Forseti's page

That out of the way, honestly I think Pathfinder 2 would benefit much better with less raw numbers. Consider rather than level cut out entirely, replace it with Level/4 rounded up. This would mean from level 1-4 you have +1, 5-8 +2, 9-12 +3, 13-16 +4, 17-20 +5. Mathematically that would place max level bonus on par with the total bonus between untrained and legendary, so a legendary individual is twice as good raw as untrained. And additionally you can supplement each stage with new abilities, making the true feeling of power coming from being able to actually do more and not high number pissing contests.

The thing is, if you completely remove level, you're already looking at what you're suggesting here, just on a smaller scale, in the form of proficiencies.

Proficiency increases are gated by level, differently for different classes.

Compare PF1 with PF2 after we strip the level from PF2 and give the characters (in both cases) optimal weapons. In PF1, a 20th level fighter has 10 more attack bonus than a 20th level wizard. In PF2, a 20th level fighter has 3 more attack bonus than a 20th level wizard. And like in PF1, there are classes that fall between the fighter and the wizard.

They just toned down the granularity of the inherent numerical differences between the classes. But imagine they'd tone it down a bit less. If the differences between the proficiency levels were a bit higher, you could safely eliminate level from all calculations, because the numerical differences between the already level-gated proficiency bonuses would be enough to cover the entire level 1-20 encounter span.

The proficiency bonuses would feel better if we just got rid of adding level to everything. Adding level to everything is just pointless. You might as well make the game a bit easier and add it to nothing.

In PF1, level determines your rate of growth in certain aspects of your character through tables that converted the straight 1-20 scale to the desired increments. It allows for diversification between classes. That's gone in PF2. No different growth rates, just a meaningless straight scale. If you eliminate level from the equation, nothing changes, you'll just be comparing smaller numbers to each other when you add up your rolls.

As it stands, level creates just an illusion of being better. Remember basic algebra:

X + 10 = 20

How do we solve this? Remove 10 from both sides of the equation!

X = 10, Yay, we solved it!

This fits how PF2 works like a glove.

X + lvl + d20 vs. a target of 10 + lvl

becomes

X + d20 vs. a target of 10.

Level is just an illusion of power and it makes the proficiency bonuses look bad.

"But what if I want to put my players up against higher level NPCs, it won't work, they'll be missing out on a bonus equal to (NPC level) minus (Player level)!"

So? You're the GM. Add or subtract a constant to everything you want your NPC to be better/worse at and you're golden. And bestiary monsters already don't follow character rules, they can be made to fit the level-free paradigm by just arbitrarily assigning number just like they are arbitrarily assigned now, just differently. The GM can easily make it work. Don't bother the players with making them think level matters. It doesn't.

Without level in any equation, you'll still be looking at the exact same success ranges on the d20 scale but a +2 master proficiency bonus will seem great because it's a significant number compared to the other modifiers you add. It won't be overshadowed by a meaningless smoke and mirrors number of a greater magnitude.

This won't of course be happening, but John Lennon said it best:

Imagine there's no level
It's easy if you try

Skill feats are the solution to a problem that was basically created when they decided to add level to everything.

Sure, it's easy and "no one gets left behind". But oh no! Now everyone can eventually do everything, so let's find a way to make sure the barbarian can't serviceably play the harp after he kills a million bugbears. Hey, let's make it so the skills actually do very little at all and add skill feats. It boggles the mind. It's all just an illusion.

Except a Druid doing that made martials obsolete even earlier than normal, so let's not pretend they didn't need to be reined in.

Reining in is fine, the druid definitely needed that. But there are different ways of doing this than turning everything into feats.

I find the progression feats especially annoying. If you go for one of those, like Animal Companion, you're pretty much locked in for all the follow-up feats if you want that original feat to stay relevant.

That is another general issue that doesn't sit well with me. It's not just the druid that suffers from this: Very few options advance with levels without continuous further feat investments. It locks people into very narrow builds.

