Recently had a session in which a enemy popped a potion of flight and tried to escape. One of my players casted Sleep on the enemy and successfully brought on the sleepy time. What should happen to the enemy? Should the plummet to a grizzled death or simply hover in mid air?
So basically the hover portion of the spell just inherently works? Seems reasonable. That's how it was handled and the players were able to snag the enemy with a rope and bring him down anyway but the bard that slept the enemy was hoping for a gnarly crash.
But Fly doesn’t HAVE an automatic hover portion? I get that being knocked prone or deprived of movement doesn’t automatically cause a magical flyer to fall... but floating while unconscious? Fly isnt Levitate...
Edit: the Potion of Flying is different, and does say they “can hover.” Point still stands though, I don’t see that it implies involuntary auto-hovering while unconscious
But Fly doesn’t HAVE an automatic hover portion? I get that being knocked prone or deprived of movement doesn’t automatically cause a magical flyer to fall... but floating while unconscious? Fly isnt Levitate...
Not Fly, Potion of Flying. The potion says: When you drink this potion, you gain a flying speed equal to your walking speed for 1 hour and can hover.
But Fly doesn’t HAVE an automatic hover portion? I get that being knocked prone or deprived of movement doesn’t automatically cause a magical flyer to fall... but floating while unconscious? Fly isnt Levitate...
Edit: the Potion of Flying is different, and does say they “can hover.” Point still stands though, I don’t see that it implies involuntary auto-hovering while unconscious
You know how 5e is about making you check every section of the rules to correctly resolve a single interaction of effects. Here is a quote from the flying movement rules that Saga linked:
If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell.
I agree that it would be nice if the spell itself had said so, but... 5e.
I am aware of that section. That section does not say that a magical fly speed allows one to hover while unconscious. I wouldn’t expect to swim while unconscious, even with a swim speed, so why would I expect I could hover while unconscious?
I am aware of that section. That section does not say that a magical fly speed allows one to hover while unconscious. I wouldn’t expect to swim while unconscious, even with a swim speed, so why would I expect I could hover while unconscious?
Because nothing about unconscious makes you not hover. It makes you prone with a speed of 0, but that only drops normal flyers.
I am aware of that section. That section does not say that a magical fly speed allows one to hover while unconscious. I wouldn’t expect to swim while unconscious, even with a swim speed, so why would I expect I could hover while unconscious?
Because the rules don't say otherwise.
I agree that just being able to hover in real life wouldn't keep an unconscious creature airborne, but as everyone regularly points out, D&D is not a simulator, it's a game.
Nothing in the rules states that a hover-capable flying creature would fall if unconscious, and we specifically have the quoted rule saying that they wouldn't with similar conditions.
Personally, I would consider house-ruling that non-magical hovering would require conscious effort to maintain and so the creature would fall if knocked unconscious. A creature passed out but still flapping its wings seems pretty immersion-breaking to me. But it would definitely be a house rule, from what I've read in the published rules.
If you’re knocked unconscious while mounted, would you expect to get a DC 10 reflex save to stay on your mount?
Or, climbing... you’re climbing, knocked unconscious... so you just stay there, asleep on the side of the wall?
I’ll concede that there isn’t a RAW mandate that an unconscious flyer/climber/swimmer/rider MUST fall, but if we’re choosing our own adventure here and offering up our most reasonable ruling in the absence of a PHB mandate... unconscious people fall down.
Why would you fall? You're held aloft by magic, per the RAW. If you fall unconscious, you shouldn't move at all. 5E has no conservation of momentum and you can't direct your magical flight any longer. If you are held aloft by a potion of flying and go unconscious for any reason, it should be identical to the same thing happening on a carpet of flying: you go unconscious in the space you're in and hang there.
There's an entire off-topic discussion to be had about non-magical hover-capable flight and unconscious - if you can fly (hover) with wings, there's a strong argument that you should lose your fly speed (including hover) while unconscious, because presumably your vertical lift is powered by wings that only beat when told, and they can't be told while you're unconscious. But magic in 5E does its own thing independently of you unless you're told otherwise. That should apply here as well.
