I have an Arakocra In my party as well and I find his tactic of flying straight into the air and wanting to stay in that same spot frustrating. Would it be justifiable for me to make a ruling of hovering so many feet in the air every turn would require him to use that same amount of movement every turn?
Sorry to resurrect an older post but I've been looking into flight mechanics for a campaign I'm planning and thought maybe I could get someones opinion on my own homebrew take on this.
So, when coming up with this I wanted to keep in mind that the main selling point of 5e is simplicity, which is why the old 3.5e rules for flight were removed to begin with. However this is clearly not a very satisfying solution. Additionally, I decided to take inspiration largely from the ship movement rules from Ghosts of Saltmarsh since it's officially published content and has some similarities to this type of movement.
During any turn in which a creature is flying it must move horizontally at least half of its base flying speed, with up to one 90-degree turn.
Upwards movement while flying is considered difficult terrain.
The key components to note with these rules are: in order to fly in a confined space, the area must be at least half the creatures flying speed in each dimension since it can only turn once each round. Since the minimum distance traveled is determined on its base flying speed and not current speed, any reduction in its movement will force the creature to have to work harder to stay airborne. And, flying upwards to to get out of reach of enemies instead of simply away from them will be less efficient, helping to limit this tactic outside of premeditated attacks.
For anyone else desiring more realism you could also include the sailing parts about traveling into and with the wind giving a penalty or bonus to their speed respectively. However, since stronger winds aren't essential to flying like they are to sailing, and since its direction is entirely up to the DM, I don't feel it should be included in these rules by default.
The rules for falling from great heights is that you descend 200 ft immediately and then another 200 ft thereafter.
If I recall correctly, there were no rules for falling from great heights until Xanathar's, Guide, which states a fall speed of 500 feet per round - which is actually slow for a falling humanoid body.
For non-magical flight without the Hover ability (i.e. natural ability like Aarakocra, Sirens, Harpies, certain Aasimar, etc.)
Keep in mind, and it makes sense, a creature with flying has to spend their movement to stay aloft otherwise they would fall. In 5E it is not as big of a deal, because you can't swap a move for a minor action (or bonus action) like you could in 4E. This basically means they can either move xx ft up down (if already flying) left or right or required to spend their movement to maintain their position. If they maintain their position, this then removes the ability for the character to move that turn to reposition.
Alternately to "hold their position" they give up their move to "glide" and you can say that they move 1/4 of their movement (round down) in a specific or random direction. So 50 ft of flight would means the character would move 10 ft or 2 squares in any valid direction. Much like birds of prey. They mix flying and gliding in a "circle" for hunting.
In both cases, it means they must make a conscious decision regarding their move and failure to state it has dire effects of falling. Because if they don't choose, they effective stopped flying and thus fall.
A third option is once they are aloft they must spend half their movement to stay aloft and in the same position, similar to the rules for standing from prone.
You can also add any of these, that at the end of their turn they automatically descend 10 - 15 ft (or more) depending on general weather conditions.
But before a player selects a flying race, you can set the rules for flying down so that they understand the risks and rewards to flight.
This does require a bit of tracking, but then again flying in general requires tracking so it makes sense to just keep part of this.
If you have a problem with nonmagical flying characters climbing and firing from altitude, you could simply say that their attacks are made at disadvantage. The narrative reason would be due to the effort required to make a ranged attack while trying to maintain altitude or while moving. The mechanical reason could be very similar to making a ranged attack against a prone character. This could be overcome by gaining advantage, but it would only be straight rolls instead of best of two. Stealth could be rolled at disadvantage due to the flap of the wings.
As a DM, I really enjoy the challenge a flying PC poses. To each their own, but with some creativity a flying PC should not create much of an advantage over other players or create unbalanced encounters. Apart from your own homebrew adjustments, any area that is not outdoors really doesn't help someone with a flying speed if you plan your encounters properly. Many suggestions were already given, e.g. hunting them aggressively, trying to remove their movement speed, etc. There is significant risk to flying over enemies. Make sure your player understands that and he/she will probably limit its use of flight.