Another issue with BAB is that it's sufficiently abstract as to be nearly meaningless in a way that "expert proficiency with weapons" is not.

And ironically, the effect of being an expert instead of just trained is nearly meaningless.

PF1 Prestidigitation is not an illusion. Soiling something soils it for real and it persists beyond the duration of the cantrip.

technarken wrote:

To be fair, Channel Life basically gives a Paladin "Lay On Hands, Only Even Better Than 1e" due to how the Heal spell works in 2e.

It doesn't even begin to justify how weak the rest of the Paladin's defensive kit is though. The 1e Paladin is a Teflon-coated Hammer of Justice that flat ignores a host of debilitating conditions through sheer faith and resolve while Evil melts before them. The 2e Paladin...isn't those things.

This really fits into a narrative that PF2 is the hangover of Pathfinder, it both good and bad. Paladin is a good point, because PF1 Paladin was both powerful but utterly one-note class. Because were super high on saves and immune to just half the stuff anyway. You said it, he ignored events. Lot of time you ended up just not participating in roleplaying events that are called "failing a save".

"I pulverize things with smite and ignore all effects" is awesome, but has no nuance to it. Point of empathy, the new stuff is too careful, too tame, but the kind of "always one immunity" goes nowhere either.

I agree, PF1 paladins are very very strong. But that's something that could've been fixed by toning things down. Turning every feature into a feat is a giant step beyond just toning things down.

Forseti wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Forseti wrote:

I think some of the un-awesomeness is due to many of the classes having a lot of feats that do nothing more than build toward what are baseline class features in PF1. I find that very unappealing.

Can you give concrete examples for this? I certainly think the range on certain things can be expanded (Legendary Climber/Swimmer, for example, though effective, I suppose, aren't very interesting), but I don't think there's anything that falls to the level of "baseline class features".

Paladin:

- Divine Grace: a feat that's a lot worse than the class feature in PF1
- Aura of Courage: a feat that's a bit worse for yourself but a bit useful for allies compared to the class feature in PF1
- Channel Life: a feat instead of the PF1 class feature.
- Divine Health: a feat that gives a marginal bonus in PF2, compared to the immunity granting class feature in PF1.
- Mercy: a feat with some follow-up feats in PF2 compared to a class feature in PF1.

That's 5 examples in the first 4 feat levels of the PF2 paladin.

Note: I'm not saying the PF2 abilities are without merit in the context of the PF2 game. The game will probably run fine. I just can't help feeling underwhelmed by the comparison to the PF1 games I'm involved in, that have years of life in them yet.

I do sort of see what you mean by that, but I do have to point out that not being forced to take them (unless you archetyped to swap a batch, not too many of which were compatible) allows for a greater degree of choice in building a paladin. For instance, a paladin without any of the "traditional" paladin abilities that marked a particular playstyle in PF1 is something that can be done in this case.

There's that, but what if you want to play the "classic" PF1 paladin, for example because you're trying to transfer a character (or a whole campaign world that has been up and running for almost 15 years, having hundreds of NPCs and dozens of PCs) between systems? You end up with lame ducks. I mentioned 5 example feats at level 4 or lower. You can't even get all of those until level EIGHT (unless you play a human), and if you do get them, you get nothing else.

Forseti wrote:

I think some of the un-awesomeness is due to many of the classes having a lot of feats that do nothing more than build toward what are baseline class features in PF1. I find that very unappealing.

Can you give concrete examples for this? I certainly think the range on certain things can be expanded (Legendary Climber/Swimmer, for example, though effective, I suppose, aren't very interesting), but I don't think there's anything that falls to the level of "baseline class features".

Paladin:

That's 5 examples in the first 4 feat levels of the PF2 paladin.

Note: I'm not saying the PF2 abilities are without merit in the context of the PF2 game. The game will probably run fine. I just can't help feeling underwhelmed by the comparison to the PF1 games I'm involved in, that have years of life in them yet.

