el cuervo's page

It is ambiguous, it needs errata or FAQ. I doubt it's asked with enough frequency for it to get a FAQ, but who knows?

I read the description of the weapon twice, and the first time I thought that, if used as a reach weapon, you get one attack action.

The second time I read it I changed my mind and decided the wording means that you can either use it as two weapons, or as one reach weapon. This is a problem, because I can see it going either way. My guess as to the intent is the second interpretation.

Using the game as context, I can't think of a single weapon in Pathfinder that doesn't let you full-attack (except possibly crossbows/heavy crossbows without rapid reload/crossbow mastery due to reload limitations), so it's a trade-off of two weapons (great when they have two different enchantments) or a single reach weapon (which can also trip or disarm). Thematically I would side this way as well.
The benefits of this weapon actually aren't as great for flurry of blows as they are for TWF (since there's an actual trade-off in number of attacks vs. reach). For a monk with flurry, you get the same number of attacks whether it's a single reach weapon or two weapons, one in each hand.

To be honest, I never understood why the ARG was house-ruled that way. It always seemed rather arbitrary.

Did Mr. Brock ever give any insight into the reasoning behind the decision?

Probably to avoid creating contentious combinations such as a human with racial heritage (kitsune) taking the fox shape feat. ;)

el cuervo wrote:

No, this is clearly within the rules of Racial Heritage.

Is it clearly within the rules to get Kobold Tail Terror also?

There is a difference. I was on the side of no tail with Racial Heritage in that argument. In this case, there is no prerequisite that states you must have the shape change racial trait. The prerequisites are listed in the feat: Cha 13, base attack bonus +3, kitsune.

Racial Heritage (Kitsune) qualifies you for the feat, assuming you have Cha 13 and BAB +3. If you take the feat, you gain the ability to turn into a fox at will. It's really that easy. And it's not a stretch at all to believe that a human with kitsune blood running through their veins might have some mystical kitsune-like abilities, such as the ability to turn into a fox. Both rules-wise and thematically, I see no problem with this particular feat combination. Tail Terror, on the other hand, never grants you a tail thus you cannot make tail attacks.

el cuervo wrote:

LazarX wrote:

el cuervo wrote:

LazarX wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

Hey, how often could a human use this, if it were allowed by the GM?

Depends on the GM. Since you're out of rules territory, I can't give you an answer to beat his head with.

How is this out of rules territory?

Because as demonstrated in previous cases of this nature, there is no rules text to support the OP's assertation. The only defense of what the OP wants falls into "ignore the rule because it's a cool idea" variety.

No, this is clearly within the rules of Racial Heritage. It does not require the change shape Magical Racial Trait to take Fox Shape. If it did, it wouldn't say "Preqrequisite:..., Kitsune," it would say, "Prerequisite:..., Change Shape Racial Trait."

No IT"S not within the rules of racial heritage. Racial heritage can not give you racial features that are not part of your base race. You don't get a kobold's tail, nor the kitusne power to change shape. The most that can be said is that you gain the feat but without the base powr that the feat modifies it has no effect.

You don't need the Kitsune's ability to change shape because the Fox Shape feat is what grants the ability to change into a fox. This is not the same as Tail Terror and Racial Heritage (Kobold).

el cuervo wrote:

LazarX wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

Hey, how often could a human use this, if it were allowed by the GM?

Depends on the GM. Since you're out of rules territory, I can't give you an answer to beat his head with.

How is this out of rules territory?

Because as demonstrated in previous cases of this nature, there is no rules text to support the OP's assertation. The only defense of what the OP wants falls into "ignore the rule because it's a cool idea" variety.

No, this is clearly within the rules of Racial Heritage. It does not require the change shape Magical Racial Trait to take Fox Shape. If it did, it wouldn't say "Preqrequisite:..., Kitsune," it would say, "Prerequisite:..., Change Shape Racial Trait."

James Risner wrote:

Doomed Hero wrote:

But to say it flat out doesn't grant any is pretty arbitrarily limiting.

I see no legitimate reason someone with kitsune ancestry couldn't do the same.

It doesn't grant a tail or Supernatural Abilities of the race because it doesn't say it does.

