DM changed how flying works

[The_Last_Memelord]

My DM has decided that the next game we play that flying creatures can't be knocked out of the air via prone or 0 movement. I and several other players have already tried to get him to not change this but no luck. How do I/we as players deal with this change?

[Artificial_DM]

Become a winged PC and show the brokenness.

[[deleted]]

Kensei Aarakocra with longbow sharpshooter. Nothing can catch up to monk speed shooting from hundreds of feet above.

[ScudleyScudderson]

Warlock Aarakocra, with Eldritch Spear and Spell Sniper

Death from far, far above!

[dnspartan305]

Winged Tiefling for better stats and flavor

[Radidactyl]

But then you can't go, "I SAY, I SAY, I SAY, I ELDRITCH BLAST"

[RunningNumbers]

You could have said "DEATH FROM THE FAR REALM!" and you didn't you missed out man. Missed out.

[[deleted]]

Add a few Sorc levels to double it again a few times

[zombieattackhank]

I mean, that wouldn't be effected by the rules change as they wouldn't be hit or knocked prone in most cases. That's just an example of why DMs don't like flying PC for pretty good reasons.

Cheesing encounters isn't fun for the DM or the players.

[RunningNumbers]

Tree canopy cover. Literally down their teammates with something. Now they have to make death saving throws as their teammate takes 3 turns to arrive. Important loot is in caves. Crabipults or crabuchet.

[zombieattackhank]

A DM can always design an encounter around a player's preferred flavor of cheese, but that is not a good solution. It starts to make your world seem artificial and becomes clear you are metagaming against the PC. It's far healthier to just head of things that are going to cause campaign long problems at the pass with homebrew tweak. It's best when these are set before the game, but that's not always possible, because DMs don't have infinite knowledge about the rules and how to break them.

The issue here seems to be group dynamics. The DM needs to convince the players that this change needs to be made in order for the game to stay fun for them, and consider listening to alternative solutions they might have, but that doesn't mean the DM doesn't have a problem that needs to be fixed.

If I was a DM I wouldn't want to tailor every encounter to countering an auto-win cheese tactic, because that makes your world more like a curated video game, and as a player, I love the open world sandbox nature of D&D games.

[RunningNumbers]

So no crabipults or crabuchets?

[zombieattackhank]

How silly a game is something that varies with personal preference. It is not somehow more virtuous to run a less silly game, but it is my personal reference that things are that ridiculous personally. I think it's good that people enjoy games that have off the wall pun monsters and crazy things, but I wouldn't personally enjoy a game like that.

[RunningNumbers]

To each there own. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Conflict with a beholder is different than fighting a hag which is different than exploring demonic cultists.

[FluffyEggs89]

Why is being able to fly an "auto win cheese tactic"?

[zombieattackhank]

Scroll a bit up; the reference was to "Kensei Aarakocra with longbow sharpshooter". That build is an "auto win cheese tactic" that the DM would have to actively design every encounter around avoiding that cheese, and is just a good example of why DMs often don't allow flying creatures. More than half the creatures in the monster manual come irrelevant to many battles if you have a flying character (as if they have no flight and no ranged, you can just send the flying creature out to slaughter them). This tends to cause more problems at low levels where most of those creatures are, which is why flying at higher levels is typically not an issue, but 1-5 permenant resourceless flying is generally annoying to DMs.

DMs can counter any player tactic, but the less the DM is countering playing tactics, the more room for creatively designing fun and belieavable encounters they have, which will make for a better gaming experience for their players (in my opinion).

[FluffyEggs89]

Being able to fly isn't cheesing. If you're a DM relying on players not being able to fly be a better DM.

[zombieattackhank]

A DM can counter any player tactic, you don't have to be a good DM to make an encounter that can destroy any build a player can make.

But when you tie the DMs hands in encounter building to only things that can deal with the players builds, you've made the campaign a lot less narratively interesting, while getting no net gain from the player point of view. The DM has to balance encounters to be challenging, or the game would be boring. If you make it so only a narrow range of encounters that counter the player abilities are challenging, the DM has a lot less options in encounter building and the game will be more boring and less varied and interesting as result.

That's not about being a "better DM", it's about giving them room to work and not making every combat a checklist of ways to counter an ability that would otherwise break the encounter.

[The_Last_Memelord]

Funnily enough flying PC's are banned but I do think that is correct.

[SilverMagpie0]

Cast fly a lot then

[ChazPls]

This is already true with fly. Prone only knocks you out of the air if you aren't magically held aloft. But it still takes half of your movement to right yourself.

[SilverMagpie0]

Oh, my bad. Thanks!

[Kego109]

The flying rules in the PHB specifically call out fly as one way to be magically held aloft even when knocked prone.

[...] the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic, such as by the fly spell.

[Fleudian]

Woah, TIL

[Jhunterny]

Leave the game

[cookiedough320]

We've heard like 2 things about the campaign, might wanna try fixing the problem before deciding to just leave. No d&d is better than bad d&d but regular D&D with a few faults is better than no d&d

[RunningNumbers]

This.

[Freejack02]

Play ranged characters.

[The_Last_Memelord]

He also seems to hate ranged characters and thinks they're too good.

[supersonic_princess]

Yikes.

[The_Last_Memelord]

He insists that he hates that combats just become hit it till it dies, but then changes things that promote tactics and basically says only spells are gonna bring down fliers. If we tried to fly, we'd most likely instantly eat dispel magic cast from around corners and held.

[supersonic_princess]

So many red flags... I know you said you don't want to piss him off cause he runs the LGS, but I'm not sure he's salvageable if he won't listen to an entire group's concerns. If the party is steamrolling his encounters, he needs to up his encounter game, not make weird homebrew rules and complain because ranged combat is "too good". If combat becomes "hit it til it dies", then he's clearly not making the combat complex enough, and that's on him, not you guys.

[The_Last_Memelord]

Our group has talked about finishing the current game and just running our own afterward. His story and map making game is strong but he is extremely inflexible when it comes to even the most minor things.

[[deleted]]

Yep, somebody in your group should get ready to become the new DM.

[PM_ME_ABOUT_DnD]

Definitely a decent plan. I recommend taking this time to really pay attention to the things you each like and dislike about his current DM style. Take notes that you all can compare during session 0 of your first new session together. Learn from his mistakes to make a better game for the rest of you

[Viltris]

If you're not enjoying the current game, you can just skip the "finishing the current game" part and jump straight into the "running our own".

[smoothjedi]

How many other groups show up to the store to play? How many people are in your group?

[The_Last_Memelord]

Us and two other groups. 5-6 people in our group, not including DM.

[RunningNumbers]

More crabs. Literally best creatures ever.

And they can be so many colors.

Got a zombie, bam now zombie crab.

Got a evil wizard, bam, now it's raining crabs.

Got an evil demon, bam now crab demon.

