How do multiple movement types interact with eachother in one move action?


Rules Questions


19 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

There are many ways to get multiple movement types with differing speeds on player characters. Additionally, many animal companions and monsters have multiple differing movement speeds. Considering this, I have not been able to find a definitive answer to how these differing speeds interact with one move action. For example:

Let us say a creature has a land speed of 30 feet and a burrow speed of 20 feet. They are standing on hard ground, but are 10 feet away from sand. If they move the 10 feet with their land speed to reach the sand, how far can they burrow with the same move action?

I think this would make a good FAQ candidate, since I cannot find the answer in my Core rulebook.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

This actually comes up surprisingly often in our games and I've never been able to find an official answer. Interested to see if this gets answered.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Work it out proportionally... if your first movement mode takes half of your total movement, then you only have half of the second mode's potential movement left for that phase.

This assumes that you can freely switch between modes. if you have to do something to enable that switch than your movement phase ends.


LazarX wrote:
Work it out proportionally... if your first movement mode takes half of your total movement, then you only have half of the second mode's potential movement left for that phase.

That is indeed something I try to do at home. I just want an official ruling for this blank spot in the rules.

Edit: Proportions might not always work either. An example: A human Wizard with boots of striding and springing casts the burrow spell then engages in their move action. He walks 5 feet to get to sand, then tries to burrow. 5 feat is proportionately 0.125th of the 40 foot movement speed they possess. Which way do we round? If we round up, that is far from proportionate, as it takes away 1/3rd of their burrowing speed. If we round down (Usually the direction rounded in Pf), the character essentially got a free 5 feet of ground movement added to their move action.

This is an easy PC example in which a player can switch between movement modes. There are many others like this, so the assumption that they can freely switch between modes is not an unfair one to make.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

LazarX wrote:

Work it out proportionally... if your first movement mode takes half of your total movement, then you only have half of the second mode's potential movement left for that phase.

This assumes that you can freely switch between modes. if you have to do something to enable that switch than your movement phase ends.

That's generally what I do, but sometimes it isn't as simple as having a 30 move speed and a 30 foot burrow speed where I get to switch from one to the other halfway through. Sometimes I have a 50 foot fly speed and a 30 foot burrow speed, and I want to know if I can fly 40 feet and then burrow the remainder of my movement, and if so, how far. Is there already a rule that applies to this situation that's tucked into some obscure corner of the CRB? It's the kind of thing that would be good to know.


What's up with all the recent FAQ requests for movement based questions?

Well this is definitely one that I kinda wonder about.


I think most people that I've played with ruled that you do it in fractions, so that if you move 1/3 your movement on the ground, you lose 1/3 your flying speed for that move action. Mostly people tend to round up the fractions so that it takes away more movement

I like using fractions and I don't care whether it rounds up or down, as long as it stays consistent within the campaign.

Sovereign Court

This comes up a lot for me with climbing/swimming. Walk to the ladder, climb it. Swim to the boat, climb in. Easy enough if you don't have a separate climb/swim speed, because then you can just count those as a sort of very difficult terrain. But if you have a climb or swim speed of 20 and a land speed of 30 it gets hinky.


Proportional is one option, use your lowest relevant speed as your allowance for the action is another. "No mixing" is very draconic. And I'm sure there is a RAW case to be made for flying 5', then using your Fly speed to Burrow.


We have always just used a single movement type... I also look forward to a more detailed answer to this.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Adam B. 135 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Work it out proportionally... if your first movement mode takes half of your total movement, then you only have half of the second mode's potential movement left for that phase.

That is indeed something I try to do at home. I just want an official ruling for this blank spot in the rules.

Edit: Proportions might not always work either. An example: A human Wizard with boots of striding and springing casts the burrow spell then engages in their move action. He walks 5 feet to get to sand, then tries to burrow. 5 feat is proportionately 0.125th of the 40 foot movement speed they possess. Which way do we round? If we round up, that is far from proportionate, as it takes away 1/3rd of their burrowing speed. If we round down (Usually the direction rounded in Pf), the character essentially got a free 5 feet of ground movement added to their move action.

This is an easy PC example in which a player can switch between movement modes. There are many others like this, so the assumption that they can freely switch between modes is not an unfair one to make.

You round to the lesser value remaining. Part of the thing about wargaming is that you move in squares, not fractions thereof.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Casual Viking wrote:
Proportional is one option, use your lowest relevant speed as your allowance for the action is another. "No mixing" is very draconic. And I'm sure there is a RAW case to be made for flying 5', then using your Fly speed to Burrow.