I think some of the un-awesomeness is due to many of the classes having a lot of feats that do nothing more than build toward what are baseline class features in PF1. I find that very unappealing.

thflame wrote:

The official reasons for sorcerers not being able to spontaneously heighten were "analysis paralysis" and unlimited spontaneous heightening being OP.

I don't buy either reason..

I buy into this.

In organized play with a bunch of semi-strangers, there's that guy playing the sorcerer.

And everyone's been taking their turns pretty expediently, now it's his turn, and he hasn't been spending the time thinking about what he'd do when it wasn't his turn - he was too busy on his phone, or getting a beer.

Now that it's his turn, he hmms and hmms for minutes trying to decide if he should empower this, or maximize that. Maybe he even takes out his phone's calculator app for a couple minutes.

I suspect a lot of changes were to codify a character before it begins play at the table to reduce the amount of things you could decide upon after you sit down and then your turn comes up. This makes everyone's organized play experience better when the person who has a hard time deciding has a lot less they can do when their turn comes up.

Conversely, I play with a GM who banned all prepared caster classes from his new game because he was fed up with a few players in his previous game taking upward of 30 minutes to pick their spells at the start of a new day.

Yes, it's nice that Summon Monster X is now one spell, but the sorcerer STILL has to learn it multiple times UNLESS he wants to devote one of his 2 slots of spontaneous heightening to it. This applies to all the spells he learns such that, eventually, you will be forced to learn certain spells repeatedly if you want to be able to cast more than 3 spells at different levels in one day.

This is especially unattractive when you consider how few spells the sorcerer learns per spell level: 4, 1 of which is dictated by the bloodline.

I think some confusion does arise from the fact that Bolstered can be both a good thing and a bad thing. You can be bolstered against a curse (good!) but you can also be bolstered against your own restorative abilities (bad!)

I'd like it if they'd do with weapon proficiencies what they're doing with skills. Lines of "weapon group feats" that have levels of proficiency as their prerequisite. That way it could actually mean something if you're an "Expert" or a "Master" with a weapon, instead of just a measly bonus that can in no way compete with just having a magic weapon. Also, it could differentiate weapons more substantially. Classes could still have specific closed-off feats to maintain class identity.

My experience with character creation:

Create a character without spells or Spell Point fuelled powers? No problems there at all. Those classes even have fairly comprehensive side bars explaining the traits that are prevalent in the class's feats. Like the Fighter's "Open, Press, Stance".

Create a character with spells and Spell Point fuelled powers? Spend an ungodly amount of time flicking all over the rulebook to find the spells and powers and the rules implications of the traits you run into.

Presentation and organisation needs work in my opinion.

Personally, I also believe that martial characters need a way to scale damage that comes much closer to the way spell-casters do (which right now is multiple dice). I just don't like the way they've chosen to tie it to the weapon in 2E. If feels like an artifact. Just scale it base on character level (and to a lesser extent, class). Besides, is it really that "unrealistic" for a high level fighter to do more damage with a weapon? I honestly don't find that to be much of a stretch...at least not as it pertains to living creatures. Could get a little wonky with objects, but again, only if you are trying to simulate "reality."

The enormous reliance on a good magic weapon to deal relevant damage in a high level game makes me shudder at the thought of being disarmed, or some other terrible thing happening to your weapon.

I do prefer the scaling damage to arise from skill. I don't like the idea at all that my legendary hero is only a hero because he carries that one sword that's worth more than a castle.

I wish people wouldn't use the same terms for the biological distinction and the identity distinction. The world would be easier to navigate that way.

Just speaking for myself, but the number of spells a P2 sorcerer learns per level is so depressingly low, I'll never take a heightened (+1) type of spell at multiple levels. Heck, it's so low I'll probably never play a sorcerer.

I think you all forget that resonance goes up with level the bag of holding thing twice per day can be done at 1st level with a 16 cha. At 4th level it can be done 2 more times per day. Resonance will honestly be a non-issue at 4th and higher. Since it only costs 1 point to invest in worn items (Armor, boots, amulets, rings etc.) that means at 4th level you can activate all those at the beginning of the day and still have 3-4 resonance points for per use activation items (potions, wands, staves, weapon abilities).