I see no legitimate reason it would grant a tail or other Supernatural Abilities.

It doesn't need to. It lets you count as the relevant race for the purpose of feat prereqs. The feats you take with racial prereqs that you can now fulfill using racial heritage explicitly give you a Tail or Supernatural Abilities.

No, they don't. This was ruled on by a Paizo designer in the epic Kobold Tail Terror feat thread.

Dentist = Cleric/Alchemist (?)

I'm pretty sure that you can do Profession (Dentist).

As for myself, I'm an accidental DBA and DevOps Manager for a software development team, so I'd be... uh...

Profession (Scroll Analyst) or something? It doesn't really translate very well.

The spell as written appears to be written incorrectly.

The spell says:

You take on an aspect of a falcon. Your eyes become wide and raptor-like, and you grow feathers on the sides of your head. You gain a +3 competence bonus on Perception checks, a +1 competence bonus on ranged attacks, and the critical multiplier for your bows and crossbows becomes 19-20/x3.

This effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon, such as the Improved Critical feat or a keen weapon.

Emphasis mine -- I'm pretty sure the part in bold is flat-out wrong, making it impossible to interpret the rest of the text "correctly."

If you consider that it should say critical threat range and multiplier, and the designer who wrote this likely had a brain-fart that day, then suddenly it becomes much more clear: the spell is intended to increase the threat range and critical multiplier so that it benefits both bow and crossbow users -- otherwise it only benefits a crossbow user, by increasing the multiplier to x3. The intent is then, of course, that it should increase the threat range for bows and the multiplier for crossbows, giving a benefit to a user of either weapon type.

Unfortunately, that's not how it's written. In this case I say it needs errata to clarify how it should work, since the way it's written is actually broken. Why call out the threat multiplier for bows increasing to x3 when they are already at a x3? Probably because it was intended to increase the threat range for bows, as well. Again, not RAW, but the probable intent.

The other issue is what is referred to when we say "this effect does not stack."

If we say "this effect" is referring to the total spell effect, it means the effect does not stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon. Stacking refers to stacked bonuses -- it seems to me the intent is that the crit range and multiplier do not stack with similar effects, to say nothing about the bonuses to perception and ranged attack to-hit (which I believe should remain in effect, since they are not stacking with another effect).

And why shouldn't we let the spell continue to apply a +1 to-hit and a +3 to perception whilst not providing an increase to threat range/multiplier? RAW it can be interpreted either way.

The real crux of the problem is the spell is worded very poorly; we are all correct in how we interpret it because of its ambiguity. This is the equivalent of saying:

X * Y = 12

Solve for X and Y.

We could all come up with different answers for X and Y and still be correct. We need a normalized spell description that is unambiguous in every way in order to actually know what it should do.

That said, we could all argue our points until blue in the face and still never come to a concrete conclusion, because we lack the necessary information to make a determination about the truth of the spell. Until we receive a FAQ or errata regarding this, I would say we should expect table variation as there is currently not one true and correct interpretation of the spell.

Anyway, that's my opinion. YMMV. :)

Nefreet wrote:

@ kyrt and alex:

Would it be safe to assume that you believe that all mid-combat Initiative penalties modify someone's place in Initiative?

Nope. Only the ones that are Specific Rules altering Initiative. Your example of an offensive-use of Cat's Grace doesn't work because the general rule of Initiative Doesn't Change unless Changed overrides something general like the change of a dexterity modifier in either direction.

It's only when an effect specifically references Initiative that it overrides that.

Can you point to an effect that specifically references initiative order and not initiative checks? Because I don't think you'll have much luck finding anything of the sort.

Yes but it can be a book of parchment, vellum, specially cured leaves, mithral plates, etc. Some materials however are going to require special scribing implements which will be costly and most likely will have to be self made.

I don't disagree, but I do hold that it should be a bound book of some sort, and not a staff, or on the rogue's back, or some other thing, exceptions in the rules notwithstanding.

This is the rules forum, but seeing as how the question is not for a PFS character, 'RAW' is less important to the OP methinks. ;)

Not to sound like a jerk, but the rules questions forum is for discussing the rules as they are written. Anything else really should be discussed on another board.