The other point made, that flying costs movement, can be implied from the fact that if their movement speed is reduced to 0, they fall. However, I choose not to see flying any different from standing. You use back and leg muscles to remain standing, same as you use your shoulder/neck muscles to remaining airborne. An Aarakocra uses its wings to actively stay in flight, not passive physics. To me, it does not require movement (in ft.) to stay still. Reason for this is that I see an Aarakocra's flying ability as a type of native movement, as much as a spider has the native ability to climb and stick to surfaces; it is a natural thing. Downplaying these abilities can be a serious blow to the creativity of your PCs, which I strongly dislike. But again, that is my opinion.
Even with the suggestions of reducing movement for maintaining a position, it doesn't hamper the character's creativity. Heck half the time, people only use their full move in combat at the beginning to get into melee range with their respective targets and then use some of their move to jockey for position or move to the next target. So a lot of movement goes to "waste" in combat.
The rules call out Hover as a specific ability and none of the flying races have the Hover ability as part of their ability to fly. This immediately indicates that there is a difference between flying and hovering. What I've outlined are some simple ideas to account for this difference between Hovering and Flying as a house rule. Just like your house rule suggestion to ignore that stated difference.
It does take considerably more energy and control to maintain your self aloft and in one position. Just look at Birds, there are very few birds that hover in place. Most glide once aloft and circle an area but very seldom are they in the exact same position second to second.
Personally, I think the easiest solution, beyond effectively giving "hover" for free, is to use the prone rules. In this case, you are not standing from prone, but actively maintaining your exact position aloft. This represents the character adjusting for the pull of gravity, wind currents, etc. This is assuming that the character wants to maintain an exact position. If they want to move around, they can do so without any penalty.
I did add some suggestions to add in some "physics" flavor, but they were suggestions.
Now I am 100% the suggestion of Disadvantage on Stealth checks while flying due to the noise of the wings.
Flying does require a lot more energy, especially with a body as big as an Aarakocra for example. You could say that maybe exhaustion kicks in much faster, I do like the idea of that. Circling flight in birds of prey is very different though, that would never work without the thermodynamic rings they use to gain altitude, let alone for an Aarakocra body.
Gliding flight should cost very little energy and also produce very little sound (e.g. owls), but in cramped situations, a stealth check could possibly be made with disadvantage. Gliding at high speed over a fortification at night though? Maybe even with advantage if there is no moon out, and disadvantage on any perception checks. But this may quickly become overly complicated. I'll see how it goes.
I do tend to look at nature and physics as much as possible, as I'm confident there. If a PC has a convincing argument from an area they know better than me as a DM, I will roll with it. I try to prevent making any assumptions thay way, but it requires my constant focus.
1) Can Dispel Magic cause them to stop flying? If so, they can hover.
2) Humming birds and bats can hover. (Google them)
3) Any other creature is required to end in a square different than the one they started in. Minimum distance from start depends on size. =<Small: 5 ft, Medium/large: 10, Huge+ = 15 ft. Failure means they fall the amount they did not move (or they could intentionally land).
Can a flying creature without the hover trait stay in one place while airborne, or does it need to move each round? A flyer that lacks the hover trait can stay aloft without moving each round.
That said, knock yourself out balancing your games the way you (collective version, not anyone in particular) see fit.
I do agree, as a DM, I allow reasonable and reasoned discussions and will adopt a ruling or change a ruling based on the discussion.
On this topic, there have been some very good ideas from multiple folks and the discussions have been great and remained discussions. So I want to thank everyone for their input so far and for having discussions vs. arguments! So thanks!
Tecnick, I agree with your on gliding would at least give straight stealth vs. active flying. And I like the idea of the state of the moon and weather affecting it.
I already have to track days and phases of the moon for Were-creatures in my game, so adding in the weather shouldn't be hard and very situational.
The rules for falling from great heights is that you descend 200 ft immediately and then another 200 ft thereafter. So as long as your bird can right himself in 2 rounds, he’ll be fine.
And really, there’s only two ways to realistically hit someone 600 ft away and that’s with a longbow at disadvantage or as a warlock with eldritch spear and spell sniper, so not much is going to be touching our far out friend.
As for comparing this to real life, there are many simplifications for the sake of convenience and game balance, so it’s best not to get hung up on any particular detail (personally I’d like a more in depth combat system, but the way it is is simpler).
