a lot of creatures... like, well, Dragons, stirges, chimeras, pegasus, a lot of different demons, rocs, on and on and on...
The DM should just have a note paper and write down monsters, NPCs, PCs, and write down where their height is in flight, if they are flying.
To me it's wild to think of removing flying creatures (and/or their ability of flight).
Some classes also get flying stuff (whether spells or mounts), that feel crippling to the character too.
Ya he's said he wouldn't allow flying steeds as well so no Greater Steed for Paladins at 13 either. I might talk to him a bit more as we get to higher levels and see if he's willing to give in a bit and talk through how it might not be as OP as he thinks to allow PC's to fly, but again totally up to him and its also a tracking thing he doesn't like either but we'll see. You do make good points though.
The idea of PC flight is something that GMs have to learn to cope with. Sure, any GM is entitled to restrict whether PCs can do it and at what level it's their game so it's their rules. I think a lot of it has to do with experience. It takes practice to get used to how things work, and how to challenge your players.
Removing all flying monsters is ridiculous and should not be done at all. Most of my parties have encountered flying monsters before they got the ability to fly. I've also had parties with Aarakockra from lvl 1. There is still a limit when the rest of the party can't fly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Every character in my current game can fly. It really isn't a problem. Yes, it makes the characters more powerful than standard but I'm not running Adventurer's League. It works great in a high-powered gonzo style game for the fun of it.
Every character in my current game can fly. It really isn't a problem. Yes, it makes the characters more powerful than standard but I'm not running Adventurer's League. It works great in a high-powered gonzo style game for the fun of it.
Would you say it would be more unfair if only one player or so could fly but the others couldn't? Like do you think it over powers a single player too much but if everyone can its ok?
Every character in my current game can fly. It really isn't a problem. Yes, it makes the characters more powerful than standard but I'm not running Adventurer's League. It works great in a high-powered gonzo style game for the fun of it.
Would you say it would be more unfair if only one player or so could fly but the others couldn't? Like do you think it over powers a single player too much but if everyone can its ok?
I can’t speak for lemurion, but in my current campaign, we have one character who can fly (fairy) and no one else can. It hasn’t been a big deal so far.
But it sounded like your DM was more worried about the practice of tracking heights more than the power level. I get that, the game rules don’t work as well in 3 dimensions. Most notably, it’s not specifically stated if a 5’ square is actually a 5’ cube. And even if you accept it is, you have to deal with your 8’ tall Goliath being halfway into that second square vertically, but not actually occupying it, which gets counter-intuitive. And there’s lots of arguments about how high something needs to be flying to provoke an OA, and how even if they’re 9’ off the ground, the 2’6” halfling still somehow gets to attack it, since it’s in that adjacent vertical square.
I mean, I’m the first person to be willing to throw logic out the window and just let you do what the rules let you do, but flying creatures really test that philosophy for me.
Every character in my current game can fly. It really isn't a problem. Yes, it makes the characters more powerful than standard but I'm not running Adventurer's League. It works great in a high-powered gonzo style game for the fun of it.
Would you say it would be more unfair if only one player or so could fly but the others couldn't? Like do you think it over powers a single player too much but if everyone can its ok?
I can’t speak for lemurion, but in my current campaign, we have one character who can fly (fairy) and no one else can. It hasn’t been a big deal so far.
But it sounded like your DM was more worried about the practice of tracking heights more than the power level. I get that, the game rules don’t work as well in 3 dimensions. Most notably, it’s not specifically stated if a 5’ square is actually a 5’ cube. And even if you accept it is, you have to deal with your 8’ tall Goliath being halfway into that second square vertically, but not actually occupying it, which gets counter-intuitive. And there’s lots of arguments about how high something needs to be flying to provoke an OA, and how even if they’re 9’ off the ground, the 2’6” halfling still somehow gets to attack it, since it’s in that adjacent vertical square.
I mean, I’m the first person to be willing to throw logic out the window and just let you do what the rules let you do, but flying creatures really test that philosophy for me.
odd ly enough, this is why I set all my in game heights to something other than 5 foot increments.
my base is a 6 foot cube. Partials can share. Small is 3 foot cube. Large is 9 foot cube, and so forth — let’s me go down to 18”, 12”, 6”, 3”, and 1”. Then up to 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 and so on. I have 30 sizes to account for dinosaurs and dragons and Titans, oh my.