No there isn't. flying and burrowing are not the same kind of locomotion. burrowing means you're moving dirt out of the ground and tunneling. Last time I checked, that has absolutely no resemblance to flight.


Nothing official, but we've always done it proportionally, round up so that you have less movement when a fraction would leave you with an amount of movement that wasn't a multiple of 5ft.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Claxon wrote:
Nothing official, but we've always done it proportionally, round up so that you have less movement when a fraction would leave you with an amount of movement that wasn't a multiple of 5ft.

The general rule is to round down in that case. If you have 9 feet of movement left, you get one square.

One thing that would help immensely would be a return to wargaming squares measurements for distance than footage.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"No mixing" is clearly not how the game was meant to work;

Climb skill description wrote:
Action: Climbing is part of movement, so it's generally part of a move action (and may be combined with other types of movement in a move action). Each move action that includes any climbing requires a separate Climb check. Catching yourself or another falling character doesn't take an action.

So it's possible to walk up to a short ladder, climb it, and step away from it, in a single turn.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

"No mixing" is clearly not how the game was meant to work;

Climb skill description wrote:
Action: Climbing is part of movement, so it's generally part of a move action (and may be combined with other types of movement in a move action). Each move action that includes any climbing requires a separate Climb check. Catching yourself or another falling character doesn't take an action.
So it's possible to walk up to a short ladder, climb it, and step away from it, in a single turn.

Absolutely true. But if you have to walk up to the ladder lying on the ground, pick it up and set it, you're done for your turn right there.


LazarX wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Nothing official, but we've always done it proportionally, round up so that you have less movement when a fraction would leave you with an amount of movement that wasn't a multiple of 5ft.

The general rule is to round down in that case. If you have 9 feet of movement left, you get one square.

One thing that would help immensely would be a return to wargaming squares measurements for distance than footage.

Sorry, we round the cost up. Which is the same thing as rounding down how much movement you have left, which is what you're suggesting.

I just left a word out originally.


This actually makes me curious about dragon movement. Having a 250 foot fly speed, then a 30 foot ground speed, but generally such poor fly checks that say, turning on a dime is impossible, what would the movement cost end up for a dragon flying at ground level, drop to the ground to make an instant 180 degree turn with no fly check, then take off in that direction?

5ft of fly movement? No movement cost at all as it didn't actually move, just basically touched the ground and his head and tail teleported positions to each other?


Instead, you just give dragons the wingover and hovers feats because you're question suggest a very metagamist situation that no dragon should actually do.

Also recall the flying up costs twice as much movement as flying level.


Claxon wrote:

Instead, you just give dragons the wingover and hovers feats because you're question suggest a very metagamist situation that no dragon should actually do.

Also recall the flying up costs twice as much movement as flying level.

Wait, why wouldn't a dragon bounce off the ground and then jump up and fly back the way it came? It would be like a hockey player skating hard in one direction, stopping, then turning and coming back except, well, the whole flying thing.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

MeanMutton wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Instead, you just give dragons the wingover and hovers feats because you're question suggest a very metagamist situation that no dragon should actually do.

Also recall the flying up costs twice as much movement as flying level.

Wait, why wouldn't a dragon bounce off the ground and then jump up and fly back the way it came? It would be like a hockey player skating hard in one direction, stopping, then turning and coming back except, well, the whole flying thing.

I had basically the same thought (literally thought of the exact same hockey analogy), although a creature that defies physics using physics to overcome natural weaknesses does sit a bit poorly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Instead, you just give dragons the wingover and hovers feats because you're question suggest a very metagamist situation that no dragon should actually do.

Also recall the flying up costs twice as much movement as flying level.

Wait, why wouldn't a dragon bounce off the ground and then jump up and fly back the way it came? It would be like a hockey player skating hard in one direction, stopping, then turning and coming back except, well, the whole flying thing.
I had basically the same thought (literally thought of the exact same hockey analogy), although a creature that defies physics using physics to overcome natural weaknesses does sit a bit poorly.

I just like the visual of the dragon flying low overhead, raking across the mage, slicing him to ribbons, then crashing down onto all four legs, skidding across the rocks, and then leaping back up to begin flying back as the fighter readies his longspear to meet the rushing onslaught of the dragon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Instead, you just give dragons the wingover and hovers feats because you're question suggest a very metagamist situation that no dragon should actually do.