Since this post is active again, I'll update everyone who doesn't know with more current rules from Xanathar's Guide to Everything. A fall is an action that occurs immediately, just as most other actions (such as getting hit by a sword attack). When something falls, it hits the ground below it and takes fall damage. For falls from very high heights, an additional rule can be used: When one falls, they descend 500ft. They then continue to descend 500ft/rnd at the end of their turn. So, from the hypothetical 600ft earlier, they fall 500ft immediately upon having their movement reduced to 0. Then they get one round in which to take an action that might stop their falling. If their action fails, they immediately hit the ground at the end of their turn and take fall damage.
^This is a summary, not a word-for-word quote.
[redacted]
Notes: Please be aware that distributing electronic copies of Wizards of the Coast publications is illegal activity.
The rules for falling from great heights is that you descend 200 ft immediately and then another 200 ft thereafter. So as long as your bird can right himself in 2 rounds, he’ll be fine.
And really, there’s only two ways to realistically hit someone 600 ft away and that’s with a longbow at disadvantage or as a warlock with eldritch spear and spell sniper, so not much is going to be touching our far out friend.
As for comparing this to real life, there are many simplifications for the sake of convenience and game balance, so it’s best not to get hung up on any particular detail (personally I’d like a more in depth combat system, but the way it is is simpler).
Since this post is active again, I'll update everyone who doesn't know with more current rules from Xanathar's Guide to Everything. A fall is an action that occurs immediately, just as most other actions (such as getting hit by a sword attack). When something falls, it hits the ground below it and takes fall damage. For falls from very high heights, an additional rule can be used: When one falls, they descend 500ft. They then continue to descend 500ft/rnd at the end of their turn. So, from the hypothetical 600ft earlier, they fall 500ft immediately upon having their movement reduced to 0. Then they get one round in which to take an action that might stop their falling. If their action fails, they immediately hit the ground at the end of their turn and take fall damage.
^This is a summary, not a word-for-word quote.
[redacted]
This is from the beginning of Chapter 2 of the XGTE. As with anything in XGTE, it's an optional rule. As we're discussing optional/homebrew variations, that isn't a big deal, but it should be mentioned for clarity just in case a newer player finds it and thinks it should be always enforced.
Also, my brief search did not merit results for the 200 ft. The closest I could find to that was the maximum damage of 20d6 at the rate of 1d6 per 10 ft. That would imply a maximum of 200 ft of falling in regards to damage but not the rate of falling in a round. It should be noted that the XGTE rules also reference the 20d6 maximum damage.
That said, it mentions that a creature that can hover has a different interaction with effects that knock prone or set movement to 0 than other flying creatures. This would be the main difference from the intent for the rules regarding hover and non hover and not that one can remain stationary without expending movement while one cannot. While saying that creatures without hovering have to move to remain aloft is fine (and possibly necessary to maintain balance depending on how you rule on other things), it should be weighed against what the intent was for the rules AND other factors regarding the way that you rule. As always, bringing this up in a session zero will be a great way to handle the situation (possibly by asking if anyone has flight as part of their character concept or paying special attention to any character that has flight from their race (ie. Aarakocra), can get flight from their race (ie. Aasimar), or can get flight from their class (ie. Druids-8th level, Sorcerer-Draconic 14th level). If you treat magical forms similarly, those should be discussed as well.
I like Mog's take on simplified movement to stay at the same altitude houserule.
Personally, I agree that houserules for flying should optimally be discussed at session 0, but that doesn't always make sense since most people have gotten used to the idea of Not playing a flying race. Also, this sort of thing is a houserule that more for advanced DMs who feel confident with other aspects of movement and combat movement rules.
On a similar note, what do you all think about having to make a saving throw for a flying creature (non-magical flight) who receives a critical hit? I'm thinking a DEX save in order to stay airborne.
On a similar note, what do you all think about having to make a saving throw for a flying creature (non-magical flight) who receives a critical hit? I'm thinking a DEX save in order to stay airborne.
Not unless a critical hit also knocks a non-flying creature prone. Normally critical hits are just more damage, there's no reason to think they would have additional special effects.