EDIT: Even if the OP isn't asking for PFS, someone who is looking for information regarding this subject and IS concerned about PFS may look to this thread (and others) for answers. Hence, we discuss things in terms of RAW in this forum and take extra care not to discuss things that are not specifically RAW.

You roll initiative once at the beginning of combat. Combat order is determined based on these rolls. The only thing that changes combat order after that event is a delayed action or a readied action. There is no room for discussion beyond that. It is as simple as can be. If you want to house rule differently, that is something you should discuss in the house rules forum.

Weirdo wrote:

I am so glad I don't play PFS right now because I find this thread terribly confusing.

In the matter of polymorph effects, PFS isn't using any rules that aren't already present in standard Pathfinder, so I'm not sure where that's relevant.

I think what he's getting at is that in PFS, the rules are The Rules(tm). At least in a home game the GM can quickly house rule at the table, but for PFS it can lead to a standstill since there appears to be some ambiguity about the rules for magic items when polymorphed.

The Bracers of Armor would not remain active because they provide an armor bonus.

Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function).

Stuff

Your post should end this thread (of course, it won't). Perfect.

There are a few things you should consider. The monsters, even if they are alarmed, aren't going to know exactly where the PCs are (only the GM does). And don't forget that monsters in adjacent rooms exist and have their own turns during rounds. They can make perception checks as free actions just like any other character. The check to hear the sound of battle is -10, and it's a +1 for every 10 feet. In normal conditions, this means battle can be heard from 100 feet away without a check (though my party's paladin might actually miss it with his negative perception mod, hehe). Closed doors make it a bit harder (+5), walls add +10 per foot of thickness. Make sure your players are aware of these rules, too.

That being said, if the alarm is raised, sure, there are probably some giants on patrol but they still don't know exactly where the PCs are. Let the giants (and other monsters under Jorgenfist) make perception rolls to see if they can hear the PCs fighting. Also don't forget that the fortress scares the crap out of the giants outside in the camps and they refuse to enter. Your PCs may not know this, but that's part of the fun: "Heeeyyy, why aren't all those angry giants who are totally aware of our presence not rushing into this fortress to help out their master?"

There are only a handful of Mokmurian's "finest" inside, and they should be actively searching if the alarm has been raised (and they should be on their guard if the raid on Sandpoint was a failure). That doesn't mean all the giants and other monsters dogpile on at once.

Early on I made the mistake of treating each room in an encounter-filled dungeon as static, with the monsters only appearing once the room had been entered. I have since learned and our encounters have become a lot more dynamic since then. My PCs have also learned that they can't just rush into a dungeon and kill everything anymore, that they need to be careful, because they don't know what could be listening...

EDIT: My PCs also took Conna's advice (once they met up with her) and took the long way around, which they had already cleared because they took the underground entrance into Jorgenfist from the bug cave. However, though the book says this path is safer, the lamias should easily be able to hear the fighting with the trolls in the chamber just before going to the lower level. This is a golden opportunity to surround the PCs (trolls making AoO/pot shots from behind the furs while the lamias come up from behind). Ideally, the lamias will bring their dragons with them too.

You have made a CHOICE to read things a certain way, I have as well.

Our viewpoints do not agree.

Clearly, our viewpoints don't agree, but you have yet to refute a single thing I have said. Meanwhile, every time you make a point I make a counterpoint. Do you care to read my analysis and provide feedback, or are you just here to argue?

I looked at Hold Person, and see no mention of "purely mental" full round actions.

That's because it takes a bit of logic to get there. Not guesswork, not assumption, but logic. Hold Person applies a paralyze effect. Hold Person requires a full round action to make a Will save to break free. Since Paralyze explicitly allows purely mental actions and Hold Person requires a full round action to make a Will save to break free, we can logically conclude that the Will save made to break free from Hold Person is a purely mental action. From that, we also determine that all Will saves must be purely mental actions.

If P, then Q.

I suggest adding to your list of purely mental actions:

Controlling spells that include text saying you can do so with "concentration" or similar wording. Dominate Person, for example, states you use telepathy to communicate your wishes, but must expend move actions to issue commands...

Would you argue that being paralyzed would affect THAT? I wouldn't. Even though the phrase 'purely mental action' isn't present.

