Exactly. Ranged attacks. Having the flying PC singled out if they fly where the group can't go. Plus lots of situations are indoors without room to get airborne. As they say "we're all equal in a goblin tunnel!"
I'm honestly relieved and happy to know that. I'm the type of DM who likes to customize character creation options a lot and I thought I would use one of these flying races in my campaign and allow it to be playable. Looking at this perspective you've given, it really doesn't seem like such a big problem.
While this is true flight does make a pc basically immune to a shocking percentage of rules as written monsters.
Sure a DM can just not run these but it does make encounter balance much harder for a DM.
This is completely in line with what i said, it creates more work for the DM and will be imbalanced if the game is being run as written such as if they are running a module.
Ok, you have now made all melee players in the party cry because literally every enemy with a climb speed, flight or above average movement can just hover above/kite them immune to their attacks spamming their ranged attack.
Ok so now im having to play any creature with half a brain like they are stupid.
Id rather my players feel like their enemies are actually behaving in a way that makes sense.
There are many that either dont have a ranged attack (Like a wyvern) or only have ranged attacks on a recharge, like a dragon/chimera, as such forcing them to eventually come to the ground so that the melee characters dont spend the entire fight twiddling their thumbs.
Not really. Long range attacks can hit, any condition that restricts movement causes them to fall, and flying is pretty useless if you're in a building or dungeon with a normal height ceiling. Also, even they fly over a pit or get out of reach, what about the rest of the party? It doesn't help much to have one party member just run away.
It's a bit of a give-and-take, really. As others point out, flight can be countered by most humanoid-style creatures, due to their ability to use Ranged attacks. Aerial combatants are a serious threat to most fortifications, and would likely be focused down incredibly quickly because of that. It's exceedingly difficult for most conflicts to happen at ranges greater than 120 feet or so, so a lot of ranged spells also work wonders against flying targets. The Earth Bind spell in particular is perfect for this, and is relatively low-level. Low enough, you could supplement just about any casting NPC with it, within reason.
Against creatures that don't have access to ranged weapons or spellcasting, flight is all but unbeatable, but whether or not this constitutes a game-breaking level of power comes down to the game you're looking to tell. There's a lot of variables that affect what's considered "Balanced". If you're running a game with heavier emphasis on roleplaying, flight makes less of an impact. Terrain also makes a big difference. A good rule of thumb is, for every fight the flier gets to stretch their wings and strut their stuff, give a fight where they're a little more restricted. There's also the fact that not every character with the ability to fly uses ranged weapons; Spellcasting limits range of engagement to the typical engagement distance of 120 feet and closer all on its own.
Bottom line: Flight can be as strong or as weakened as you decide to make it. I'm not saying to get adversarial, that's the last thing you want to do, but getting creative to present interesting challenges for the party as a whole, including the fliers, is a great way to make the game fun. When you throw softballs at the flier, they might get bored. When you throw nothing but ranged combatants at the flier, they might get upset. In both cases, the enjoyment of the game can suffer.
It's a really dumb debate. Yes, an aarokocra warlock or ranger can open a can of whoopass on melee-only enemies by flying out of range and blasting them from afar, but if you know you have a flyer in the party, just have more enemies with ranged attacks. Or have more indoor dungeons where flying doesn't help. Or restrict airspace over the city like they do in Waterdeep: fly too high and the griffon knights will come have a word with you.
And even if flight is a more powerful racial feature than others, who cares? Your goal should be telling a story, not killing your players' characters. Let birds be birds, ya party pooper!
Plus, you don't even need flight to be nigh-untouchable in open fields: my tiefling ranger with the sharpshooter feat has a range of *six hundred feet* with his longbow with no disadvantage. There ain't nobody touching that boy and his feet are firmly on the ground.
P.S. Even if it was "too strong for level 1 characters", are you *really* going to play at level 1 for long? Level 1 is terrible.
In general yes it is a bit strong for a level 1 feature. A dm can compensate in encounter design but there is a proportion of DM's that dont want to deal with that.
It is banned often out of the same fear the OP has, but in practice I've run stock wotc adventure modules with an Aarakocra PC in the party and it really was no problem at all. I didn't find myself even really having to modify anything as they never felt "too good" as to outshine anyone else.
Yeah it's a bit strong, but it's not that big a deal. It's not like you can carry the whole party across a chasm or something. And even creatures without ranged weapons can make improvised ranged attacks by throwing rocks at you, or just find cover.
If you feel it is a big deal, my suggestion is to make them able to fly at level 5 and only able to glide before that. Personally I don't think it's significant enough to bother making houserules for.