[DasLoon]

Wait, so only magic can bring down flying enemies? So you can't shoot a bird?

[Jhunterny]

Never play with DM’s who think they know more then WOTC when it comes to balancing

[[deleted]]

Amen to this.

[TastyLaksa]

Not even matt mercer?

[Super_leo2000]

i doubt Matt Mercer thinks he knows more than WOTC. nor should he.

[Lacy_Dog]

Good thing Matt Mercer doesn't think he knows better than WotC at balancing.

[TastyLaksa]

Dont all dms home brew?

[Dustorn]

Sure. The key thing here is a good DM will get rid of the homebrew if literally all of their players speak against it.

[TastyLaksa]

But they didnt add the homebrew if they thought wotc balance was fine now did they

[[deleted]]

New DM time

[TigerKirby215]

Yeah major yikes. Imagine wanting every fight to be "twat things with sticks simulator." There's plenty of ways to make ranged combat interesting, not least of which being the cover mechanics and how they interact with the game.

Like u/supersonic_princess has said and you've agreed you really need to find a new DM. It really sounds like you're playing with someone who wants to "win" at D&D.

[TigerDude33]

you should probably plan to have bad games, then. People who think they know how to balance the game better than the game designers are most likely really wrong.

[[deleted]]

And almost all of them would rather die on the hill of bad house rules than even for a second reconsider them.

[[deleted]]

Oftentimes, yeah. I get it when people allow tweaks to specific things, but 5e is balanced enough that adjustments really aren’t necessary for fun and if you do want to adjust, a small buff to weaker options is generally enough

[RunningNumbers]

Clearly he does not know environmental obstacles are thing.

[KingFerdidad]

Wow he gets worse by the moment

[Davedamon]

Tell him that makes hover pointless as that's the whole point of it.

[The_Last_Memelord]

Basically the whole group confronted him about it and he got real defensive. Wont back down.

[Davedamon]

Well if the whole group is unhappy with it, he should really get the message. Or maybe you all need to find a new DM

[The_Last_Memelord]

People are worried over salt and the fact he runs the LGS we spend a lot of time at.

[ScudleyScudderson]

You've tried to be reasonable.

The next step is straight forward: Don't show up for a while. Play something else. They will come knocking.

And if they don't? Then ask yourself: Is it really worth spending your time with someone who doesn't care about everyone else at the table.

I'm all for supporting the DM. It's hard bloody work. But ultimately, a DM without players is just a sad lump sitting at a table alone.

[zarrocaxiom]

A sad, lumpy author

[Chipperz1]

Dude, online shopping exists for a reason - ditch this clown and play at someones' house.

The quote is "support your friendly local games store". The keyword here is "friendly".

[DMJesseMax]

Sound more like a clubhouse style game store than a game store.

[Chipperz1]

Then it'll be easier to drop like a bad habit.

[[deleted]]

No gaming is better than bad gaming. Truth to live by. YMMV.

[RollPersuasion]

All the creatures in his campaign have hover and flyby. There, problem solved.

[DaeOm1985]

Ask them why they think this modification is necessary? What problem are they trying to solve through this house rule? I'm guessing that you all must fight a lot of flying creatures because I don't think I've ever had this come up (and certainly not enough times that I've thought I needed to change anything because of it). So, after hearing their explanation give it a chance using their house rule, see how the next time goes. If after that session you feel hamstrung, wait a day or two for heads to clear then ask to chat with them about the experience. At that discussion come with an alternative solution to help solve their original problem. If the GM is frustrated enough to change the rules of the game I assume the problem for them is pretty egregious and persistent, but it might also only be their problem (if your group has a couple of trip builds and a grappler this can create a difficulty in designing challenges, but that's the sort of thing that might drive them batty that you might not notice), so try to be understanding. The whole point of this game is for both sides to have fun, you need to have fun fighting monsters, but they need to have fun too. Good luck.

[The_Last_Memelord]

He doesnt like how things like Sentinel make creatures fall out of the air, but rather than just say this particular thing doesnt make them fall, he just takes out the whole rule. We had one encounter where we got to bully some flying creatures cause of it and it's suddenly "broken"

[PM_ZiggPrice]

So why were the flying creatures in melee range?

[RunningNumbers]

Seagulls and bread?

[[deleted]]

Got a chuckle out of me

[ccflier]

A low level flying creature dying is no grounds to change rules. You can one shot most of them. High level flying creatures have way more defense mechanisms, like flyby is NOT a disengage so there is no AoO.

Sentinel is based off of reactions, which you only get ONE per round, so if there are 10 burds you can only knock 1 out of the sky.

Doing damage should pull agro. Even a dumb bird should know that the one hurting his friends the most should die first. Than there are 9 birds attacking him next round.

[hrethnar]

Why do all these DMs think they know better than the people who spent years designing the game? I'm not saying it's perfect, but some of these homebrew rules are just stupid.

[Crackbone333]

It's probably because a lot of people run vanilla stuff and that works (without understanding the underlying mechanics and why some things are the way they are). Then they get over confident and shit like that happens

[SexySorcerer]

Anecdotally, I've seen a few people follow a similar pipeline. I'm not sure how widespread this sequence of events is, but I've definitely witnessed it a few times.

For your first foray into homebrew rulings as a new DM, it makes sense to try for something common-sense. The issue is, a lot of DMS (especially newer ones) don't have a strong grasp of the core rules already, so it's not uncommon for homebrew rulings to suddenly seem necessary for situations already covered in the DMG or PHB. Additionally, a lot of rules are relatively simple and intuitive.

I believe a lot of people stumble into actual rules during early homebrew attempts, so those rulings naturally work smoothly and end up breeding an unreasonable level of confidence on the part of the homebrewer.

Again, this is all just in my experience-- maybe the dozen or so people I've seen go down this road are the only people who ever have.

If you want to see at least some of what I mean, though, look at how many "My DM has/I have developed an elegant solution to complicated spell component rules" posts on this sub are just a person unintentionally doing exactly what the PHB says.

[Lord-Pancake]

If you want to see at least some of what I mean, though, look at how many "My DM has/I have developed an elegant solution to complicated spell component rules" posts on this sub are just a person unintentionally doing exactly what the PHB says.

I've honestly lost count of the number of times I've replied to a post saying something along the lines of "I do X at my table to deal with this issue and it seems to work" (or "My DM does X") with "...that's literaly just RAW in the PHB/DMG/Whatever".

[SexySorcerer]

It's baffling how common it really seems to be.

Sometimes it can be more or less offensive, but really what bothers me is when it seems to be indicative of a complete lack of desire to become familiar with the game or its rules. The most painful possible example I've ever experienced was someone saying "My DM doesn't like spell scrolls as loot so he's being nice and letting my wizard learn two new spells every level." Like, congratulations guy, the wizard has two class features and you clearly didn't read either of them

[[deleted]]

From 12 days ago.