But no drop at all in altitude? Even gliding assumes that a creature's wings stay in a certain arrangement. A critical hit on a creature on land would force a change in posture. Think about a punch to the solar plexus, for example, doubling someone over. A critical hit to a flying creature would cause an involuntary neuro-muscular spasm, right?
But no drop at all in altitude? Even gliding assumes that a creature's wings stay in a certain arrangement. A critical hit on a creature on land would force a change in posture. Think about a punch to the solar plexus, for example, doubling someone over. A critical hit to a flying creature would cause an involuntary neuro-muscular spasm, right?
Would it be enough that a couple of flaps wouldn't have then righted? That would likely be a hard wired reactionary response for a creature that could fly.
I probably wouldn't hard-wire a rule for it, but critical hitting a roc or dragon with a ballista should at least reduce their available move speed for that round or the following round of combat.
But no drop at all in altitude? Even gliding assumes that a creature's wings stay in a certain arrangement. A critical hit on a creature on land would force a change in posture. Think about a punch to the solar plexus, for example, doubling someone over. A critical hit to a flying creature would cause an involuntary neuro-muscular spasm, right?
A critical hit won't cause someone to double up -- that requires an attack that is applying stunned. There are multiple conditions that will affect flight -- grappled, incapacitated, paralyzed, petrified, prone, restrained, stunned, unconscious -- but critical hits don't inherently apply any of them, except by reducing target HP to 0.
I have an Arakocra In my party as well and I find his tactic of flying straight into the air and wanting to stay in that same spot frustrating. Would it be justifiable for me to make a ruling of hovering so many feet in the air every turn would require him to use that same amount of movement every turn?
Sorry to resurrect an older post but I've been looking into flight mechanics for a campaign I'm planning and thought maybe I could get someones opinion on my own homebrew take on this.
So, when coming up with this I wanted to keep in mind that the main selling point of 5e is simplicity, which is why the old 3.5e rules for flight were removed to begin with. However this is clearly not a very satisfying solution. Additionally, I decided to take inspiration largely from the ship movement rules from Ghosts of Saltmarsh since it's officially published content and has some similarities to this type of movement.
The key components to note with these rules are: in order to fly in a confined space, the area must be at least half the creatures flying speed in each dimension since it can only turn once each round. Since the minimum distance traveled is determined on its base flying speed and not current speed, any reduction in its movement will force the creature to have to work harder to stay airborne. And, flying upwards to to get out of reach of enemies instead of simply away from them will be less efficient, helping to limit this tactic outside of premeditated attacks.
For anyone else desiring more realism you could also include the sailing parts about traveling into and with the wind giving a penalty or bonus to their speed respectively. However, since stronger winds aren't essential to flying like they are to sailing, and since its direction is entirely up to the DM, I don't feel it should be included in these rules by default.
If I recall correctly, there were no rules for falling from great heights until Xanathar's, Guide, which states a fall speed of 500 feet per round - which is actually slow for a falling humanoid body.
For non-magical flight without the Hover ability (i.e. natural ability like Aarakocra, Sirens, Harpies, certain Aasimar, etc.)
Keep in mind, and it makes sense, a creature with flying has to spend their movement to stay aloft otherwise they would fall. In 5E it is not as big of a deal, because you can't swap a move for a minor action (or bonus action) like you could in 4E. This basically means they can either move xx ft up down (if already flying) left or right or required to spend their movement to maintain their position. If they maintain their position, this then removes the ability for the character to move that turn to reposition.
Alternately to "hold their position" they give up their move to "glide" and you can say that they move 1/4 of their movement (round down) in a specific or random direction. So 50 ft of flight would means the character would move 10 ft or 2 squares in any valid direction. Much like birds of prey. They mix flying and gliding in a "circle" for hunting.
In both cases, it means they must make a conscious decision regarding their move and failure to state it has dire effects of falling. Because if they don't choose, they effective stopped flying and thus fall.
A third option is once they are aloft they must spend half their movement to stay aloft and in the same position, similar to the rules for standing from prone.
You can also add any of these, that at the end of their turn they automatically descend 10 - 15 ft (or more) depending on general weather conditions.
But before a player selects a flying race, you can set the rules for flying down so that they understand the risks and rewards to flight.
This does require a bit of tracking, but then again flying in general requires tracking so it makes sense to just keep part of this.
