# Carrying Capacity of Flying creatures



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 17, 2003)

Which multiplier should be used for calculating carrying capacity for flying creatures in flight, bipedal or quadrupedal?

The calculation itself seems straightforward -- maximum lifting capacity = maximum load, and then apply a multiplier based on size.  I can understand quadrupeds having a greater capacity (since the musculature of all limbs is in use carrying the load, whereas a biped has musculature not being used as efficiently) -- the question is how to apply that to flying creatures.  My gut says treat birds as bipeds; though a greater portion of their musculature is devoted to their wings than legs, this is offset by the fact that it takes significantly more power to fly with a given weight than to walk with it.  But that's real-world physics, and mixing the real-world and D&D is usually a no-no ...

So I look in the MM, and the Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Hippogriff, and Griffon (the only flying creatures I can find with a carrying capacity listed) all use the x3 multiplier of quadrupeds.  They're all magical beasts; should I chalk that up to magic (especially given the bizarre anatomies of Hippogriffs and Griffons), or should that be a general rule for anything that has wings?

The reason behind the question:
The party's 8th level druid wants to wild shape into something that flies and carry party members; I'm trying to figure out what he can reasonably carry.  The bipedal modifiers seem intuitively more correct to me -- I just have a hard time envisioning eagles lifting more than horses without magic being involved.

Edit: And what's up with the Dire Bat?  Large and Str 17 at 5HD, but an 8HD Dire Hawk is Medium and Str 12.  *shakes head*  Just no logic ... *slap* it's D&D!


----------



## diaglo (Nov 17, 2003)

Hollow bones? big air bladders?

smaller than avg brain size?

it is the force pushing from the top which causes...nevermind...lets get away from physics...


----------



## CalrinAlshaw (Nov 17, 2003)

Just go with the whole x3, but in order to fly, the creature can not carry over a light load I believe.

Calrin Alshaw


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 18, 2003)

CalrinAlshaw said:
			
		

> Just go with the whole x3, but in order to fly, the creature can not carry over a light load I believe.




That's useful; anyone got a page reference?  Some load restriction on flight/maneuverability would make sense.


----------



## Seravin (Nov 18, 2003)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> That's useful; anyone got a page reference?  Some load restriction on flight/maneuverability would make sense.




Monster Manual - page 311/312 - Movement Modes
Under fly it explicitly states that creatures with a fly speed can move through the air at the listed speed if carrying no more than a light load.

I believe in 1e/2e this was also the case.

The text can be interpreted that the flying creature can still move at a reduced speed if carrying more than a light load, since it doesn't explicitly state that a creature can only fly if carrying a light load.

For research purposes you can also look at a pegasus and nightmare.  Str 18, carrying capacity 300lbs (x3).


----------



## tburdett (Nov 18, 2003)

diaglo said:
			
		

> Hollow bones? big air bladders?
> 
> smaller than avg brain size?
> 
> it is the force pushing from the top which causes...nevermind...lets get away from physics...



More importantly, african or european?


----------



## Gez (Nov 18, 2003)

You should take a look at that.


----------