No, because it is clearly a purely mental action. It still doesn't let you fly.

It was not intended to be a complete list. It was there to illustrate a point.

Things that are purely mental actions:

Will saves
Still, silent, Eschewed materials spells
Still, silent spells without material components
Still spells without verbal components
Silent spells without somatic components
Concentration to keep up an active spell (spells with a duration of "Concentration")
Psychic/Psionic abilities
Most SLAs maybe
Some SU abilities
Other things, I'm sure <---------

Things that are not purely mental:

Walking
Flying
Attacking
Casting spells that don't qualify for categories above
Talking
Dancing
Eating
Jogging
Weightlifting

Gaberlunzie wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

Please explain how the usage of the Concentrate rules apply to a Barbarians rage ability.

"While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration."

They cannot use charisma, dexterity or intelligence-based skills, and they cannot cast spells, use SLA's, or anything else that can be disrupted on a failed concentration check (or that has a concentration duration, but I don't think there are any such effects that aren't spells or SLA's).

Patience isn't a game term, so that could apply to a little whatever the GM decides that could fall within dictionary definitions.

You actually believe that every appearance of the words "concentrate", "concentration" or similar requires an invocation of rules text, don't you?

Wow.

Appealing to ridicule. Your incredulous reaction doesn't make you right or the other person wrong. Your arguments are better served by arguing your points and refuting others with logic, not the logical fallacies that you insist make your analysis the correct one.

Now, for something on topic:

Barbarians can't cast spells during rage because they can't concentrate during rage. That is right there in the book. Targets of fly can fly as a move action when under the effect of the spell, because they get a fly speed of 60, and the rules for flying with a speed are in the book under movement and under the Fly skill. The spell text says flying requires no more concentration than walking. Since you can cast spells and attack when walking (that's in the movement and combat rules), you can cast spells and walk while flying (that's under the fly spell rules, moreso as a reminder that fly is just a special type of movement). The part of flying that actually moves your character across the board is still considered tactical movement and follows the general rules for tactical movement, except when there are exceptions for flying movement (under the Fly skill).

The rules for the paralyzed condition say that you cannot move or act. When translated into game terms, this means you cannot move (movement) or act (take any actions: swift, standard, move, even free or immediate actions) unless it is a purely mental action.

Things that are purely mental actions:

Will saves
Still, silent, Eschewed materials spells
Still, silent spells without material components
Still spells without verbal components
Silent spells without somatic components
Concentration to keep up an active spell (spells with a duration of "Concentration")
Psychic/Psionic abilities
Most SLAs maybe
Some SU abilities
Other things, I'm sure

Things that are not purely mental:

Walking
Flying
Attacking
Casting spells that don't qualify for categories above
Talking
Dancing
Eating
Jogging
Weightlifting

What happens when a flying creature is paralyzed? Well, paralyze says winged flying creatures fall because they cannot flap their wings. A magically flying creature who becomes paralyzed? They can't move or act, only make purely mental actions. I established above that flying, using the rules for movement, is not a purely mental action. However, as they are not flying with wings, they do not fall. And since only creatures flying with wings fall on a failed Fly check, they don't need to make a fly check to hover, either. They still cannot move, the magic of their spell suspending them in the air but the effect of the paralysis keeping them from moving. Or did you think Hold Person should still allow tactical movement?

Now, why is the language for purely mental actions in the text for paralysis? Because it is a purely mental full round action to make a Will save to break free of Hold Person.

el cuervo wrote:

Aurelio 90 wrote:

@el cuervo: wait, i don't say "I remove the conncetion with the Skinsaw about the main plot", but "I don't like X template, so I replace it with Y template" :P

That's fine, then, but the reason Aldern is a ghoul is what ties him to the Skinsaw Cult (they want the cursed fungus that turned him into a ghoul -- he contracted ghoul fever when trying to collect that fungus).