I also use a 6 foot measure for areas, reaches, and the like, instead of five foot. I get that 5 is a great number and all, but it scales poorly around human dimensions.
this really made for a much easier time of handling flight, climbing on monsters, and occupying space rules. It sucks because I still think in 5’s, lol, but now I can not only handle the “climbs on the dragons 🐉 back and stabs beneath a scale” things but also the whole “hurled thirty feet out and you have, who, 85 feet to fall down”.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don’t find flying PCs to be a problem, it just gives me an excuse to invent more interesting and difficult challenges to present to the party is all.
Every character in my current game can fly. It really isn't a problem. Yes, it makes the characters more powerful than standard but I'm not running Adventurer's League. It works great in a high-powered gonzo style game for the fun of it.
Would you say it would be more unfair if only one player or so could fly but the others couldn't? Like do you think it over powers a single player too much but if everyone can its ok?
I wouldn’t, no. A DM’s job is all about presenting challenges to th if players that allow them to use their PC’s abilities and resources in interesting ways to overcome those challenges. I say let the flying PCs be special in that they can fly, just as every race/species provides different benefits to the PC. It’s up to the players to figure out how to overcome the challenges the DM presents them. PC flight is just another tool in the party’s toolbox is all.
It's not too hard to curb flying in combat: anything flying through the air makes an obvious target for ranged enemies and it's fair to say most structures or caves are only 10 ft high so they often can't fly out of melee range there. Out of combat it's not necessarily that bad so long as the DM makes obstacles more complicated than "put a lever/macguffin in a high place". It's fair to say a flying PC can't carry other players, so as long as the entire party still needs to cope with the obstacle it just gives the flying player a brief moment of satisfaction at being able to "beat" the obstacle so easily, which is not a bad thing. Occasionally they can help the entire party, like if they fly up to tie off a rope or something, but familiars or Mage Hand can also pretty readily help get a grappling hook in place and you'll typically find at least one of those in a given party, so they're still unlikely to actually be a unique and singular show stealer in most situations.
I introduced 'Lodestone Arrows' - a simple magic item that does 1 point of damage and dispels any magical flight.
I've never had to use them =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Would you say it would be more unfair if only one player or so could fly but the others couldn't? Like do you think it over powers a single player too much but if everyone can its ok?
If a character can fly, it should be substituting another ability any way, so I don't think the "one character can but other characters can't" problem of balance. Especially since if you have a Wizard, Sorceror or Warlock (or, to a more limited extent, Artificer), then that ability can be given to part or even the whole of the party anyway. The bone of contention is more about it existing at all, really. It constrains what the DM can do to create an interesting obstacle (both in and out of combat). Some DMs don't care, others do. I'm about to start a campaign and a player messaged me asking if I'd allow flying races, I said that I saw no circumstances in the early game that would be broken by it, so I was fine with it (later in the game there is too much potentially broken stuff to worry about it, in my estimation). That's how it should work, really - the players ask, and the DM only says no if it's going to wreck the game somehow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A loadstone is a magnet. How would a magnetic arrow do less damage or negate flight?
I would imagine that it is both blunted and magnetic in a way that "magically reasserts the magnetic power of gravity that draws things to the ground." And yes, I know that gravity is not actually related to magnetism or a magnetic force in general.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
A loadstone is a magnet. How would a magnetic arrow do less damage or negate flight?
I would imagine that it is both blunted and magnetic in a way that "magically reasserts the magnetic power of gravity that draws things to the ground." And yes, I know that gravity is not actually related to magnetism or a magnetic force in general.
Ahh ha ha. Wibbly wobbly, magic wagic stuff. Gotcha.
Let us be blunt: Flying critters ruin the whole pit trap thing, lol.
The solution is not be upset about how pit traps are useless.
The solution is to use more nets and entangling that gets them when they fly over the pit trap. Let us set our complex puzzle rooms so that the far door can only be opened if the very heavy pieces are moved or the floor is at least slightly unbalanced, triggering the mechanism.