The phrase “held aloft” is doing the work there to make you sound reasonable, despite not being found in the potion. You “can hover” (i.e. can choose to hover), but that doesn’t mean that you necessarily DO hover while not conscious and making choices. Nothing is “holding you aloft” other than your conscious intent to fly, which is absent while asleep.
The phrase “held aloft” is doing the work there to make you sound reasonable, despite not being found in the potion. You “can hover” (i.e. can choose to hover), but that doesn’t mean that you necessarily DO hover while not conscious and making choices. Nothing is “holding you aloft” other than your conscious intent to fly, which is absent while asleep.
“Held aloft by magic” is a somewhat poetic means of saying “magically-sourced flight.” Conscious intent to fly does not keep you in the air. Magic does. Once that magic is gone, you fall. If conscious intent to fly is gone, you just stop moving. The DM doesn’t need to ask a player every turn if they consciously want to stay in the air. The player not electing to descend is enough. Interestingly, this is also true of non-magical flight. The aaracokra doesn’t need to consciously decide to stay in the air, so “conscious intent to stay aloft” isn’t relevant in any case.
The aarakocra absolutely DOES need to consciously stay in the air, if they were unconscious they would fall? They don’t have a hover.
sounds like we basically just have different starting baseline assumptions, neither of which are explicit in PHB. you think that starting point A is reasonable (magical flight flies you without conscious intent, as an outside independent force) and I think that starting point B is reasonable instead (magical flight is intentional movement, and requires consciousness, just like all other magical abilities and movement).
But Fly doesn’t HAVE an automatic hover portion? I get that being knocked prone or deprived of movement doesn’t automatically cause a magical flyer to fall... but floating while unconscious? Fly isnt Levitate...
Edit: the Potion of Flying is different, and does say they “can hover.” Point still stands though, I don’t see that it implies involuntary auto-hovering while unconscious
You know how 5e is about making you check every section of the rules to correctly resolve a single interaction of effects. Here is a quote from the flying movement rules that Saga linked:
If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell.
I agree that it would be nice if the spell itself had said so, but... 5e.
I'm not sure here what about this section is confusing: the RAW for the unconscious condition is that " An unconscious creature is incapacitated, can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings". the condition is depriving the ability to move based on its plain english wording so by default the affected creature falls unless it meets one of the exceptions in the text. In this case, to define the exceptions the questions then are 1)is the creature flying due to magic (fly spell, potions, racial/class abilities that are magical, etc) and 2) does it have the hover trait? Only if the answer to both questions is no does the creature fall. In this case, with a potion of flying, the answer to both questions is yes (the potion is magical, and it explicitly grants the ability to hover). this is pretty easy to do for just about any situation involving flying and being knocked unconscious...
Fly Spell? magic, so they don't fall (unless they also were concentrating on the spell, then they do because the spell ends)
Magic Item that grants flight? magic, so they don't fall (unless the item specifically says they do)
Beholders and similar hovering creatures? they have the hover trait so they don't fall
Aarakocra and "naturally" flying creatures? unless their flight is explicitly stated to be magical, they fall.
To say that a creature falls when they are "knocked prone, have its speed reduced to 0, or are otherwise deprived of the ability to move" is NOT to say that they don't ALSO fall for other reasons. I can understand your reading that sentence as a closed list, implying that Unconscious doesn't cause falling except insofar as it may cause you to fall prone, reduce speed to 0, and deprive your ability to move... but I can also understand reading that sentence as an open list describing common ways that a creature may fall while flying, but not preventing other common-sense interactions. I'd say that having a trait (ability to hover; held aloft by magic) that prevents the list from causing you to fall, isn't necessarily a defense against other things not on the list causing you to fall... especially if that other thing not on the list appears to specifically be nullifying your ability to hover/be held aloft by magic, cutting off that ability?