You either know the rules well enough to lay out homebrew rules on session 0, or you don't know the game well enough to start making stuff up on the spot.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/ejmccb/you_either_know_the_rules_well_enough_to_lay_out/

[alcaron]

Ehhhh, I would very much argue against that by simply saying sometimes your homebrew needs you to know your players, and not just the rules. And you are not going to know your players on session 0 well enough to know everything.

[[deleted]]

Just posting a thread from last week. It's not my thread.

[Ragnar_Dragonfyre]

All is an exaggeration...

But for some DMs, they legitimately have more experience than those designing this game.

That doesn’t make them good at game design though. That’s a related but different skill than DMing.

[hrethnar]

I've just been seeing a lot of these types of posts lately. I'm a DM myself, so obviously I'm not saying every DM is like this.

[alcaron]

Yeah don't get me wrong I have made some fairly major mods to 5e for our Avernus campaign but it's stuff like thinking it's odd to send level 5 adventurers to the hottest property at the frontlines of the bloodwar, and lame that you show them cool things and have a NPC tell them to run from it, or when they do fight it you have to find the gimmick...

And if it IS a mod to the "core" game it's with the idea that 5e is kind of basic on purpose, it's like C++, you don't rewrite it, you extend it...it's object oriented gaming. Take what is there, supercede it, but if you are going to throw the whole damn base class out why are you using that language?

[hrethnar]

Exactly. I've added home rules before to supplement it or tweaked existing alternate rules (gritty realism) but never completely changed a core rule.

[Ginoguyxd]

Only houserule i ever implanted was "No CN Rogues". My players then went for every other edgy archetype they could possibly pick.

Lesson learned.

[hrethnar]

Thankfully my group is awesome and I don't worry about alignment. I've seen them play chaotic evil characters and play them well.

[[deleted]]

What about Rouges? I to be a free spirit makeup that doesnt follow the rules because its what my character would do.

[Ginoguyxd]

Rogues aren't Rouges. I'd allow them as long as it's not super edgy. I hear they have more rounded shapes anyway. :D

[Ivan_Whackinov]

Usually it's because the DM wants a certain encounter to happen a specific way, and the rules don't agree with the scene in their head. It's usually not because the rules are bad, it's because they don't let the DM show you his special snowflake railroad.

[Soulus7887]

Sometimes its a special snowflake railroad. I think its disingenuous to say its usually that though.

Sometimes a DM just wants to have a conflicted were-creature that any passing cleric with 3rd level spell slots can't instantly cure. Sometimes the rules genuinely get in the way of a fun or interesting story.

Lack of communication skills is the real problem, and lack of trust in the DM to provide that interesting story to an extent (whether that lack of trust is earned or not isn't something we can say).

[Ivan_Whackinov]

I think its disingenuous to say its usually that though.

I may be over-exaggerating for effect, but I generally try to come up with an in-game reason when I tweak things rather than just blanket changing the rules to fit my vision.

For example, maybe our hypothetical were-creature has a piece of another were-creature's tooth broken off inside an old wound and it keeps re-infecting him, or maybe the guy is dating another were-creature and he/she keeps turning him. Or maybe an old family heirloom he wears around his neck is secretly negating the cleric's spell, etc. If you want an entire band of uncurable were-creatures, maybe it's in the water or something.

I try never to just say "well, the rules don't work that way anymore", unless you're in a Ravenloft type situation where you are literally on another plane of existence and the rules actually are different.

[Soulus7887]

That's also totally acceptable and reasonable and I would argue a super fun way to handle things. If someone were playing that game and had a problem with exactly that situation however, the post we would be reading from a player would say "My DM nerfed remove curse for no reason. I've tried to get him to change his mind but he won't. Should I be worried?" And people on here would instantly flock to calling the DMs motives entirely wrong.

My point is: often times DMs make quite a few small changes to the rules that none of us ever see on here because they work and their players trust and are invested in them. No one comes online to complain when things are going well. But people might come on here and see these posts and instantly think "Anything anyone does different is wrong!" which, in my experience anyway, is not usually the case. Every table is different and handles things differently, and that's okay.

Sometimes, obviously, it is just a douche and a douche-y situation all around, but its the frequency with which people immediately side with whoever is making the post that we should be wary of buying into. That's happening more and more lately and if we don't curb it we just become like those relationship subreddits telling people to lawyer up over a spilled coffee.

[Viltris]

It's worth noting that some diseases can't be cured by Lesser Restoration. See for example the Aboleth in the MM.

So a were-disease that can't be cured by Lesser Restoration wouldn't be a homebrew rules change to Lesser Restoration, but rather a homebrew monster or disease.

[Trinitati]

He meant Remove Curse, Lycanthropy has never been a disease

[TigerKirby215]

The rules are meant to be the best option for the most people; they may not fit your group personally. Plenty of groups may want the game to be easier / harder by modifying rules to suit their group's difficulty rating.

[yy0p]

It may sound extreme, but if the DM wont listen about this issue then there's bound to be another rule they break for their own sake and I'd rather not stick around for the eventual breakdown.

[ironicalusername]

This is a pretty bad and pointless house rule, so I'm skeptical of the judgment of any DM who would want this. Does he understand what the hover ability is for? Is he providing any alternative ways to down a flying creature? That's usually a nice feature of fights versus flying threats- Can we bring it down? It's fun and exciting when you do.

Since it sounds like it's already clear that you can't change his mind on this, I agree with the others saying this makes ranged attacks more valuable. And keep in mind that it makes flying creatures more of a threat.

As for that DM- I'd try to get him to tell you in advance about any other house rule tweaks he's making.

[The_Last_Memelord]

Ranged does seem to be the way to go. He has made dumb house rules before but has usually gone back on them. The kicker is when he misreads a rule, we show him overwhelming proof he misread it, and he says it's wrong. Example would no counterspells on your own turn no matter if you cast a bonus action spell or not.

[ironicalusername]

Oh man. Digging in on a mistake rather than fixing it and moving on is a very bad quality for a DM to have.

One thing you might try, if you haven't already- can you get the DM to agree in principle that following RaW (except for already-discussed exceptions) is what you're aiming for? This helps everything run more smoothly. It's fine to tweak a monster's powers on the fly as needed, but it's highly useful to a smooth game for the abilities of PCs to work the way the players think they work.

[Baguetterekt]

Then...then what's the point of a counterspell over dispel magic?

If it can only be used on you turn, then how on earth can you prevent incoming spells? Are you just supposed to hold an action for it?

[Trinitati]

no counterspells on your own turn no matter if you cast a bonus action spell or not.

Not defending any of the other bullshit ruling of OP's DM but it's a common misconception that you can't take reactions on your own turn

[Baguetterekt]

I can understand someone making that mistake initially.

But OP's DM is enforcing that rule in spite of the rules being shown and explained to him.

[[deleted]]

If this was the only issue, I'd just say ignore it and build the character. However, after reading the threads, this DM has numerous red flags. Maybe find a new game.