Why then introduce a system at all if it eventually flattens into a non-issue?

Also a benefit of power attack is overcoming high levels of resistance or hardness to deal damage. Better to subtract resistance once than twice.

Double Slice adds damage from both attacks together and applies resistances and whatnot to that total.

My main problem is what I would describe as an overreliance on class when it comes to character options.

Even a simple smokestick blocks some of the nastiest uses of Wish, like teleporting someone into the sun, because it blocks targeting (unless the caster has Echolocation, Firesight, or some such ability).

A bit off-topic, but you don't need line of sight or even line of effect to teleport someone with a wish. You can wish people into the sun from the comfort of your home.

None of the reasoning actually matters. No need to overthink it. The whole thing is an abstraction anyway so why bother with minutiae not mentioned in the rules? Want to get on top of a 15' wall? Climb 15'. Want to jump over a 15' pit? Jump 15'. Complicating it beyond that leads to nothing constructive.

Taking 10 is probably not the best suggestion. More to the point, players never decide when they roll dice. They tell the GM what they want to do, and only roll when the GM finds he needs a roll.

A relevant role can't be a pointless roll at the same time.

Meaningless rolls don't have to exist anyway. If someone wants to do something pointless to provoke one, set a low DC and tell the player to take 10.

The reactive Spellcraft check is made while observing a spell being cast, so it's too early to count for the spell's effect.

They're asking for a lot, far more than a Wish should grant. But give it to them anyway. Just make it so that in the future, when anything bad happens to X,Y or Z that the wish fixed or would have fixed if the problem had existed, it happens to all 3 of them. They were 'fixed' with a single wish, so they're now forever connected under the power of that single wish.

For example, they ask for all items to be restored. Sure, but whenever one of them is disarmed, they all drop their weapons. One of them fails a save against a Confusions spell? All 3 of them are confused.

Make them feel the connection when these things happen. And have them have a sensation of the wish-granting being's amusement over the misfortune.

I think there's an implicit thought that a natural roll of a 1 should never benefit the attacker. Likewise, a natural roll of 20 should never hinder the attacker. The idea that a natural 1 would help by destroying an image is antithetical to these ideals.

There's not always a straightforward way to determine what's a benefit to the attacker.

What about fighting a target under the effect of Shocking Image? What would you call a benefit here?

Do rolls of '1' vs. Shocking Image destroy an image when avoiding the damage would be more beneficial than bringing the number of images down? Does my barbarian destroy an image when he's at 1 hp, and not destroy an image when he's at his full 280 hp?

Determining by how much you miss someone's AC is something that's required by some systems. A '1' being an automatic miss doesn't waive the need to do that. Someone rolls a '1', that's a miss. And if we need to know by how much you miss, we do the calculations. It's not complicated. Simple adding and subtracting.

There are plenty of rules instances that need it done, and there's not a single rule that precludes it.

So we do it.

Another story, from a long time ago. I was the DM here, in a AD&D 2nd game.

The characters needed to find a treant. Just any treant, not a specific one. They needed a few leaves to bring back to an NPC. No one had the faintest idea how to find a treant beyond the obvious "probably in the woods".

They managed to find an old woodsman, who was willing to help them for a few gold. The guy, a ranger, led them into the woods and after some wandering around, he picked up a trail. "Ahhh! These be treant tracks, no two ways about it, lads." They followed the tracks for a while, the ranger explaining how treants make the peculiar tracks by slipping their roots in and out of the ground as they move about.

Eventually, the old man stopped, a few feet short of a massive tree. "Huh, isn't that just the darndest thing, lads, the tracks just stop at this here tree." One player didn't get the joke. "What the... how? Did it fly away? Oh, I guess it climbed the tree. I'll go see if it's still up there." By this time everyone was howling with laughter and the clueless player got annoyed. "You find the damn thing then if you think you know better." He didn't get what was going on until the tree asked them to be quiet.