Depending on whether you rule a dead creature is a creature or an object, it would seem to me that your interpretation leaves the door open for dead creatures to continue to bob in mid-air indefinitely, since apparently them hovering is not dependent on any conscious movement. While that certainly makes sense for a spell like Levitate, which does specifically describe that it holds creatures aloft as an outside force not contingent upon their conscious will, that makes no sense for a spell like Fly, or the Potion of Flying, or even a feature like the new UA Fairy's magical racial fly speed.
This isn't a strawman, this is an analogy to attempt to make my point clearer.
The closest we get to a single section in the PHB describing death, is in Chapter 9, Damage and Healing, Dropping to 0 Hit Points. It spans several spread out sections, so permit me to paraphrase, that it describes something like: a creature dies when it is reduced to 0 hit points, and either fails three death saving throws or suffers massive damage.
Now elsewhere, we can find qualifiers that provide exceptions to that list, like a Zealot's Rage Beyond Death which allows them to stay alive in spite of massive damage or failed death saving throws for a limited time.
Does that imply to you that a creature can't also die from other things that don't reduce them to 0 hit points? Like say a disease, 6 exhaustion levels, a Wish, a Disintegrate, etc. etc.? Does the fact that Zealot's Rage Beyond Death protects them from death saving throws and massive damage, imply to you that Rage Beyond Death must also protect against disease, exhaustion, Wish, or Disintegrate?
That's what your argument is sounding like to me... you found a list that described that you fall from flight when knocked prone, speed set to 0, or prevented from moving, and you're reading it to say that there's nothing else out there (like Unconscious) that might also cause you to fall. You're finding abilities (hovering; magical flight) that protect you from fallilng due to prone, speed 0, or unable to move, and extending it so that those abilities must also protect against other falling-causes, like Unconscious.
I recognize that there's isn't a RAW sentence that says "Unconscious causes a flying creature to fall, even if it has the ability to hover or magical flight." However, I think it is a reasonable assumption, when the magical flight source is not described as the sort of magic that would be expected to cause an unconscious/dead creature to keep bobbing there without direction. The original question was about what "should" happen, and I'm confident that a creature subject to Fly or Potion of Flying "should" only fly when it chooses to, not when its unconscious or dead.
The aarakocra absolutely DOES need to consciously stay in the air, if they were unconscious they would fall? They don’t have a hover.
sounds like we basically just have different starting baseline assumptions, neither of which are explicit in PHB. you think that starting point A is reasonable (magical flight flies you without conscious intent, as an outside independent force) and I think that starting point B is reasonable instead (magical flight is intentional movement, and requires consciousness, just like all other magical abilities and movement).
oh well.
The "conscious" in "conscious intent" is not the same as the "conscious" in "unconscious." In the former, "active" may be a more useful term.
You're incorrect that what you describe as "starting point A" isn't explicit in the PHB. The rule has been quoted many times. If your flight is magical, things that deprive you of the ability to move (like being unconscious, for example) do not make you fall. It's literally in the text.
This is the second thread in the past few days where you've engaged with me to just straight-up pretend text does not exist (sometimes going so far as quoting rules text that seems to support your position only because you suspiciously decline to quote the exact following words). It's immensely frustrating, and if you're going to keep doing it, I'm just not going to engage anymore.
Cool it, I'm not pretending text doesn't exist, I'm rather specifically engaging with it. If you can't participate without getting too frustrated, feel free to excuse yourself, nobody's forcing you to post in this thread.
The premise that magic flight = nothing that effects movement can make you fall ("If your flight is magical, things that deprive you of the ability to move ... do not make you fall" in your words) is not "literally" in the text. What is "literally" in the text is "unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as the Fly spell." That's problematic, because the Fly doesn't describe holding its subject aloft, only allowing them to fly with a fly speed. Contrast with Levitate, which does describe holding its subject aloft (or rather, "remains suspended").
So... did this section mis-use Fly as an example of something that Fly doesn't actually do? That's probably a stretch, I don't want to base my position on an argument that the rule text needs an errata, so I'll accept that Fly is sufficient to protect you from falling merely because you are Prone, your Speed is set to 0, or you're rendered incapable of movement. That probably means that any magic that functions similar to Fly (anything that causes a creature to magically "gain a flying speed") should be treated as "holding aloft" that creature in the same way, fine.