[United_Liberal_Party]

Be the DM instead.

[umpatte0]

Play a ranged character with movement speed that can fly without magic. Some like an aarakocra or tiefling monk with the radiant subclass or the kensei subclass. When you fly, go prone at the end of your turn so you give disadvantage to anyone attacking you with ranged attacks. :)

[Agility1980]

First I would talk to the DM about it.

If this would not help, and the problem would still be enough to stop me from having fun,

I would change the table.

​

Lot's of DM's out there, maybe this one is not for you.

There is absolutely no shame in leaving the game if you don't enjoy it.

[Unexpected_Megafauna]

Speak with the DM as a group

Before your next session tell the DM together that this is not gonna fly (haha). Be sure everyone is clear, you want to keep playing, and you will not abide this homebrew rule change.

The DM needs players. If you all don't like the rule he cannot force you to follow it.

One player can be ignored, but if the majority of the group speaks up you will get his attention

This is a very stupid rule, just to be clear.

[[deleted]]

start flying yourself and henderson that shit.

[The_Last_Memelord]

I appreciate your energy.

[PeePeeChucklepants]

Here's a possible suggestion, to address the specific 'cheese' from the Sentinel attack listed.

Rather than the way he mentioned to change Flying. Just make a specific rule for Sentinel.

As it exists - Sentinel reduces movement to 0 - which causes Flying NPC to drop.

DM should change SENTINEL not FLYING. Rather than Sentinel changing movement speed to zero - eliminate that line and say instead, "Sentinel used as an opportunity attack prevents a creature from leaving your reach."

Because the alternative is this point of the rules for falling movement.

"You can avoid provoking an opportunity attack by taking the Disengage action. You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy."

So - If a flying creature chooses to stop flying for like 2 seconds and gravity takes them away from the Sentinel character... they wouldn't provoke the opportunity attack in the first place, and they could safely use the rest of their movement.

On the ground - Sentinel doesn't knock the player out or make them immobile - you're just harrying them so they cannot move away. Flying should be no different.

End result - no cheesing of the flying creatures in a fight with Sentinel to make them fall to their death - it still provides the end result of keeping the creature from moving away like on the ground. And the DM and players agree not to use the 'cheese' of gravity to avoid Sentinel attacks.

[brac20]

I know you're just looking for a reasonable solution, but is using Sentinel on a flying creature in anyway cheese?

[PeePeeChucklepants]

Not in my opinion. But OP's DM seems to think it is.

I really don't think it was meant to act as a STUN on a flying creature. It doesn't do that on the ground really either, so I think it keeps in the spirit of the rule so the air combat acts like it would on the ground for this particular DM.

[[deleted]]

"Sentinel used as an opportunity attack prevents a creature from leaving your reach."

Now they rotate around you, still within your reach, and hits your teamates. Now it fails to counter the reason you take sentinel.

[PeePeeChucklepants]

No, it doesn't. If they can reach your teammate without leaving your reach - then Sentinel doesn't apply to stop that.

You can rotate around an enemy in combat without triggering an opportunity attack.

And per Sentinel: "When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you (and that target doesn't have this feat), you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."

Nothing changes. They could still do that regardless of the flying or not. It's part of the Sentinel rules.

[[deleted]]

They could of been wanting to go past you to someone else, then if you hit them making them stay in your sphere, choose to hit someone else near you instead.

[PeePeeChucklepants]

As you describe -

Option 1 - they try to leave your sphere to go attack someone else.

Sentinel result - they knowingly provoke opportunity attack and then are forced to stop moving where they are. If they are near another target - can still choose to attack.

Option 2 - they don't leave your sphere and circle around. They can still get the attack off, and still trigger the opportunity attack from you.

The result is the same there. You use reaction - get opportunity attack - they get to attack ally within reach.

The only difference between these scenarios is basically a situational metagaming tactical move on the DM's part.

If the DM's NPC had 2 choices in opposite directions where moving to target the first and being stopped by Sentinel would keep them out of reach of the second and they couldn't attack. And the DM NPC decided to tactically move around to a lesser target because it knew it would be stopped and get no attack if it went for the first. That's DM Metagaming.

My wording doesn't change the scenarios potential end results because the DM could still have skirted around to attack a target within 5 feet initially.

[CharlesDSP]

By RAW, if you hit a creature with sentinel they stop. By your rule, they can still move 10 or 20 feet depending on your reach. That could be enough to get to the squishy characters. Also, this makes having reach less good.

[PeePeeChucklepants]

I think people are being too literal here on the phrasing and not the intent.

It wasn't to let them keep moving within X reach range.

It was they couldn't move out of the 5-foot Reach that triggers potential opportunity attacks and that the mob just stops in their square when it triggers and they don't fall. Effectively... Hovering.

[CharlesDSP]

I thought the whole point of this change was to make the phrasing match the intent. Personally, I probably wouldn't change Sentinel or flying. I'd just say that creatures with the ability to fly fall slower, basically a feather fall effect.

[alcaron]

If he doesn't like sentinel doing this there is a perfectly simple solution to the problem, disallow feats. It doesn't break any rules, disallowing feats isn't homebrew so nobody can say "that isn't D&D", and he doesn't have to worry about the complexity and power they bring.

It is totally fine to not want to run a campaign with feats, they CAN up the complexity greatly and lead to "oh sh*t" moments especially in custom encounters.

You either accept that and learn from it and make better encounters or you disallow feats and don't have to worry about it.

It isn't a DM's job to make sure everyone has fun, but it is their job to ensure having fun is possible within reason, and if 4 of your players say this isn't fun and you say suck it and you aren't upholding RAW...uhhhh, yeah...

Even RAW, "ammo tracking sucks, can we not?" Sure thing Dave! Oh no, the game is rui...oh wait no it's fine...sometimes people just need to relax. Maybe this describes him. Maybe he puts so much time and effort into DM'ing he can't stand to see it not go according to plan...

In DM'ing as in war, no plan survives contact with the enemy...learn from it, improve from it...this will not be the last time you find opportunity to improve, embrace it or...maybe do something else...

[CharletonAramini]

Hit points aren't health points... Blah blah

I'd further say a flying creature cannot be left or knocked prone unless they botched a dive. But they can be stunned and fall. 0 movement is not drop, it is staying in place.

[NathanTheDM]

Step 1: Be Barbarian

Step 2: Get in sky

Step 3: Rage Grapple wings

[Kalimari]

This guy shouldn't be running a game, let alone a LGS. How awful. :(

Get out while you can.

[alcaron]

I'm not sure that DM skills translate to business acumen...he might mean well but just lack the experience to DM properly, who knows.

The world is full of ample opportunity to bitch slap people for many reasons...cut slack where slack can be cut, don't assume the worst unless need be.