Don't worry, i have an explanation about this change:

** spoiler omitted **...

Very cool, great work. :)

it doesn't destroy my argument at all, we just have different view points on aspects of the game. you interpret them your way i will do it my way, I like my way better then yours, so I am not going to change it. All the rules in the game are up for interpretation and any you don't like you can change, its one of the first things written in the CRB, which i read, I also lost any kind of respect for you after that little line of yours "come back when you've read the CRB" that doesnt add anything to your argument and shows your true colors as a person. you have fun continuing this thread and then other and being condescending to everyone, because that is how you win arguments. you keep saying your not being condescending but when multiple people say you are, maybe you should think about that.

I'm the one who suggested you read the CRB, because in the post that I was responding to, the one you wrote, you directly contradicted the CRB. I also didn't say, "Come back when you've read the CRB." I suggested that you read the CRB before posting about rules-related matters, because it appeared to me that you hadn't.

I'm also the one people have called out as condescending. In that regard, well, I can't help it if you find the truth condescending. I have a way of speaking and writing that is short and to the point, or, as some may say, blunt. My wife hates it and sometimes it makes her cry. Sometimes it can come off as rude, crass, or condescending, but it is always to drive home my point, not to insult anyone. If you've been offended by what I have written then I apologise, but that does not change my stance on a damn thing in regards to this conversation.

And finally, I'll say this: I was trying my best to be polite and not be as blunt as I normally am, until alexd1976 responded to a well-thought-out and reasonable post of mine with the words "blah blah blah." Nothing screams immaturity more than sticking your fingers in your ears when you don't like what you're hearing.

another point of order to separate magical flight from the physical aspect, you are able to hustle unlimited wile flying (From the fly spell, and overland flight)

normally "A character can hustle for 1 hour without a problem. Hustling for a second hour in between sleep cycles deals 1 point of nonlethal damage, and each additional hour deals twice the damage taken during the previous hour of hustling. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from hustling becomes fatigued."

magical flight doesn't have this restriction so the flight itself must not take a toll on your body physically. meaning there is nothing physical about the way you are flying.

Only Overland Flight allows this, which is a higher level spell than standard Fly.

ok how does a magic carpet fly then? if it is not magic propulsion that has nothing to do with a physical stat then HOW!? a magic carpet is an inanimate object with no strength score or dex score, Yet it can move up, down, all around with not checks at all.

"each carpet has its own command word to activate it—if the device is within voice range, the command word activates it, whether the speaker is on the rug or not. The carpet is then controlled by spoken directions."

once you get on the carpet and you want to make a complex maneuver, like doing a 180 turn, then sure you have to do a dex check to succeed but until then the command forward will propel you magically without any physical anything, you can be paralyzed, sleeping, dead, the carpet will keep going forward, and if there was a way, oh say a spell that projected your thoughts to sound you could even control the carpet wile paralyzed, you wouldn't be able to do complex maneuvers because you can not perform the dex check required, but moving forward, slight turns, all perfectly fine.

so now the question becomes is the magic effect that makes a magic carpet fly the same effect that makes you fly. HINT its the same spell!

A magic carpet is not a PC or an NPC and is not subject to the same rules. Neither is a broom, nor any other wondrous item that can fly. Please stop making these asinine comparisons.

Let's face it. The spell description is not very clear, which is why there is a discussion about it in the first place.

The spell description is clear. The target gains a fly speed. That is all it does. From there, we use the rules for flight, which specify that moving using flight (as all other forms of movement) is a move action. Further more, it is a movement action. You cannot move or act while paralyzed, therefore you cannot take movement action (which includes flying) while paralyzed.

Still keep in mind that there are Move Actions that are no physical movement but do something else

Flying is not one of those. Furthermore, paralysis specifically prevents moving or acting. You cannot take any action of any type while paralyzed unless it is purely mental or it has a specific exception to the rules outlined in paralysis.

el cuervo wrote:

The spell Fly does not grant you any special powers of telekinetic propulsion or mental levitation abilities.

You're joking, right? That's EXACTLY how I've always imagined that it works. How else would it work? Jet-propelled farts?

Also, if the questions was "Can you levitate while paralyzed?", do you think the answer is different?

No, I'm not joking. Your imagination doesn't trump the rules. The effect of the Fly spell is the target gets a fly speed. That's it. Since there are no specific instructions on how the target flies differently than normal flight, the rules for flying (for creatures with a fly speed) are used. Those rules do not allow for movement when paralyzed.

This is basic logic.