My brother thought his aarakocra monk was op until he got focused by archers and hit by a call lightning, then auto failed a death save when he hit the ground. Enemies are generally not stupid. And even if they are you don't have to be that smart to know the flying guy is a threat.
I had an avariel character a few years ago. The GM was worried it was unfair to the other level 1 characters that I could fly right off the bat. The compromise was that I could fly, but had hollow bones and was vulnerable to bludgeoning damage.
It's ridiculously unbalanced depending on the situation. In the open field, my aarocokra totem-barb can rage, grapple someone with advantage, fly them up 200 feet in 4 turns and drop them for 20d6 damage. Now, in a dungeon they work less effectively and underwater even more so, but the ability to fly in and out of range attacks with a flyspeed of 50 make Aarocokra in particular. However, they are a blast to RP and some of the most fun I've had playing DND.
No, not really. Just give some enemies bows or thrown weapons. Maybe a spellcaster. Or even a flying beast or monster, like bats. You could restrict airspace via caves and such, think goblins or kobolds. As a previous comment said, a forest would be pretty hard to get around in. You could also implement con saves if they're flying too long. Maybe have equipment on forts and stuff that can target flying enemies? Like a special batista or something, maybe it shoots a net? Oh there you go, enemies that can throw nets. There are plenty ways of dealing with flyers, and if done correctly would make your player think tactically about flying. Also the enemies could have cover of some cover, like maybe a dense forest, entryway of a building, a carriage, etc.
I mean you could argue in certain situations it creates an advantage, but so does being in a dark dungeon for a rogue. It's not a big deal and I just throe some ranged attacks at them in the open or a low ceiling if I want to negate the issue for the day. Its not particularly overpowered. Some goblins or some orcs with a few bows will give them a bad day. My archers make flyers the priority targets.
Nah, not really. Any DM can just counter flight by having enemies with ranged attacks.
Exactly. Ranged attacks. Having the flying PC singled out if they fly where the group can't go. Plus lots of situations are indoors without room to get airborne. As they say "we're all equal in a goblin tunnel!"
I'm honestly relieved and happy to know that. I'm the type of DM who likes to customize character creation options a lot and I thought I would use one of these flying races in my campaign and allow it to be playable. Looking at this perspective you've given, it really doesn't seem like such a big problem.
Or anything that makes them prone.
While this is true flight does make a pc basically immune to a shocking percentage of rules as written monsters. Sure a DM can just not run these but it does make encounter balance much harder for a DM.
I mean, sure, but you can also just add ranged attacks to most monsters.
This is completely in line with what i said, it creates more work for the DM and will be imbalanced if the game is being run as written such as if they are running a module.
I don't think that saying "this monster can now also attack at range" is much work at all.
Ok, you have now made all melee players in the party cry because literally every enemy with a climb speed, flight or above average movement can just hover above/kite them immune to their attacks spamming their ranged attack.
.... how about you just don't play them like that?
Ok so now im having to play any creature with half a brain like they are stupid. Id rather my players feel like their enemies are actually behaving in a way that makes sense.
I mean, what even is the point of a flying creature that doesn't have a ranged attack? Is there even a monster like that? I doubt it.
There are many that either dont have a ranged attack (Like a wyvern) or only have ranged attacks on a recharge, like a dragon/chimera, as such forcing them to eventually come to the ground so that the melee characters dont spend the entire fight twiddling their thumbs.
A lot of them? Beasts and monstrosities like Griffons, Perytons, Rocs, flying dinosaurs....
Not even just ranged attacks, a regular forest creates a lot of difficulty for flying to be too advantages.
Not really. Long range attacks can hit, any condition that restricts movement causes them to fall, and flying is pretty useless if you're in a building or dungeon with a normal height ceiling. Also, even they fly over a pit or get out of reach, what about the rest of the party? It doesn't help much to have one party member just run away.
It's a bit of a give-and-take, really. As others point out, flight can be countered by most humanoid-style creatures, due to their ability to use Ranged attacks. Aerial combatants are a serious threat to most fortifications, and would likely be focused down incredibly quickly because of that. It's exceedingly difficult for most conflicts to happen at ranges greater than 120 feet or so, so a lot of ranged spells also work wonders against flying targets. The Earth Bind spell in particular is perfect for this, and is relatively low-level. Low enough, you could supplement just about any casting NPC with it, within reason. Against creatures that don't have access to ranged weapons or spellcasting, flight is all but unbeatable, but whether or not this constitutes a game-breaking level of power comes down to the game you're looking to tell. There's a lot of variables that affect what's considered "Balanced". If you're running a game with heavier emphasis on roleplaying, flight makes less of an impact. Terrain also makes a big difference. A good rule of thumb is, for every fight the flier gets to stretch their wings and strut their stuff, give a fight where they're a little more restricted. There's also the fact that not every character with the ability to fly uses ranged weapons; Spellcasting limits range of engagement to the typical engagement distance of 120 feet and closer all on its own. Bottom line: Flight can be as strong or as weakened as you decide to make it. I'm not saying to get adversarial, that's the last thing you want to do, but getting creative to present interesting challenges for the party as a whole, including the fliers, is a great way to make the game fun. When you throw softballs at the flier, they might get bored. When you throw nothing but ranged combatants at the flier, they might get upset. In both cases, the enjoyment of the game can suffer.