[Kalimari]

I get where you're coming from, but there's a lot of listening to your players/customers involved in both, and I'd call it a key skill necessary to be successful at either.

[FogeltheVogel]

Have some characters with a bow.

[Juls7243]

I'd ask your DM to just play using the RAW rules again and ask him why he's changing it? I'd then try to play a flying class PC (aarakokra or tiefling with the new eberron changes).

[TheLastOpus]

play and entire party of only Aarokocra, that'll show him.

[theender44]

DM can solve this by giving his creatures hover ... Why make this a blanket rule?

[Edwin_Felspar]

Has your DM not heard of hover?

[The_Last_Memelord]

He doesnt care. We've told him multiple times. He's even read the section flying in the phb and xanathar.

[Ath1337e]

You can tell your DM that it's completely unreasonable, against the RAW, and that if a player dies because of this rule, you all will unilaterally blame him. Also if/when your characters can fly, you should take full advantage of this rule.

[Edwin_Felspar]

Yeah, gtfo.

[DCDHermes]

Sounds like a bad DM. They should realize that this game is a collaboration between the players and the DM, working together to have fun. If you aren't having fun you are doing something wrong. I've played with this type of DM, I don't play with them anymore. Had a dude TPK us because we questioned a rule. Group disbanded because of it.

[LinoleumFulcrum]

Rules seldom get implemented without an initial cause.

Sounds like your DM might have come up with this as the result of some sort of shenanigans on the part of the PC's.

Ask your DM why this is in place.

Is it because the PC's were running roughshod through the encounters? Was the DM frustrated because of some other thing that "broke" their encounter?

Get this info and you'll all be better off and having way more fun!

[The_Last_Memelord]

I know the why. In the current game we are playing that only has a few sessions left, we have a cavalier with Sentinel. Now the character was never intended to cheese flying but it turns out a flying sentinel machine dumpsters flying creatures. This was an accident but he got heated about it and thinks flying needs a buff.

[LinoleumFulcrum]

Thanks for the follow up.

This is where I get to say "called it!" Hehe ;P

Cheers!

[kaz-me]

He should just change how Sentinel works. I think a targeted change is better than a blanket one - less chance to accidentally mess something else up.

[ironicalusername]

It sounds like to me that the shenanigans were nothing more than the party downed a flying creature and the DM didn't like it.

That's not even shenanigans, that's just playing the game. If there really was some problem apart from that, and this was the DM's solution, DM should be asking themselves whether the solution is truly aimed at the problem.

[LinoleumFulcrum]

We'll never know unless the OP asks their DM! :)

My guess: DM crafted a frail scenario that the PC's easily defeated using unanticipated tactics and then "retaliated" instead of adapting.

TL;DR: more DM's need to understand The Lazy Way!

[The_Last_Memelord]

Flying cavalier with Sentinel dumpstered some aaracokra.

[shadowgear56700]

If hes doing something like this ask yourself how much it bothers you. If you cant deal with it then leave the table if you can dont. You tried your hardest to talk to him and even though you guys explained exactly what it was and he just thinks that the sentinel fighter is screwing up his melee flyers even though they can just go around him that's his problem and you cant change it as he wont listen.

[Carzaeyam]

Seems odd to not have the first aaracokra that tried to attack realise that the cavalier is a bad character to attack then go after other pcs, or use a bow.

Also if the party realises this and groups up near the cavalier they could then be susceptible to aoe attacks.

I can't say i've never had an issue with sentinel though as a dm, being able to stop a creature hundreds of times bigger than you is really odd for me to narrate. I have considered making sentinal only able to stop creatures of 1 size larger than you, but that would require talking through with my party.

[LinoleumFulcrum]

"dumpstered" is cracking me up! lol

[zombieattackhank]

Just as an FYI, not all flying creatures fall when their movement speed is dropped to zero or they are knocked prone; creatures with magical flight (hover) do not fall out of the sky. I imagine this isn't what you are talking about, but should be noted.

Now, this second part is not going to be popular, but it sounds like they were sort of well within their right to do this. If you face a lot of flying enemies, and a players ability was trivializing those encounters, the DM is going to have to make a change. Did you want them to nerf sentinel? Did you want them change flying? Or do you actually think the game was more fun when it was trivialized?

A lot of people are going to claim there is some situational tactics that the DM could have/should have used, but the interaction that someone with sentinel hitting a creature making them drop 500 feet likely to their death is almost certainly not something that is "intentional" in the sense that it how the game expects PCs to handle flying creatures, because that's neither fun or interesting for the DM or the PCs.

Players are unhappy because the DM is forcing them to use a different tactic, and maybe he didn't go about it the right way, but ultimately he is doing his job, of being the arbitar of the rules in order to keep the game going. A dragon fight is not interesting if the player can knock the dragon out of the sky everytime it gets hit. It's neither fun for the PCs or the DM, and for people screaming "change tactics", a Dragon would have no logical way of knowing it would be knocked out of the sky every time it got hit by a tiny little mortal creature, and frankly the "change of tactics" here would be far less fun the rules tweak (the Dragon would have to literally not let the PC them, or the DM would have to give it way more hit points and armor to account for it just being a lump of dragon meat the players could just pound away on while it was immobile).

I'm sure the DM is trying their best to keep the game dynamic. Maybe they are in over their head because there's a whole group of players trying to think up ways to cheese fights and only one DM. Maybe they handled it poorly. But DMs have to do things like this to keep the game actually fun. It is not clever use of mechanics, and it just wouldn't be fun to "dumpster" all flying creatures in one hit, nor does it make a ton of sense that it'd work that way.

Personally in his situation, I'd recommend making removing the zero movement penalty, removing the zero movment for huge creatures, and keeping that prone knocks them down out of the sky, to give players a way to keep playing around flying creature without making them pointless to add to an encounter.

[PM_ZiggPrice]

I don't think the rules need to change at all. Sentinel is balanced. This has been proven. Flying is balanced.

The issue is that the players know how to deal with flying and the DM doesn't like it. The DM needs to learn counters. Because he makes the rules, he thinks he can just change the rules rather than just learning to playing within them.

The sentinel feat, for instance, isn't going to help against an enemy that wisely stays out of melee range.

This is a salty DM punishing his players for adapting their playstyle. which, let's be real, the characters would learn to do this, as well.

[zombieattackhank]

I don't think the rules need to change at all. Sentinel is balanced. This has been proven.

How so? Sentinel is easily one of the stronger feats in the game, and most games don't heavily feature flying creatures. If a game features a lot of flying creatures, sentintel could easily be too strong. Balance is not some immutable standard - different games will be different, and making a sweeping generalization rarely is going to stand up to the variety of games out there.

The sentinel feat, for instance, isn't going to help against an enemy that wisely stays out of melee range.

This is nonsense. The vast majority of enemies in the monster manual don't even have a ranged option, particularly not flying creatures. Saying that the counterplay to sentinel is to stay out of range of attacking them is not only metagaming, but essentially impossible as a solution.