We think top down, linear path for dungeons, for travel, like we are looking at a map laid out before us.
Move to the side -- look at it as levels above and below. Spatial systems are far more entertaining -- critters on walls and ceilings, doors in floors and ceilings, Traps that only target flying critters. Low ceilings, narrow corridors.
Based on my own difficulties many years ago (as I mentioned earlier), it was a failure to think outside the box, to see the world as anything more than a space ten feet wide, ten feet high, and stretching off to the horizon.
And it was Steve Jackson's original version of Car Wars that broke me of that, lol (along with some battletech lol)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Car Wars! I bought that box set when it first came out. My friends and I had a lot of fun with that. Sadly, like the rest of my RP game collection, it is gone now.
If I'm playing with a DM who finds flying a pain in the posterior and doesn't want to deal with it I'd be fine with that, they're there to have fun after all. I find the idea that I might think less of them because they don't want to or can't make encounters to deal with it rather odd, we're supposed to be mates playing a game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, the guy I responded to said "If a character is unconscious, they automatically fall prone," so I assumed their point was falling prone is what made them fall to the ground, but per the hover rules prone doesn't do that. I've read other threads and actual I found many that say you would still hover if unconscious since there is no rule anywhere that states you don't. But if you know of a rule that does i'm interested to know.
Thats fine and i'd expect most DM's to agree, i'm just saying, as you noted, per RAW it seems like you wouldn't actually fall. That can be a good way to penalize flyers, if they go unconscious and healing word can't get to them the party needs to think quick or hope you pass your death saving throws. and ya you could lasso them and just drag them back down. But again i'm fine with a DM deciding either way.
Ya thats what I was thinking too, maybe a replacement ability or feat if they really don't want the flying. Really need the Imp to be able to fly though, thats a deal breaker haha
Ya he's said he wouldn't allow flying steeds as well so no Greater Steed for Paladins at 13 either. I might talk to him a bit more as we get to higher levels and see if he's willing to give in a bit and talk through how it might not be as OP as he thinks to allow PC's to fly, but again totally up to him and its also a tracking thing he doesn't like either but we'll see. You do make good points though.
The idea of PC flight is something that GMs have to learn to cope with. Sure, any GM is entitled to restrict whether PCs can do it and at what level it's their game so it's their rules. I think a lot of it has to do with experience. It takes practice to get used to how things work, and how to challenge your players.
Removing all flying monsters is ridiculous and should not be done at all. Most of my parties have encountered flying monsters before they got the ability to fly. I've also had parties with Aarakockra from lvl 1. There is still a limit when the rest of the party can't fly.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Every character in my current game can fly. It really isn't a problem. Yes, it makes the characters more powerful than standard but I'm not running Adventurer's League. It works great in a high-powered gonzo style game for the fun of it.
Would you say it would be more unfair if only one player or so could fly but the others couldn't? Like do you think it over powers a single player too much but if everyone can its ok?
I can’t speak for lemurion, but in my current campaign, we have one character who can fly (fairy) and no one else can. It hasn’t been a big deal so far.
But it sounded like your DM was more worried about the practice of tracking heights more than the power level. I get that, the game rules don’t work as well in 3 dimensions. Most notably, it’s not specifically stated if a 5’ square is actually a 5’ cube. And even if you accept it is, you have to deal with your 8’ tall Goliath being halfway into that second square vertically, but not actually occupying it, which gets counter-intuitive. And there’s lots of arguments about how high something needs to be flying to provoke an OA, and how even if they’re 9’ off the ground, the 2’6” halfling still somehow gets to attack it, since it’s in that adjacent vertical square.
I mean, I’m the first person to be willing to throw logic out the window and just let you do what the rules let you do, but flying creatures really test that philosophy for me.
odd ly enough, this is why I set all my in game heights to something other than 5 foot increments.
my base is a 6 foot cube. Partials can share. Small is 3 foot cube. Large is 9 foot cube, and so forth — let’s me go down to 18”, 12”, 6”, 3”, and 1”. Then up to 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30 and so on. I have 30 sizes to account for dinosaurs and dragons and Titans, oh my.