Also recall the flying up costs twice as much movement as flying level.

Wait, why wouldn't a dragon bounce off the ground and then jump up and fly back the way it came? It would be like a hockey player skating hard in one direction, stopping, then turning and coming back except, well, the whole flying thing.
I had basically the same thought (literally thought of the exact same hockey analogy), although a creature that defies physics using physics to overcome natural weaknesses does sit a bit poorly.
I just like the visual of the dragon flying low overhead, raking across the mage, slicing him to ribbons, then crashing down onto all four legs, skidding across the rocks, and then leaping back up to begin flying back as the fighter readies his longspear to meet the rushing onslaught of the dragon.

Seeing a dragon drift like a car in the Fast and the Furious would be awe inspiring, and invokes a very savage image. This dragon wants to engage in the fight so much they don't even want to waste the time to slowly turn. Brutal tactics, and brutal imagery.


MeanMutton wrote:
I just like the visual of the dragon flying low overhead, raking across the mage, slicing him to ribbons, then crashing down onto all four legs, skidding across the rocks, and then leaping back up to begin flying back as the fighter readies his longspear to meet the rushing onslaught of the dragon.

I would think landing at speed like that would require some kind of acrobatics check to not go tumbling head over heels. Otherwise slowing down your flight to come in for a pinpoint landing should be about as hard as stopping your forward momentum in midair.

In general I'd like to see more encouragement to make up completely gratuitous uses of the acrobatics skill. Why walk up and punch somebody in the face when you can do an improved unarmed strike by running a few steps up the adjacent wall and jumping off into a spin kick, you know?


chuffster, why? This is not reality. If a flying creature had a speed of 1,000 he still wouldn't have to make any kind of special check to land. No more than people stopping on a dime when running.

That kind of realism simply is not part of this game. Heck, there are any number of rules and game elements that violate reality (and I don't mean the magical elements).


Gauss wrote:

chuffster, why? This is not reality. If a flying creature had a speed of 1,000 he still wouldn't have to make any kind of special check to land. No more than people stopping on a dime when running.

That kind of realism simply is not part of this game. Heck, there are any number of rules and game elements that violate reality (and I don't mean the magical elements).

But what if his speed was over 9000???.... /trollface hides :D


Gauss wrote:

chuffster, why? This is not reality. If a flying creature had a speed of 1,000 he still wouldn't have to make any kind of special check to land. No more than people stopping on a dime when running.

That kind of realism simply is not part of this game. Heck, there are any number of rules and game elements that violate reality (and I don't mean the magical elements).

Actually that level of realism is intended in the game, that is why different flight maneuverabilities are a thing, also when a creature lands and then takes off again it is assuming it took the time to slow, land, and then take of again, in the described situation the GM would be in their full right to require an acrobatics check similar to how one is required for slick or slippery surfaces, as the speed in question would be more in line with a full charge than with careful maneuvering or even a hustle (in combat movement) so yes, an acrobatics check to not fail the turn would be in line with the purpose of that skill.


You are responding to folks who last interacted with this community five-ish years ago. Just sayin.

Liberty's Edge

@ Zilpha
The thread you raised from the grave is interesting, and I missed it, so thanks for that. I don't think there is new printed material that changes what was written by early posters. I mostly agree with Claxon wrote. And with your comment.
Bypassing the flying rules by "touching the ground" and restarting without any Fly or Acrobatic check sound as gaming the system.


Diego Rossi wrote:

@ Zilpha

The thread you raised from the grave is interesting, and I missed it, so thanks for that. I don't think there is new printed material that changes what was written by early posters. I mostly agree with Claxon wrote. And with your comment.
Bypassing the flying rules by "touching the ground" and restarting without any Fly or Acrobatic check sound as gaming the system.

Necromancy can be used for good as well as evil, I like to think that this is a good use of it. All joking aside I did not realize it had been 7-8 years since the other comments were made, and I have not been able to find any official rules on how split movement works, nor on the stop, turn, and take off described, however I would rule it as a special use of the "keeping balance" use of acrobatics, a fail and the creature falls prone. Or a fly check with negatives based on size and maneuverability.

Liberty's Edge

Just a note about the old posts: fractions rounded down means that the leftover movement is rounded down, not the movement spent.

If you have a walking speed of 30' and a climbing speed of 20 and start climbing after moving 10', you have 2/3*20'= 13.33' of movement left, rounded down to 10'.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / How do multiple movement types interact with eachother in one move action? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.