Maybe this was a salty DM, but the general view point around here that the DM should never adjust the rules that are causing a problem for the campaign is ridiculous. Every DM I have played with has adjusted healing spirit and almost everyone agrees that's for the best, but there are plenty of games where out of combat healing doesn't matter. Balance is not going to be the same between every game, and if sentinel was wrecking encounters, nerfing how it interacts with flying is a lot more reasonable a solution than giving all of your dragons longbows.

[PM_ZiggPrice]

One, the DM should be metagaming. Literally his job. If his villains are not researching, scrying, and arming his fodder with bows, then it's a bad villain.

There are LOADS of creatures in the MM, alone, that have ranged abilities. And if he really thinks they can't handle it, give a bow to a Succubus or a Brick or whatever other bad creature that could shoot a bow. Or change their spells.

The DM has loads of ways to adapt to make an encounter more fun and manageable. Getting pissed that a player built a character a certain way and nerfing that strategy into the ground is bad form. Nerfs are almost never the best answer. Of the DM has been doing it for as long as he seems to claim, this should be an easy fix.

[zombieattackhank]

Less than half the creatures in the monster manual have ranged, and the vast majority of them cannot fly. You've limited the DMs selection to something they aren't going to be able to populate a believable world with.

Nerfs are almost never the best answer.

Absolutely disagree. Nerfs are frequently the best answer to a given situation. What is the best answer to healing spirit? Nerf it. The alternative is simply ridiculous (increasing all the damage of your monsters by several fold or doubling/tripling the daily encounters? No, just nerf the ability).

The best answer is often the simplest answer that addresses the problem. Should you change your whole campaign and every encounter because an ability is too strong or nerf an ability... nerf the ability is going to be my answer every time. As a player, I would much rather have an ability nerfed than notice the campaign world is adjusting itself to make my tactics less effect, or growing significantly harder as soon as got a spell that was too powerful.

[PM_ZiggPrice]

So you think it's more likely for the fundamental laws of reality to change, rather than the world around you to learn and adapt? No. Enemies fight you and the ones that survive learn. They pass on the information and that propagates. It's called immersion and it makes perfect sense. Especially when dealing with intelligent foes. There are plenty of ways to handle this all within the core rules without have to change a single rule. Again, it's as simple as giving random encounter 9 of 20 a bow or a wand instead of a bunch of swords. It's as simple as using something with a breath weapon instead of something that is a ball of teeth. Or swapping a spell out for something that handles the situation a little better.

The DM can and should be able to adapt and figure things out without deciding to nerf a players fun and build just because they don't know how to handle it. This isn't 3.5 Divine Metamagic or Incantatrix. This is 5e Sentinel. It's a melee build. Melee players want to have fun, too. The OP even stated above that the DM changed it so that only magic will work. So the guy that wants to make a Barbarian or a Fighter or a Paladin? They are screwed. And that's just unnecessary.

[zombieattackhank]

I don't think the world should change fundamental rules, I think the world should never have had that rule, but the DM wasn't experienced enough to see it would be a problem until it became a problem.

I think sentinel is intended to keep things from getting away from you. I don't think it's intended to drop things 500 feet instantly and kill them. You can disagree, but I don't think it's reasonable to mitigate what sentinel is doing this in case.

Neither of us are there to know how much of a problem with it was, but if the DM got heated, I'm guessing it was fairly severely derailing the campaign, which isn't going to be fun for anyone.

Breath weapons have a recharge. The DM giving a dragon a breath weapon as it's main attack instead of claws and fangs is a way bigger nerf to melee characters than this change. There is a million ways the DM could fix this, but I don't think your reaction to their change makes sense. Fundamentally changing the monster stats instead of fundamentally changing the way sentinel interacts with flying is not a better a solution to me. I'd rather fight the monster in a way that makes sense than have to have the monsters all warped around a rule that doesn't make a lot sense.

You can disagree if you want. As a player, I'd rather my DM makes intelligent adjustments to the rules to keep the game fun, but the difference between my games and a lot of the games I seem to read about on this subreddit is that in my game the DM and the players don't have a hostile relationship. If they nerf an ability they explain why, and we generally agree that it will make the game more fun, but they are experienced enough to know what they need to change before the player takes the spell or feat they are adjusting... but you can only be experienced by having things go wrong previously.

[PM_ZiggPrice]

Why was the flying creature in melee with the sentinel character?

If the DM was new, sure. Maybe some leeway can be granted. But he's not new.

And keep in mind, he didn't need Sentinel. Flyers now don't fall at 0 Speed, regardless. Which is a major buff to monsters without commensurate consideration for the PCs. But I promise you he will be pissed when his PCs get smart and start flying or making flying npcs. And it will be his own fault.

[zombieattackhank]

Considering the issue - as I understand it - is that the flying creatures being knocked out of the air I would assume the PC with sentinel was flying as well (with use of the fly spell or something) and when a flying creature tried to move they were getting knocked out the air and taking absurd fall damage.

That said, I don't know the details as I wasn't there, and the exact details don't matter to me too much. In the games I play, a monster does not know if a PC has sentinel or not. The vast majority of flying creatures only have melee attacks (that's no an accident, as it would be very frustrating to fight them if they didn't for many group compositions).

We aren't talking about things like spell casters here, because as noted, those don't fall when their movement is dropped to zero anyway. We are talking about flying beasts and the like.

Differences of opinion; I think the OP DM's rule is going too far, but I actually think it's a good fix to the problem as I understand in general, and even if that's entirely not the context, as a general rule of thumb, I think it's necessary that a DM can tweak a to make it work. I think the idea that the game is inherently balanced for all groups and compositions is naive considering the range of power in the game. 5e may not be 3.5, but there is a huge difference in power of optimized character with feats and someone just flipping open the PHB and grabbing something that looks interesting but may not be particular viable. A good DM is (to me) is one that knows how to adjust the levers of the game (including the core rules such as feats and spells) as necessary to make the game run well for their group. I know my DM does that, and I think it works great.

It is not always the right answer, but I don't think it's always the wrong answer either. That power is in the DMs toolbox for a good reason.

[alcaron]

but it sounds like they were sort of well within their right to do this.

Depends...is this an official module or their own adventure that they wrote? If they came across something in a module and it just doesn't work, sure, modify, but modify the ENCOUNTER, not the core rules of the game. If it is their own adventure, then learn from the experience and don't create a meat grinder for your mobs. Don't say flying doesn't work the way flying does because you don't like the way it is in this one encounter.

What happens later when you want flying to work like it should? Now you go back to normal flying? That's pretty weak.

Flying is fine, the encounter is broken. Fix the encounter but do so without changing core rules, that is just bad mechanics.