But does this section really say that Fly and other similar effects "hold you aloft" when you aren't awake to use your speed, or is it at least possible that Fly does not actually grant one the ability to "hover or be held aloft" when one is not awake to choose that? I don't see anything "literally" in the text there, or anywhere else, that says that Fly, a hover speed, or anything else grants one the ability to fly while Unconscious or dead. That does not seem to me to be a reasonable position to take, or one that I should be stuck with merely because the PHB doesn't answer "what happens when a flying creature falls asleep or dies mid-air?"
To say that a creature falls when they are "knocked prone, have its speed reduced to 0, or are otherwise deprived of the ability to move" is NOT to say that they don't ALSO fall for other reasons. I can understand your reading that sentence as a closed list, implying that Unconscious doesn't cause falling except insofar as it may cause you to fall prone, reduce speed to 0, and deprive your ability to move... but I can also understand reading that sentence as an open list describing common ways that a creature may fall while flying, but not preventing other common-sense interactions
When the text gives examples that aren't meant to be options from a larger set, it usually uses language such as "such as" to identify said examples as part of a larger set. That language doesn't exist in the relevant rule. As written, the plain english definition is that this is a closed set, and although there will likely be exceptions (being that the game is full of them), those exceptions will have to be explicitly described in accordance to the "specific beats general" rules for interpretation. The rules only do what they say they do, and barring language that implies additional options (again, like "such as"), there are not other "general rules" options that can cause falling to end.
. I'd say that having a trait (ability to hover; held aloft by magic) that prevents the list from causing you to fall, isn't necessarily a defense against other things not on the list causing you to fall... especially if that other thing not on the list appears to specifically be nullifying your ability to hover/be held aloft by magic, cutting off that ability?
Something that explicitly nullifies the ability would have to specifically say it does so, like antimagic field suppressing the effects of fly, the potion, or the magical flight granted to the UA Fairy race. In that particular case, the creature would fall, absolutely, but only because the spell and effect that is granting the ability is ceasing in the field. Likewise, any other ability would have to explicitly state both that it nullifies the effect and how the result should be adjudicated (see earthbind for a good example of how this is handled.
Depending on whether you rule a dead creature is a creature or an object, it would seem to me that your interpretation leaves the door open for dead creatures to continue to bob in mid-air indefinitely, since apparently them hovering is not dependent on any conscious movement.
I absolutely rule this way for creatures with natural abilities to hover, and it made a very memorable end to my Beholder BBEG in the last campaign I completed with my group. Artificial means of hovering (such as fly) I would rule would end if and only if the dead creature is no longer a valid target of the spell or effect (see below)
While that certainly makes sense for a spell like Levitate, which does specifically describe that it holds creatures aloft as an outside force not contingent upon their conscious will, that makes no sense for a spell like Fly, or the Potion of Flying, or even a feature like the new UA Fairy's magical racial fly speed.
The results are pretty straightforward. Levitate works on creatures and objects, so death is irrelevant. Fly must target a creature, so the spell would end when the creature dies (as it is now an object and not a valid target), and the creature would fall. The Potion says "you" without using terms like creature or object, so this is DM interpretation, but I would rule your body still qualifies as "you" even when deceased, so the creature would stay aloft. From the UA Fairy rule, the creature can hover, the ability is magical, and does not require the use of wings, so I'd rule if you were flying upon your death, you'd hover just as the beholder would in my earlier statement.
For the record, Fly doesn't require conscious thought to maintain except from the caster. The target of the spell only needs conscious thought to use the movement, same as when using any movement speed. If the caster is also the target, the issue is moot, as the spell would end outright from the loss of concentration and the creature would then fall.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Recently had a session in which a enemy popped a potion of flight and tried to escape. One of my players casted Sleep on the enemy and successfully brought on the sleepy time. What should happen to the enemy? Should the plummet to a grizzled death or simply hover in mid air?
Flying creatures who are being "held aloft by magic" do not fall.