If you have a problem with nonmagical flying characters climbing and firing from altitude, you could simply say that their attacks are made at disadvantage. The narrative reason would be due to the effort required to make a ranged attack while trying to maintain altitude or while moving. The mechanical reason could be very similar to making a ranged attack against a prone character. This could be overcome by gaining advantage, but it would only be straight rolls instead of best of two. Stealth could be rolled at disadvantage due to the flap of the wings.
As a DM, I really enjoy the challenge a flying PC poses. To each their own, but with some creativity a flying PC should not create much of an advantage over other players or create unbalanced encounters. Apart from your own homebrew adjustments, any area that is not outdoors really doesn't help someone with a flying speed if you plan your encounters properly. Many suggestions were already given, e.g. hunting them aggressively, trying to remove their movement speed, etc. There is significant risk to flying over enemies. Make sure your player understands that and he/she will probably limit its use of flight.
The other point made, that flying costs movement, can be implied from the fact that if their movement speed is reduced to 0, they fall. However, I choose not to see flying any different from standing. You use back and leg muscles to remain standing, same as you use your shoulder/neck muscles to remaining airborne. An Aarakocra uses its wings to actively stay in flight, not passive physics. To me, it does not require movement (in ft.) to stay still. Reason for this is that I see an Aarakocra's flying ability as a type of native movement, as much as a spider has the native ability to climb and stick to surfaces; it is a natural thing. Downplaying these abilities can be a serious blow to the creativity of your PCs, which I strongly dislike. But again, that is my opinion.
Even with the suggestions of reducing movement for maintaining a position, it doesn't hamper the character's creativity. Heck half the time, people only use their full move in combat at the beginning to get into melee range with their respective targets and then use some of their move to jockey for position or move to the next target. So a lot of movement goes to "waste" in combat.
The rules call out Hover as a specific ability and none of the flying races have the Hover ability as part of their ability to fly. This immediately indicates that there is a difference between flying and hovering. What I've outlined are some simple ideas to account for this difference between Hovering and Flying as a house rule. Just like your house rule suggestion to ignore that stated difference.
It does take considerably more energy and control to maintain your self aloft and in one position. Just look at Birds, there are very few birds that hover in place. Most glide once aloft and circle an area but very seldom are they in the exact same position second to second.
Personally, I think the easiest solution, beyond effectively giving "hover" for free, is to use the prone rules. In this case, you are not standing from prone, but actively maintaining your exact position aloft. This represents the character adjusting for the pull of gravity, wind currents, etc. This is assuming that the character wants to maintain an exact position. If they want to move around, they can do so without any penalty.
I did add some suggestions to add in some "physics" flavor, but they were suggestions.
Now I am 100% the suggestion of Disadvantage on Stealth checks while flying due to the noise of the wings.
Flying does require a lot more energy, especially with a body as big as an Aarakocra for example. You could say that maybe exhaustion kicks in much faster, I do like the idea of that. Circling flight in birds of prey is very different though, that would never work without the thermodynamic rings they use to gain altitude, let alone for an Aarakocra body.
Gliding flight should cost very little energy and also produce very little sound (e.g. owls), but in cramped situations, a stealth check could possibly be made with disadvantage. Gliding at high speed over a fortification at night though? Maybe even with advantage if there is no moon out, and disadvantage on any perception checks. But this may quickly become overly complicated. I'll see how it goes.
I do tend to look at nature and physics as much as possible, as I'm confident there. If a PC has a convincing argument from an area they know better than me as a DM, I will roll with it. I try to prevent making any assumptions thay way, but it requires my constant focus.
I divide flying creatures like this:
1) Can Dispel Magic cause them to stop flying? If so, they can hover.
2) Humming birds and bats can hover. (Google them)
3) Any other creature is required to end in a square different than the one they started in. Minimum distance from start depends on size. =<Small: 5 ft, Medium/large: 10, Huge+ = 15 ft. Failure means they fall the amount they did not move (or they could intentionally land).
For what it's worth, SAC has this:
Can a flying creature without the hover trait stay in one place while airborne, or does it need to move each round? A flyer that lacks the hover trait can stay aloft without moving each round.