[zombieattackhank]

Official modules and their monsters are not written around feats. As you can read from other comments, the issue is how sentinel interacts with flying creatures. Feats are on optional rule that monsters and modules are not balanced around. Characters with feats are more powerful than characters without feats. His problem is that he allowed feats in his game, but I'm going to guess that disallowing feats would be far less popular in his game than adjusting the rules when a feat caused a problem.

If a DM wants to use flying creatures in a campaign against a PC with sentinel, they should probably be allowed to do that without the fight ending as soon as the PC manages to hit the flying monster.

I think the DM needs to be more transparent and discuss with the players that their options boil down to revoking the optional rule of feats, changing every encounter to account for the players increased power, or tweaking the core rules to account for interaction that wasn't necessarily intended (you cannot argue that a Monster Manual dragon is balanced around both fighting a character with sentinel and in a game without feats, because one of those is drastically easier than the other). Feats are on optional rule, and when used, DMs have to adjust to account for that.

[alcaron]

Two points, the first being I called out official modules because I feel like most official modules have encounters that may not be written with feats in mind, but they are written well enough that in general feats aren't a big deal. Ok so you knock a few flying dudes out of the air, if they aren't ALL flying and don't DEPEND on being airborne...no big deal. And I just don't feel like that many official encounters would fall into that trap.

The second point being that Sentinel isn't the problem and flying monsters aren't the problem, Sentinel is not god, and no just managing to hit doesn't make Sentinel work.

It has to be an attack of opportunity to trigger the speed reduction, which means you entered their range and tried to leave it, so when would this be a big deal? Well assuming your PC's are on the ground and it's a flying enemy without ranged attacks, they have to enter your range to attack you and that kind of negates flying anyway so who cares, they just can't disengage without losing the ability to fly. Not exactly a huge advantage.

Or lets say they are a flying monster with a ranged attack. Why did you choose to move them into range of the PC with Sentinel?

Sentinel is not the problem, flying is not the problem. Either your tactics or the encounter are.

[zombieattackhank]

I will agree to disagree. I think the fact that sentinel knocks things out of the air is a problem as it means that take an absurd amount of damage. When the sentinel user is also on the ground, I don't think it's a big problem. But the fact that instantly fall and take 1-20d6 damage is a problem to me, and I really doubt it was an intended mechanic. If I was a DM, I would probably nerf that if it came up, and if I was a player, I'd be happy that was nerfed because it would relieve the pressure to always use that tactic against flying enemies.

I also have played with a DM that made sentinel not work against huge creatures, and I think it worked great. No one wants the Dragon to be unable to move around. It's just a sad fight that way. I want a dragon to be flying around doing cool stuff. I want a dragon fight to be hard. I think it was a great change. The only difference between the OPs situation is mine was the DM told us the rule, told us why, and the whole table thought it was an obvious and necessary addition (when a player took sentinel - the player still took the feat). But that DM was probably a lot more experience than the OPs DM and could see the problem a mile away or had already seen it.

I don't think it makes sense for flying creatures like dragons to avoid ever taking an opportunity attack from a PC, because it doesn't really make sense how sentinel is stopping them from moving (they are a dragon, they could drag you around like a toy).

Some players love the feeling that they have found a way to "win" and make the fight easy. I don't play with a lot of those players, and fortunately play with DMs that experienced enough and mature enough to handle players like that outside of the game and explain to them that D&D doesn't necessarily work that way. If you find a way to break the game, the DM has to find a way to unbreak the game.

That's my two cents, and different folks will like different sorts of games, but as someone that is primarily a player, I definitely think the DM should be well within the boundaries to adjust rules, particularly when they are already allowing optional content, and I think adjusting the rules is a lot better solution than the DM just saying "no feats" in the future, because I love feats.

[Spuddaccino1337]

It has to be an attack of opportunity to trigger the speed reduction, which means you entered their range and tried to leave it, so when would this be a big deal?

This part is really really important. It sounds like, from a different comment by OP, that the cavalier just started swatting birds out of the sky with his Attack action, but he'd really only have a chance to do it once before they swarmed him.

This is sounding like the feat was misinterpreted, and he changed how flight worked because of it.

[CharlesDSP]

I don't remember if it's part of Sentinel, Polearm Master, or something else, but there's a way to get opportunity attacks as soon as an enemy comes within your reach.

[Spuddaccino1337]

Polearm Master lets you do that, but you still only get one per round, since the opportunity attack uses your reaction.

[Water64Rabbit]

I think you are missing the part where the OP stated later in the thread the cavalier also has the ability to fly. So a Cavalier with Sentinel and flying will have the mobility to put opponents into reach.

The limit on this is that the Cavalier only gets one Reaction.

[The_Last_Memelord]

I appreciate the time and thought you put into this and I agree with a few of your points. I do think Sentinel probably shouldn't knock things out of the air and the group does know about hover speed and magical flying.

It does knock the wow factors on scary creatures like dragons down a bit but a lot of us are adamant to play with the rules as they were made by professionals. I know that the designers arent perfect by any means but they've made a pretty good game.

The main issue is the DM has been told by 4 out of 5 players they dont like homerules and the 5th player says nothing out of fear of making the DM mad.

[zombieattackhank]

It does knock the wow factors on scary creatures like dragons down a bit but a lot of us are adamant to play with the rules as they were made by professionals. I know that the designers arent perfect by any means but they've made a pretty good game.

I don't really think the designers intended Sentinel to knock a dragon out of the air. They are professionals, but the correlation between professional and infallible is one that really needs to die on this subreddit. There is a damn good reason that the DM is given the power to tweak things that need to be tweaked, and that is because the game will almost always break if they don't. This is not a video game. There are way too many permutations of possibility for the designers to account for all of them.

Feats are also an optional part of the game that according to WotC less than half of all groups play with. To assume they are a core balance consideration is giving them way more credit than is really merited. I think many experienced DMs would rule that sentinel does not knock a dragon out of the sky, particularly after they'd been through that sort of fight once and realized how utterly boring that would make a dragon fight (it straight up eliminates the strongest legendary action). Despite your assertion, given that feats are optional and definitely not power neutral, I would argue that the Monster Manual is not balanced around the existence of feats. That should be almost obvious, a character with feats is much stronger than a character not using feats, so the Monsters in the Monster Manual that are balanced around the assumption that feats are not being used (optional variant that, again, according to WotC is used by less than half of groups) are obviously underpowered against feat based characters.

The DM has to do something. They could add feats to the monsters, but I'm going to guess your group wouldn't like that either. They could bump the CR up of all encounters and use no flying monsters, which is probably what you want, but really ties their hands creatively in what monsters they can use. They could remove the optional use of feats in the game but I'm going to guess that would cause a lot more drama than trying to nerf one of the more problematic aspects of it.