So basically the hover portion of the spell just inherently works? Seems reasonable. That's how it was handled and the players were able to snag the enemy with a rope and bring him down anyway but the bard that slept the enemy was hoping for a gnarly crash.
But Fly doesn’t HAVE an automatic hover portion? I get that being knocked prone or deprived of movement doesn’t automatically cause a magical flyer to fall... but floating while unconscious? Fly isnt Levitate...
Edit: the Potion of Flying is different, and does say they “can hover.” Point still stands though, I don’t see that it implies involuntary auto-hovering while unconscious
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Not Fly, Potion of Flying. The potion says: When you drink this potion, you gain a flying speed equal to your walking speed for 1 hour and can hover.
You know how 5e is about making you check every section of the rules to correctly resolve a single interaction of effects. Here is a quote from the flying movement rules that Saga linked:
I agree that it would be nice if the spell itself had said so, but... 5e.
I am aware of that section. That section does not say that a magical fly speed allows one to hover while unconscious. I wouldn’t expect to swim while unconscious, even with a swim speed, so why would I expect I could hover while unconscious?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Because nothing about unconscious makes you not hover. It makes you prone with a speed of 0, but that only drops normal flyers.
Because the rules don't say otherwise.
I agree that just being able to hover in real life wouldn't keep an unconscious creature airborne, but as everyone regularly points out, D&D is not a simulator, it's a game.
Nothing in the rules states that a hover-capable flying creature would fall if unconscious, and we specifically have the quoted rule saying that they wouldn't with similar conditions.
Personally, I would consider house-ruling that non-magical hovering would require conscious effort to maintain and so the creature would fall if knocked unconscious. A creature passed out but still flapping its wings seems pretty immersion-breaking to me. But it would definitely be a house rule, from what I've read in the published rules.
If you’re knocked unconscious while mounted, would you expect to get a DC 10 reflex save to stay on your mount?
Or, climbing... you’re climbing, knocked unconscious... so you just stay there, asleep on the side of the wall?
I’ll concede that there isn’t a RAW mandate that an unconscious flyer/climber/swimmer/rider MUST fall, but if we’re choosing our own adventure here and offering up our most reasonable ruling in the absence of a PHB mandate... unconscious people fall down.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Why would you fall? You're held aloft by magic, per the RAW. If you fall unconscious, you shouldn't move at all. 5E has no conservation of momentum and you can't direct your magical flight any longer. If you are held aloft by a potion of flying and go unconscious for any reason, it should be identical to the same thing happening on a carpet of flying: you go unconscious in the space you're in and hang there.
There's an entire off-topic discussion to be had about non-magical hover-capable flight and unconscious - if you can fly (hover) with wings, there's a strong argument that you should lose your fly speed (including hover) while unconscious, because presumably your vertical lift is powered by wings that only beat when told, and they can't be told while you're unconscious. But magic in 5E does its own thing independently of you unless you're told otherwise. That should apply here as well.
The phrase “held aloft” is doing the work there to make you sound reasonable, despite not being found in the potion. You “can hover” (i.e. can choose to hover), but that doesn’t mean that you necessarily DO hover while not conscious and making choices. Nothing is “holding you aloft” other than your conscious intent to fly, which is absent while asleep.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
“Held aloft by magic” is a somewhat poetic means of saying “magically-sourced flight.” Conscious intent to fly does not keep you in the air. Magic does. Once that magic is gone, you fall. If conscious intent to fly is gone, you just stop moving. The DM doesn’t need to ask a player every turn if they consciously want to stay in the air. The player not electing to descend is enough. Interestingly, this is also true of non-magical flight. The aaracokra doesn’t need to consciously decide to stay in the air, so “conscious intent to stay aloft” isn’t relevant in any case.