I also use a 6 foot measure for areas, reaches, and the like, instead of five foot. I get that 5 is a great number and all, but it scales poorly around human dimensions.
this really made for a much easier time of handling flight, climbing on monsters, and occupying space rules. It sucks because I still think in 5’s, lol, but now I can not only handle the “climbs on the dragons 🐉 back and stabs beneath a scale” things but also the whole “hurled thirty feet out and you have, who, 85 feet to fall down”.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don’t find flying PCs to be a problem, it just gives me an excuse to invent more interesting and difficult challenges to present to the party is all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I wouldn’t, no. A DM’s job is all about presenting challenges to th if players that allow them to use their PC’s abilities and resources in interesting ways to overcome those challenges. I say let the flying PCs be special in that they can fly, just as every race/species provides different benefits to the PC. It’s up to the players to figure out how to overcome the challenges the DM presents them. PC flight is just another tool in the party’s toolbox is all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's not too hard to curb flying in combat: anything flying through the air makes an obvious target for ranged enemies and it's fair to say most structures or caves are only 10 ft high so they often can't fly out of melee range there. Out of combat it's not necessarily that bad so long as the DM makes obstacles more complicated than "put a lever/macguffin in a high place". It's fair to say a flying PC can't carry other players, so as long as the entire party still needs to cope with the obstacle it just gives the flying player a brief moment of satisfaction at being able to "beat" the obstacle so easily, which is not a bad thing. Occasionally they can help the entire party, like if they fly up to tie off a rope or something, but familiars or Mage Hand can also pretty readily help get a grappling hook in place and you'll typically find at least one of those in a given party, so they're still unlikely to actually be a unique and singular show stealer in most situations.
I introduced 'Lodestone Arrows' - a simple magic item that does 1 point of damage and dispels any magical flight.
I've never had to use them =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
A loadstone is a magnet. How would a magnetic arrow do less damage or negate flight?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If a character can fly, it should be substituting another ability any way, so I don't think the "one character can but other characters can't" problem of balance. Especially since if you have a Wizard, Sorceror or Warlock (or, to a more limited extent, Artificer), then that ability can be given to part or even the whole of the party anyway. The bone of contention is more about it existing at all, really. It constrains what the DM can do to create an interesting obstacle (both in and out of combat). Some DMs don't care, others do. I'm about to start a campaign and a player messaged me asking if I'd allow flying races, I said that I saw no circumstances in the early game that would be broken by it, so I was fine with it (later in the game there is too much potentially broken stuff to worry about it, in my estimation). That's how it should work, really - the players ask, and the DM only says no if it's going to wreck the game somehow.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I would imagine that it is both blunted and magnetic in a way that "magically reasserts the magnetic power of gravity that draws things to the ground." And yes, I know that gravity is not actually related to magnetism or a magnetic force in general.
Ahh ha ha. Wibbly wobbly, magic wagic stuff. Gotcha.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Let us be blunt: Flying critters ruin the whole pit trap thing, lol.
The solution is not be upset about how pit traps are useless.
The solution is to use more nets and entangling that gets them when they fly over the pit trap. Let us set our complex puzzle rooms so that the far door can only be opened if the very heavy pieces are moved or the floor is at least slightly unbalanced, triggering the mechanism.
We think top down, linear path for dungeons, for travel, like we are looking at a map laid out before us.
Move to the side -- look at it as levels above and below. Spatial systems are far more entertaining -- critters on walls and ceilings, doors in floors and ceilings, Traps that only target flying critters. Low ceilings, narrow corridors.
Based on my own difficulties many years ago (as I mentioned earlier), it was a failure to think outside the box, to see the world as anything more than a space ten feet wide, ten feet high, and stretching off to the horizon.
And it was Steve Jackson's original version of Car Wars that broke me of that, lol (along with some battletech lol)
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Car Wars! I bought that box set when it first came out. My friends and I had a lot of fun with that. Sadly, like the rest of my RP game collection, it is gone now.
If I'm playing with a DM who finds flying a pain in the posterior and doesn't want to deal with it I'd be fine with that, they're there to have fun after all. I find the idea that I might think less of them because they don't want to or can't make encounters to deal with it rather odd, we're supposed to be mates playing a game.