A fellow player in a game I was in was very anxious about always being stealthy and discrete.

We had our own houses at that point in the campaign. One night, as part of the introduction to the next adventure, an NPC (known and friendly to the party) was to approach one of the characters at home under cover of the night to ask for aid. The GM randomly decided at whose house the NPC would present himself. To add some urgency to the situation and to show that there was indeed a threat, the GM had the NPC be attacked right in front of the house, after having knocked at the door. The NPC called out for help and threw in some screams of pain for good measure. The GM emphasized that the player was very much aware who was at his door, and that he was in trouble.

A number of things to keep in mind: the party was level 8, the NPC an unlevelled commoner without any combat skills or equipment, and the GM wasn't the type to randomly screw over players to get his kicks.

The player, of course, decided he was going to help the hapless NPC. But wait, what if the attacker would notice the player's character? Better spend a few rounds equipping every last item that gives a bonus on stealth. Better not open the front door, the attacker will notice! The backdoor then, at the other side of the house. Oh no, what if this door creaks when opened? The attacker will surely hear! Let's oil the hinges just to be sure, and open the door slowly and carefully because you never know. Things are going fine so far, now let's sneak around to the front and surprise this attacker.

All of that was reasoned out loud by the player, without the slightest hint of irony or contrariness.

By the time the character was at the scene of the attack, the NPC had stopped screaming more than a minute ago. The attacker was gone. The new story didn't kick off with a request for aid, but as a murder mystery.

"Let's oil the hinges first" has become a recurring joke in my circle when we're faced with doors.

The logically consistent positions would seem to me to either be:

You rolled a 1 vs. an opponent with a mirror image. If you had rolled a number that is 5 higher (a 6, in other words), would you have hit? If yes, pop image.

This line of reasoning comes to the conclusion that you do pop on a 1, and also that there isn't anything special or weird about rolling a 1 vs. a 2 for things like Upsetting Strike.

OR

You rolled a 1 vs. an opponent with a mirror image, for a total of 23 to hit. If you had instead had a total of 28, would you have hit? If yes, pop image.

On this line of reasoning, you don't pop on a 1. There also isn't any weirdness for Upsetting strike with this.

Both of these positions seem logically defensible to me, so I feel like you could go either way on this one. I would rule in the first case, personally, that you pop an image.

There's a simple rules case to be made for popping on a 1.

A natural 1 on the die is just a miss, nothing worse. Mirror Image has an effect that triggers on a miss. Any roll resulting in a miss will trigger that effect. Any number on the die can be fed into the calculations required for that effect, even a 1. There is absolutely no language anywhere that would indicate otherwise.

Forseti wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

So if I bull rush the wizard, I can push him back fifteen or twenty feet if I roll a 19, but only five feet if I roll a 20?

And, of course, if I miss my trip by more than 10, I "am knocked prone instead." So I may be knocked prone rolling a 2, but not a 1?

This line of reasoning is, in my opinion, clearly spurious.

Obviously "don't check the actual numbers if you roll a 1 or a 20" doesn't work in many situations.

Combat Maneuvers have specific rules language to address this.

Indeed. And so has the Mirror Image spell.

Images have no armor class.

The rules are pretty clear.

The header of Blade Barrier puts it in the effect category "Other"

"Other: A spell can have a unique area, as defined in its description."

And the description of Blade Barrier only gives dimensions and orientation, so there's no restriction as to the positioning.

By the way, when I posted this "It might intersect a creature occupying squares on either side of the spell effect of course" I meant to say "It might intersect a creature occupying squares on both sides of the spell effect of course".

I couldn't edit anymore when I noticed the flub.

None of that applies because Blade Barrier has no area.

Improvised weapon: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.

Masterwork Weapons: A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon.

Something not designed as a weapon most definitely can't be considered a normal weapon. Improvised weapons are given their distinction to separate them from normal weapons. If they were normal weapons, we wouldn't be calling them improvised weapons.

For something to ever be considered a masterwork weapon, it first needs to be designed to be a weapon in the first place.