The aarakocra absolutely DOES need to consciously stay in the air, if they were unconscious they would fall? They don’t have a hover.
sounds like we basically just have different starting baseline assumptions, neither of which are explicit in PHB. you think that starting point A is reasonable (magical flight flies you without conscious intent, as an outside independent force) and I think that starting point B is reasonable instead (magical flight is intentional movement, and requires consciousness, just like all other magical abilities and movement).
oh well.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not sure here what about this section is confusing: the RAW for the unconscious condition is that " An unconscious creature is incapacitated, can't move or speak, and is unaware of its surroundings". the condition is depriving the ability to move based on its plain english wording so by default the affected creature falls unless it meets one of the exceptions in the text. In this case, to define the exceptions the questions then are 1)is the creature flying due to magic (fly spell, potions, racial/class abilities that are magical, etc) and 2) does it have the hover trait? Only if the answer to both questions is no does the creature fall. In this case, with a potion of flying, the answer to both questions is yes (the potion is magical, and it explicitly grants the ability to hover). this is pretty easy to do for just about any situation involving flying and being knocked unconscious...
Fly Spell? magic, so they don't fall (unless they also were concentrating on the spell, then they do because the spell ends)
Magic Item that grants flight? magic, so they don't fall (unless the item specifically says they do)
Beholders and similar hovering creatures? they have the hover trait so they don't fall
Aarakocra and "naturally" flying creatures? unless their flight is explicitly stated to be magical, they fall.
To say that a creature falls when they are "knocked prone, have its speed reduced to 0, or are otherwise deprived of the ability to move" is NOT to say that they don't ALSO fall for other reasons. I can understand your reading that sentence as a closed list, implying that Unconscious doesn't cause falling except insofar as it may cause you to fall prone, reduce speed to 0, and deprive your ability to move... but I can also understand reading that sentence as an open list describing common ways that a creature may fall while flying, but not preventing other common-sense interactions. I'd say that having a trait (ability to hover; held aloft by magic) that prevents the list from causing you to fall, isn't necessarily a defense against other things not on the list causing you to fall... especially if that other thing not on the list appears to specifically be nullifying your ability to hover/be held aloft by magic, cutting off that ability?
Depending on whether you rule a dead creature is a creature or an object, it would seem to me that your interpretation leaves the door open for dead creatures to continue to bob in mid-air indefinitely, since apparently them hovering is not dependent on any conscious movement. While that certainly makes sense for a spell like Levitate, which does specifically describe that it holds creatures aloft as an outside force not contingent upon their conscious will, that makes no sense for a spell like Fly, or the Potion of Flying, or even a feature like the new UA Fairy's magical racial fly speed.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This isn't a strawman, this is an analogy to attempt to make my point clearer.
The closest we get to a single section in the PHB describing death, is in Chapter 9, Damage and Healing, Dropping to 0 Hit Points. It spans several spread out sections, so permit me to paraphrase, that it describes something like: a creature dies when it is reduced to 0 hit points, and either fails three death saving throws or suffers massive damage.
Now elsewhere, we can find qualifiers that provide exceptions to that list, like a Zealot's Rage Beyond Death which allows them to stay alive in spite of massive damage or failed death saving throws for a limited time.
Does that imply to you that a creature can't also die from other things that don't reduce them to 0 hit points? Like say a disease, 6 exhaustion levels, a Wish, a Disintegrate, etc. etc.? Does the fact that Zealot's Rage Beyond Death protects them from death saving throws and massive damage, imply to you that Rage Beyond Death must also protect against disease, exhaustion, Wish, or Disintegrate?
That's what your argument is sounding like to me... you found a list that described that you fall from flight when knocked prone, speed set to 0, or prevented from moving, and you're reading it to say that there's nothing else out there (like Unconscious) that might also cause you to fall. You're finding abilities (hovering; magical flight) that protect you from fallilng due to prone, speed 0, or unable to move, and extending it so that those abilities must also protect against other falling-causes, like Unconscious.
I recognize that there's isn't a RAW sentence that says "Unconscious causes a flying creature to fall, even if it has the ability to hover or magical flight." However, I think it is a reasonable assumption, when the magical flight source is not described as the sort of magic that would be expected to cause an unconscious/dead creature to keep bobbing there without direction. The original question was about what "should" happen, and I'm confident that a creature subject to Fly or Potion of Flying "should" only fly when it chooses to, not when its unconscious or dead.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The "conscious" in "conscious intent" is not the same as the "conscious" in "unconscious." In the former, "active" may be a more useful term.