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Which of these methods does the fly spell use to create lift? You can't say magic, because magic isn't physical.

Plenty of magical things are physical.

alexd1976 wrote:

You CAN'T control Fly! It's raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaandom!

No, there's just no controllable component to it, just like with Bull's Strength or Beast Shape or Protection from Evil.

To further expound on this, when you cast fly on a target you are giving that target a fly speed of 60 (with caveats about running, encumbrance, and worn armor). That is literally the only effect the spell has. Once you are under the effect, for the duration of the effect, you have a fly speed. It does not say the target uses his mind to control the flight. Since it grants a fly speed, it only follows the rules for flight, which are listed under the Fly skill.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Now, we ask: how do creatures with a fly speed fly? They are allowed to move up to their fly speed in a round while moving in a straight line. In order to turn at an angle greater than 45 degrees they make a dexterity-based check and sacrifice 5 feet of movement. In order to ascend at a greater than 45 degree angle they must make a dexterity-based skill check. In order to hover or to move at less than half speed, they must make a dexterity-based skill check. All of these actions are move actions.

Now, let's look at paralysis:

A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions...

Based on this information, we have the following rules:

Is a move action using fly speed a purely mental action? No.
Is flying a move action? Yes. It is explicitly stated.
Can a character who is paralyzed move or act? No.
Can a flying character who is paralyzed move or act? No. By the transitive properties of flying being a move action, and paralysis preventing movement, you cannot move while paralyzed even when flying.

Watching these two threads has been entertaining because every time I refute a point in one thread, someone inevitably tries to take their same argument to the other thread. The answer is the same whether you post here or in the other thread. RAW (and certainly RAI), you cannot overcome paralysis by flying.

The spell Fly does not grant you any special powers of telekinetic propulsion or mental levitation abilities. Rules as written, casting Fly gives the target a fly speed of 60 (40 if in medium or heavy armor) and specifies that the target cannot run while flying. Anything that happens after the effect of the spell is in place is subject to the rules of flying, not the rules of spellcasting or magic or whatever other sources people are arguing would allow it to overcome paralysis.

It follows the rules of flight, and as such, you cannot fly (flying is a move action that allows you to move up to your move speed), because paralysis prevents you from moving or acting.

el cuervo wrote:

Thor and Iron Man are comic book characters, not Pathfinder characters. There is no basis for thinking that anything that applies to them should ever apply to PFRPG.

okay, I will make it even more easy for myself: how do you imagine flies a Wizard that uses the Fly spell?

Describe it to me with words, pictures or a video from youtube that is close to what you mean.

It doesn't matter what the fluffy description of the act is. The rules don't allow or imply what you are suggesting.

@el cuervo: wait, i don't say "I remove the conncetion with the Skinsaw about the main plot", but "I don't like X template, so I replace it with Y template" :P

That's fine, then, but the reason Aldern is a ghoul is what ties him to the Skinsaw Cult (they want the cursed fungus that turned him into a ghoul -- he contracted ghoul fever when trying to collect that fungus).

The fly spell doesn't give you magical wings that you use physically.

The fly skill requires that you make dex-based skill checks even when using magical flight. And, once again, it doesn't matter because the bottom line is this:

- Paralysis prevents movement.
- Flying is movement.
- If you are paralyzed you cannot move using fly.

It actually implies that performing complex maneuvers has a physical component.

That must mean the Ride skill only has a physical component when making complex ride maneuvers and is otherwise a completely non-physical action. Mounting a horse, then, is non-physical because it doesn't require a check. Do you see the problem with your analysis?

el cuervo wrote:

Shadowlords wrote:

el cuervo wrote:

Shadowlords wrote:

Because he is tired of repeating himself and it seems like no one is even listening to him. this is simple and everyone is trying to make it complicated

To maintain flight via the spell "only requires concentration..." Concentration per the rules is a mental or thought driven action

Per Paralyzed "Can still take mental actions"

Ergo can still fly,

stop making it complicated by adding what you think paralyzed means.

I am listening. It is simple, you're right. I've explained how simple it is many, many times. I have read every post by alexd1976 in this thread and the other thread. He is still wrong, and will continue to be, no matter how many times it is repeated or by whom. Flying requires a physical act, as evidenced by the fact that there are associated dexterity-based skill checks for flight maneuvers.