That said, knock yourself out balancing your games the way you (collective version, not anyone in particular) see fit.
I do agree, as a DM, I allow reasonable and reasoned discussions and will adopt a ruling or change a ruling based on the discussion.
On this topic, there have been some very good ideas from multiple folks and the discussions have been great and remained discussions. So I want to thank everyone for their input so far and for having discussions vs. arguments! So thanks!
Tecnick, I agree with your on gliding would at least give straight stealth vs. active flying. And I like the idea of the state of the moon and weather affecting it.
I already have to track days and phases of the moon for Were-creatures in my game, so adding in the weather shouldn't be hard and very situational.
Since this post is active again, I'll update everyone who doesn't know with more current rules from Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
A fall is an action that occurs immediately, just as most other actions (such as getting hit by a sword attack). When something falls, it hits the ground below it and takes fall damage. For falls from very high heights, an additional rule can be used: When one falls, they descend 500ft. They then continue to descend 500ft/rnd at the end of their turn. So, from the hypothetical 600ft earlier, they fall 500ft immediately upon having their movement reduced to 0. Then they get one round in which to take an action that might stop their falling. If their action fails, they immediately hit the ground at the end of their turn and take fall damage.
^This is a summary, not a word-for-word quote.
[redacted]
This is from the beginning of Chapter 2 of the XGTE. As with anything in XGTE, it's an optional rule. As we're discussing optional/homebrew variations, that isn't a big deal, but it should be mentioned for clarity just in case a newer player finds it and thinks it should be always enforced.
Also, my brief search did not merit results for the 200 ft. The closest I could find to that was the maximum damage of 20d6 at the rate of 1d6 per 10 ft. That would imply a maximum of 200 ft of falling in regards to damage but not the rate of falling in a round. It should be noted that the XGTE rules also reference the 20d6 maximum damage.
That said, it mentions that a creature that can hover has a different interaction with effects that knock prone or set movement to 0 than other flying creatures. This would be the main difference from the intent for the rules regarding hover and non hover and not that one can remain stationary without expending movement while one cannot. While saying that creatures without hovering have to move to remain aloft is fine (and possibly necessary to maintain balance depending on how you rule on other things), it should be weighed against what the intent was for the rules AND other factors regarding the way that you rule. As always, bringing this up in a session zero will be a great way to handle the situation (possibly by asking if anyone has flight as part of their character concept or paying special attention to any character that has flight from their race (ie. Aarakocra), can get flight from their race (ie. Aasimar), or can get flight from their class (ie. Druids-8th level, Sorcerer-Draconic 14th level). If you treat magical forms similarly, those should be discussed as well.
Great discussion.
I like Mog's take on simplified movement to stay at the same altitude houserule.
Personally, I agree that houserules for flying should optimally be discussed at session 0, but that doesn't always make sense since most people have gotten used to the idea of Not playing a flying race. Also, this sort of thing is a houserule that more for advanced DMs who feel confident with other aspects of movement and combat movement rules.
On a similar note, what do you all think about having to make a saving throw for a flying creature (non-magical flight) who receives a critical hit? I'm thinking a DEX save in order to stay airborne.
Not unless a critical hit also knocks a non-flying creature prone. Normally critical hits are just more damage, there's no reason to think they would have additional special effects.
But no drop at all in altitude? Even gliding assumes that a creature's wings stay in a certain arrangement. A critical hit on a creature on land would force a change in posture. Think about a punch to the solar plexus, for example, doubling someone over. A critical hit to a flying creature would cause an involuntary neuro-muscular spasm, right?
Would it be enough that a couple of flaps wouldn't have then righted? That would likely be a hard wired reactionary response for a creature that could fly.
I probably wouldn't hard-wire a rule for it, but critical hitting a roc or dragon with a ballista should at least reduce their available move speed for that round or the following round of combat.
A critical hit won't cause someone to double up -- that requires an attack that is applying stunned. There are multiple conditions that will affect flight -- grappled, incapacitated, paralyzed, petrified, prone, restrained, stunned, unconscious -- but critical hits don't inherently apply any of them, except by reducing target HP to 0.
Aarakocras have 2 "speed" 25ft for walking and 50ft for flying. Does that mean i can move 75ft?
(Sorry new to the game)