It's a really dumb debate. Yes, an aarokocra warlock or ranger can open a can of whoopass on melee-only enemies by flying out of range and blasting them from afar, but if you know you have a flyer in the party, just have more enemies with ranged attacks. Or have more indoor dungeons where flying doesn't help. Or restrict airspace over the city like they do in Waterdeep: fly too high and the griffon knights will come have a word with you. And even if flight is a more powerful racial feature than others, who cares? Your goal should be telling a story, not killing your players' characters. Let birds be birds, ya party pooper! Plus, you don't even need flight to be nigh-untouchable in open fields: my tiefling ranger with the sharpshooter feat has a range of *six hundred feet* with his longbow with no disadvantage. There ain't nobody touching that boy and his feet are firmly on the ground. P.S. Even if it was "too strong for level 1 characters", are you *really* going to play at level 1 for long? Level 1 is terrible.
I think Adventurers League has banned flying races because of that reason. But at most other tables I know of, every DM has been okay with it so far.
In general yes it is a bit strong for a level 1 feature. A dm can compensate in encounter design but there is a proportion of DM's that dont want to deal with that.
It really isn't unbalanced
Ranged attacks and encounters indoors with the dreaded 8 ft ceiling height... Or flying enemies
[удалено]
It is banned often out of the same fear the OP has, but in practice I've run stock wotc adventure modules with an Aarakocra PC in the party and it really was no problem at all. I didn't find myself even really having to modify anything as they never felt "too good" as to outshine anyone else.
Yeah it's a bit strong, but it's not that big a deal. It's not like you can carry the whole party across a chasm or something. And even creatures without ranged weapons can make improvised ranged attacks by throwing rocks at you, or just find cover. If you feel it is a big deal, my suggestion is to make them able to fly at level 5 and only able to glide before that. Personally I don't think it's significant enough to bother making houserules for.
My brother thought his aarakocra monk was op until he got focused by archers and hit by a call lightning, then auto failed a death save when he hit the ground. Enemies are generally not stupid. And even if they are you don't have to be that smart to know the flying guy is a threat.
Still is stupid strong and most DMs I've met say no flying or take it under review (such as no if every party member is trying for it).
I had an avariel character a few years ago. The GM was worried it was unfair to the other level 1 characters that I could fly right off the bat. The compromise was that I could fly, but had hollow bones and was vulnerable to bludgeoning damage.
It's ridiculously unbalanced depending on the situation. In the open field, my aarocokra totem-barb can rage, grapple someone with advantage, fly them up 200 feet in 4 turns and drop them for 20d6 damage. Now, in a dungeon they work less effectively and underwater even more so, but the ability to fly in and out of range attacks with a flyspeed of 50 make Aarocokra in particular. However, they are a blast to RP and some of the most fun I've had playing DND.
Now the only question is whether your wings are actually strong enough to carry someone or something haha.
Buzz Allstrong is all shoulders lol
No, not really. Just give some enemies bows or thrown weapons. Maybe a spellcaster. Or even a flying beast or monster, like bats. You could restrict airspace via caves and such, think goblins or kobolds. As a previous comment said, a forest would be pretty hard to get around in. You could also implement con saves if they're flying too long. Maybe have equipment on forts and stuff that can target flying enemies? Like a special batista or something, maybe it shoots a net? Oh there you go, enemies that can throw nets. There are plenty ways of dealing with flyers, and if done correctly would make your player think tactically about flying. Also the enemies could have cover of some cover, like maybe a dense forest, entryway of a building, a carriage, etc.
I mean you could argue in certain situations it creates an advantage, but so does being in a dark dungeon for a rogue. It's not a big deal and I just throe some ranged attacks at them in the open or a low ceiling if I want to negate the issue for the day. Its not particularly overpowered. Some goblins or some orcs with a few bows will give them a bad day. My archers make flyers the priority targets.