You're incorrect that what you describe as "starting point A" isn't explicit in the PHB. The rule has been quoted many times. If your flight is magical, things that deprive you of the ability to move (like being unconscious, for example) do not make you fall. It's literally in the text.
This is the second thread in the past few days where you've engaged with me to just straight-up pretend text does not exist (sometimes going so far as quoting rules text that seems to support your position only because you suspiciously decline to quote the exact following words). It's immensely frustrating, and if you're going to keep doing it, I'm just not going to engage anymore.
Cool it, I'm not pretending text doesn't exist, I'm rather specifically engaging with it. If you can't participate without getting too frustrated, feel free to excuse yourself, nobody's forcing you to post in this thread.
The premise that magic flight = nothing that effects movement can make you fall ("If your flight is magical, things that deprive you of the ability to move ... do not make you fall" in your words) is not "literally" in the text. What is "literally" in the text is "unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as the Fly spell." That's problematic, because the Fly doesn't describe holding its subject aloft, only allowing them to fly with a fly speed. Contrast with Levitate, which does describe holding its subject aloft (or rather, "remains suspended").
So... did this section mis-use Fly as an example of something that Fly doesn't actually do? That's probably a stretch, I don't want to base my position on an argument that the rule text needs an errata, so I'll accept that Fly is sufficient to protect you from falling merely because you are Prone, your Speed is set to 0, or you're rendered incapable of movement. That probably means that any magic that functions similar to Fly (anything that causes a creature to magically "gain a flying speed") should be treated as "holding aloft" that creature in the same way, fine.
But does this section really say that Fly and other similar effects "hold you aloft" when you aren't awake to use your speed, or is it at least possible that Fly does not actually grant one the ability to "hover or be held aloft" when one is not awake to choose that? I don't see anything "literally" in the text there, or anywhere else, that says that Fly, a hover speed, or anything else grants one the ability to fly while Unconscious or dead. That does not seem to me to be a reasonable position to take, or one that I should be stuck with merely because the PHB doesn't answer "what happens when a flying creature falls asleep or dies mid-air?"
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
When the text gives examples that aren't meant to be options from a larger set, it usually uses language such as "such as" to identify said examples as part of a larger set. That language doesn't exist in the relevant rule. As written, the plain english definition is that this is a closed set, and although there will likely be exceptions (being that the game is full of them), those exceptions will have to be explicitly described in accordance to the "specific beats general" rules for interpretation. The rules only do what they say they do, and barring language that implies additional options (again, like "such as"), there are not other "general rules" options that can cause falling to end.
Something that explicitly nullifies the ability would have to specifically say it does so, like antimagic field suppressing the effects of fly, the potion, or the magical flight granted to the UA Fairy race. In that particular case, the creature would fall, absolutely, but only because the spell and effect that is granting the ability is ceasing in the field. Likewise, any other ability would have to explicitly state both that it nullifies the effect and how the result should be adjudicated (see earthbind for a good example of how this is handled.
I absolutely rule this way for creatures with natural abilities to hover, and it made a very memorable end to my Beholder BBEG in the last campaign I completed with my group. Artificial means of hovering (such as fly) I would rule would end if and only if the dead creature is no longer a valid target of the spell or effect (see below)
The results are pretty straightforward. Levitate works on creatures and objects, so death is irrelevant. Fly must target a creature, so the spell would end when the creature dies (as it is now an object and not a valid target), and the creature would fall. The Potion says "you" without using terms like creature or object, so this is DM interpretation, but I would rule your body still qualifies as "you" even when deceased, so the creature would stay aloft. From the UA Fairy rule, the creature can hover, the ability is magical, and does not require the use of wings, so I'd rule if you were flying upon your death, you'd hover just as the beholder would in my earlier statement.
For the record, Fly doesn't require conscious thought to maintain except from the caster. The target of the spell only needs conscious thought to use the movement, same as when using any movement speed. If the caster is also the target, the issue is moot, as the spell would end outright from the loss of concentration and the creature would then fall.