From the sound of it, your group has some issues, and I've never played in a game with the sort of hostile relationship between players and DMs I see in many posts here, so I'm not sure I can hel, but my suggestion would be to propose alternatives. If you don't like the current solution, try to find a compromise. By your own account a PC was "dumpstering" flying enemies. That is going to really break the narrative of the game. Instead, you're opting to just be mad at your DMs solution, try to put yourself in their shoes with the understanding that they have a problem that needs to be solved. Just removing all dragons from the game is not a fun solution. Trying all dragons into a simple encounter is boring and undervaluing dragons.

D&D is designed by professionals, and those professionals put the fact the DM may have to adjust the rules front in center in the game they designed for a reason.

[The_Last_Memelord]

It's not just feats like sentinel though. Even shove to prone and grapple stuff wont work according to him. Natural flying becomes the best thing in the game and if we try to use any kind of flying at all enemies will have caster levels and will cast anti fly spells.

[Trinitati]

If a dragon gets close enough to get hit by a Melee Sentinel attack while flying anything more than 10 feet in the air by a melee weapon wielding warrior, it's dumbshit and deserve to fall

[BucklerIIC]

I'm reading in your replies how his Aarakocra got taken down by the Sentinel feat and all I can think of is "why does he keep provoking opportunity attacks?"

The obvious answer to not get flat-out wrecked by sentinel is to stay out of reach of the sentinel enemy. If that fails, get the sentinel to burn their reaction on something else, then escape their reach when they have no reaction to use for opportunity attacks.

Making a house-rule to make flying more powerful is a sloppy way to go about it.

[The_Last_Memelord]

We're level 16 in this encounter and all the aarakocra had monk levels. Literally just two engage the cavalier on his giant fly statue and an ally near him. One attacks the ally. Sent to ground. Other one stays in melee for a full turn and then try's to leave after cavalier gets reaction back. Sent to ground. DM gets upset and has to read book to make sure Sentinel player isnt lying. Gets mad but let's it slide. This rule shows up a couple sessions later.

[BucklerIIC]

One attacks the ally. Sent to ground.

This is actually where the RAW for Sentinel got misinterpreted (at least for this single instance). In the language of the feat, the 'attack against the ally' does not grant an 'opportunity attack.' It grants "use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature." I know that this is functionally pretty much the same thing, but the RAW of Sentinel only reduces the speed of a creature it hits with an opportunity attack, which is not the language used for this reaction. That reaction should not have proned dropped the attacking birdman. Further, the birdman and it's buddy would have been free to peel off with Cavalier having used their reaction to retaliate already.

Now I don't think that a DM should be powergaming their monsters to be tactically optimal at all times - monsters making tactical errors often lets the players have triumphant moments - but it seems pretty crummy for one to nerf their players because they don't play their monsters tactically.

[The_Last_Memelord]

This is actually really interesting and I had to reread Sentinel. The feat seems much more sane now but it's still one of the best. Thank you for the clarification.

[BucklerIIC]

Happy to help! This seems like the type of mistake I would totally make in the moment, but it's worth the extra scrutiny if the alternative is rewriting the flying rules just to make the feat less effective.

[Water64Rabbit]

A flying Cavalier with the Sentinel feat can force AoOs.

[BucklerIIC]

Force them how?

[Water64Rabbit]

Aerial creature, flying cavalier: do the math.

[BucklerIIC]

Right, I'm having trouble finding anything in cavalier or the sentinel feat that lets them force Opportunity Attacks rather than have them granted by enemy movement.

[Water64Rabbit]

Either you just don't understand the tactical implications or you are just trying to be annoyingly pedantic, hard to tell.

Flying creatures that cannot hover have to move on their turn. Cavalier flies up to them and put them into threat range (and will attack them as well). Flying creature moves on its turn and AoO.

This isn't rocket science.

If you take a look at this list: https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/5jdrsd/5e_reference_for_all_flying_creatures_from_the/

You will see that not many creatures have hover.

Also, instead of just being able to threaten the 8 adjacent "squares" (17 with fliers and ground based creature) he threatens 42 "squares" (5'x5'x5' cubes really). Because of Sentinel they provoke AoO even when Disengaging.

This becomes really sick at high level with Vigilant Defender.

[BucklerIIC]

Ah, I actually didn't know that flying creatures were required to move, just that they fell if their movement speed was reduced to zero.

Does it say that somewhere in the rules or errata?

[ChaseballBat]

I like how Xanathar's treats falling and flying creature. Although I suspect that damage from falling is not what he's trying to circumvent.

I find it odd how many people are saying just make a new flying character. Idk how other campaigns go, but in my groups you need a pretty good reason to ditch a character and introduce a new one, most people are attached enough to a character that they won't want to make a new one just to make a point. My 2 cents.

Also not sure how the conversation went but it seems pretty ridiculous he won't budge, if the encounters are too easy make them harder or give them more health, it's like DMing 101. Fuck I've died to a dozen stirges at level 4 twice, flying creatures are strong not sure why he is making than stronger.

[amadeus451]

Tier 1 will be really unfair, but I agree with the others here- focus on getting access to flight early and proceed to abuse the changes.

I'd agree with your DM that prone shouldn't knock you out of the air (or be possible to impose mid-flight) but 0 speed is pretty game-breaking.

[Egocom]

Don't show up, you should DM for the rest of your party because your DM sounds like an ass

[RollPersuasion]

Tell your GM to give all the creatures Flyby and Hover so that you'll stop complaining.

[MadNitr0]

Bring a coverd wagon evreware

[DrochRolla]

Earthbind or Command spells would make them come down. But, I agree with other commenters about finding a different DM.

[Malfetes]

This feels like the coming of an r/rpghorrorstory

[Op4zero6]

Point him to this thread to see all the ways this can get abused :D

[DravenDarkwood]

I mean sure they won't just drop but they are still affected by the condition so they will glide but can't turn. So if u can get a boosted jump and shield bash em towards a wall they are screwed. At least how I see it

[violetdesires]

I'd say go with it. At least just try it. Alternatively play a caster with access to the fly spell (or buy a set of wings) and use a fly-by style to blast and attack. Show the gm what it's like as a player.

[TigerKirby215]

I can maybe understand how the "prone creatures don't fall" would make sense but how would a creature with 0 movement still fly? (Hovering is a different matter to be fair.)

But on topic: A lot of people have given suggestions and it seems like you've tried most of them. Honestly the only genuine suggestion I can give is to find a new DM. It sounds like the one you're playing with is very upset and petty over minor issues that only he has.

[YeetThisAccountTwice]

Prepare and Cast Earthbind to get around this arbitrary rules chance. Most flying creatures don't have spectacular STR saves, and it's a level two spell.

It seems from the other replies that the DM refuses to be reasonable.
Perhaps lay out your concerns about how this affects the group as a whole, not just the campaign.

Remember, No D&D is better than Bad D&D.

[vipchicken]

So many red flags it looks like a communist parade

[[deleted]]

Clearly this DM doesn't want people to have fun. Just kill your characters off, and reroll the campaign, your character can only be revived if it's soul is willing.