An effect that has no width as part of its description, has no width. Strange though that may sound, it makes no difference, geometrically, or spatially. A plane without width can still intersect a three-dimensional space, or body in case of a creature. But really, no width? Why not, it's magic!

With Blade Barrier, the only thing that's unclear is whether or not you're restricted to drawing it along a straight line. If that is the case, and I haven't seen it played differently (except of course for the circular option), casting it along a 10' wide corridor will only have it go through one of every 2 squares that are adjacent perpendicularly to the lenght of the hallway. So, there would be plenty of safe spaces in that hallway, 50% of its 5' squares, in face.

If you're going to be doing this, your cohort better be called Sancho Panza.

you don't threaten an ally, now do you?

You don't actually threaten creatures, you threaten squares. (For the purpose of determining AoOs, that is.)

Forseti wrote:

Only one of those options makes sense and the answer that makes sense is always the one you pick when rules don't deal with the question.

You would think, but some explicitly believe otherwise. They make up rules about what happens when the rules are silent... the text does not say creatures get covered so by magical default rule #77, they do not.

The rules don't say anything at all about what happens to the powder when you throw it at the square. When Diego writes: "you are creating a cloud of calk or flour in the square and you see the empty outline of the creature", that's not in the rules either. He made that up. But it is what you would expect when you throw around generous helpings of powdery substance. It makes sense in the imaginary world.

Filling in sensible specifics where the rules fall short is something everyone does all the time. It's such a natural thing to do that Diego probably didn't even realize that he criticized me for making something up while the whole scenario he paints is one he just made up himself and has just as little grounding in the rules as written as my version.

What makes no sense, is to invent sensible stuff where the rules aren't explicit, but at some point in the narrative arbitrarily stop following through. If you imagine a cloud of powder, the powder is there all the way, and it should behave like a cloud of powder, or your game devolves into nonsense.

It looks as if the alphabetical organisation option formerly provided in the "Spell Index" has now been added to the "Spell List Index".

Frankly though, I miss that simple alphabetical Spell Index. It loaded and reacted much, much faster on my mobile device than the Spell List Index. It was great for quickly looking up a spell during a session, especially when we weren't sure what book to grab to look it up the old-fashioned way.

But what if you can't because you've used up all your actions?

For example, you're doing a flying full attack? One option would be to have the skill check to hover done as part of the dull attack (fly checks are made as part of other actions after all) and have the full attack fail.

Simply said, always make the hover check before allowing people to commit to actions that require hovering. Seems fair.

Nothing in the Pinned condition looks like it could stop a breath weapon. Not by RAW and not by "common sense". If you can exhale, you can use a breath weapon.

From the Combat chapter:

"Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll."

Note that this does not distinguish between "attack" spells and regular touch spells.

*sigh*

Fixating on a single use of a word again.

My quote that you reference was chosen in an attempt to convince people that maybe, JUST MAYBE, something that has been referenced (purely mental action) could be in some way related to concentration.

Apparently people didn't agree.

It's the single use of the word that you brought into the discussion. Excuse me for elaborating. Find me a use of the word that you do consider applicable then, and I'll work with that.

Anway, back to what your saying.

I agree with you when you say that walking takes no concentration at all.

So, the phrase in the Fly spell referencing concentration is irrelevant.

Fly requires no concentration.

So, to use Fly requires nothing.

On that we can agree.

I'm with you there all the way.

To keep the rules balanced however, rather than a free action (which is what you seem to be suggesting) I would instead suggest enforcing rules similar to what exists.

It is no action to initiate the mental process that results in the physical activity of walking.

Just as it is no action to initiate the mental process that results in the physical activity of flying by means of the Fly spell.

Just as it is no action to initiate the mental processes that result in any other kind of physical activities.

Before doing something physical that's not autonomous, people think. This thought process has no rules representation. And that's exactly what the Fly spell intends to say with: "Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally." Using the Fly spell doesn't get in the way of ones actions any more than walking does.

If one wants to change location on the map (or in rules terms "Move"), I suggest they use a standard or move action.

Agreed. A Move or standard action to perform the Move action.

Assuming you have one of these free, you can (as per paralyze) use one to control your spell (which you stated requires NO concentration, but I guess I'm a bit more restrictive than you are).

The Fly spell is not a controlled spell. It's a fire-and-forget spell that grants the subject the ability to fly. Which is a mode of movement and as such not allowed by the Paralyzed condition. It's a spell without even the slightest hint of language implying it's controlled, while it's steeped with language limiting its use by physical limitations. And when I refer to language, I mean the English language. Not some obscure language where "only as much as" means the same as "only".

So barbarians can't walk while raging?

It will never cease to baffle me how you can interpret "only as much concentration as walking" as "only concentration".

What do you think those other four words are there for?

That sentence does only one thing: it establishes a comparison between the amount of concentration it takes to fly and the amount of concentration it takes to walk.

And how much concentration does it take to walk? Without that information, the whole phrase is meaningless. I'm pretty sure it takes no concentration at all to walk.

Actually your assumption is incorrect, I do read what you write.

Nowhere in the paralyzed condition does it forbid move actions. It does forbid you from moving, that much is obvious, but it makes a point of saying you can, in fact, perform actions.

Granted, there is a limitation on what type of action you can use, but it doesn't prevent 'Move Actions'.

You can use 'Move Actions', as I have pointed out previously, to perform actions that have NOTHING to do with movement. It is simply an action type, and you still have access to it while paralyzed.

But this move action to fly is the Move action, the one that reads: "The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can't also take a 5-foot step.

Many nonstandard modes of movement are covered under this category, including climbing (up to one-quarter of your speed) and swimming (up to one-quarter of your speed)."

If it was a different action, the spell would say so. Like Levitate does. The Fly spell gives you a speed. It tells you you can charge. Everything about it just screams "use the regular systems for moving!" It doesn't mention any other kind of action you need to take as a move action, and because it doesn't, you use the regular rules for movement. It's that simple.

Paralyzed explicitly allows you to perform actions, as long as they are 'purely mental'. They put that in there for a reason.

Indeed, they put that there to let you control spells like Levitate, which explicitly defines that control as a mental action. Fly does no such thing. It gives the subject a speed, and that speed is restricted by physical restrictions similar to walking. That's all it says it does.

But you can't just dismiss that it exists, it is in print, right there in the condition description.

I don't. I can't for the life of my find any excuse to put use of the Fly spell in that category.

1-Concentration and Mental Actions are compatible, concentration/Concentration are not 'physical actions', they are 'purely mental'

But there's no proof that the fly spell needs concentration. It only needs as much as walking does. Which is a meaningless statement, because the amount of concentration needed to walk isn't mentioned anywhere. Many other rules imply that it's zero.

2-Fly allows you to go aloft with magic, it is not your body that generates the movement, it is the spell that moves your body through space, like being carried by an invisible, mindless force that you control with your thoughts.

But it is your body that gains the ability to fly. By magic. There is nothing to imply differenly. "The subject can fly..." not: "the subject can propel itself through the air by mentally controlling a magical force." It's just not there. If a spell grants you an ability, you have that ability. "The subject can fly..." and "poof!" suddenly your body generates the movement. It's magic.

So these two assumptions I have made, are why I think you can use Fly even if paralyzed.

They are unnecessary assumption because the exact text of the Fly spell along with the regular movement rules work perfectly fine. If they don't let you fly while paralyzed, too bad. But perfectly RAI as far as I'm concerned.

There are LOTS of penalties for being paralyzed, and being able to Fly in this state would likely require you to be naked, so this really is a corner case that probably will NEVER happen, but I do feel it works this way.

Well, I think it's about time to agree to disagree.

I would allow it if it ever happened in my game. I would also point and laugh at the naked, paralyzed loser who couldn't even go around corners in a dungeon.

I would laugh too, but in my game he'd be on the floor, weirdly contorted and sporting some bruises from his recent crash.