That is what is implied not what is written. There is nothing in the rules written anywhere that the fly spell is based on physical dexterity to use.

What is written is that flight is maintained through concentration.

The effect of the spell (the ability to fly) is maintained through concentration, just like any other spell which requires concentration. It just happens that the concentration required for this spell is so minimal that you don't need to actively concentrate (to maintain the spell, not to perform the act of flight granted by the spell). Actually moving with the spell requires taking a move action, which is explicitly not permissible when paralyzed (you cannot move or act).

The rules for flight are under the fly skill, where all rules for flight are, and apply whether you are flying magically or naturally, because they apply to anything with a fly speed. Please read the CRB before posting.

At least you used the polite way of telling me to F off, that's respectful...(for someone asking for respect a few posts ago) and i have read the...

I didn't tell you to F off. That was inferred (incorrectly) by you. You incorrectly stated that Fly doesn't use the fly skill (it does -- read the Fly spell, and then read the rules about Flying under the fly skill). If you are flying magically and wish to hover, you still must make a dexterity-based Fly check. This more than implies that magical Flight is a physical act. This is the strongest implication there can be without coming right out and stating plainly that it is a physical act. This is a much stronger implication than "Paralysis doesn't say you can't mentally, magically fly and magical flight just requires concentration so I can fly even when I'm paralyzed and can't move."

Regardless, the bottom line is this:

- Paralysis says you cannot move or act.
- Moving with Fly is a move action.
- It follows that if you are paralyzed, you cannot move with Fly.

Because he is tired of repeating himself and it seems like no one is even listening to him. this is simple and everyone is trying to make it complicated

To maintain flight via the spell "only requires concentration..." Concentration per the rules is a mental or thought driven action

Per Paralyzed "Can still take mental actions"

Ergo can still fly,

stop making it complicated by adding what you think paralyzed means.

I am listening. It is simple, you're right. I've explained how simple it is many, many times. I have read every post by alexd1976 in this thread and the other thread. He is still wrong, and will continue to be, no matter how many times it is repeated or by whom. Flying requires a physical act, as evidenced by the fact that there are associated dexterity-based skill checks for flight maneuvers.

When you're walking, you only need a certain level of concentration for your brain to process what limb goes where, how to stay balanced, how much force to exert to move, etc.

Essentially, walking is second-nature to someone who can walk. Thus, the forward part of your brain is free to perform feats that require more concentration, such as casting spells.

I say that this is the comparison the flight spell is making. It is telling you that the use of this magical flight is instantly second nature to the one benefiting from this spell. Thus, while flying, you still have enough mental power to concentrate on casting a spell.

It doesn't make any exception to the very strict writing on paralysis where "A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act." If you remember the rule of "specific trumps general", you can make this comparison.

The general is: A paralyzed creature cannot move.

The specific "A creature under the effects of the fly spell can move even when paralyzed" does NOT exist.

Thus, a paralyzed creature cannot continue to benefit from the effects of fly. However, I would say that, also per the text of paralysis, since the creature doesn't have wings, he won't plummet to the ground. He'll just be paralyzed and floating up there.

Ah, another voice of reason enters the fray. Good luck and godspeed.

el cuervo wrote:

Crosspost from the other thread:

There is a distinction in the rules for paralyze that says that purely mental actions can be taken. That does not require that any other action be defined as mental or non-mental.

Why wouldn't it require that? If you get immunity to cold damage, that only protects you from damage that is called out as cold.

The rest of the post I agree with. But there needs to be at least a strong implication of something being purely mental (like in breaking out from Hold Person). Move actions have nothing like that.

I think you misunderstand me. Your character could have immunity to cold damage, but that doesn't mean that any ability or effect in the game has to apply cold damage. There might not be a single thing in the game that applies cold damage. It just means you're immune to it if it comes up. Things like this happen all the time, and especially in Pathfinder, where the rules were changed just enough from 3.5 to cause issues like this.

Similarly, as I was trying to explain, even if paralyze allows you to take purely mental actions (such as thinking), no defined action or ability in the game's rules need to specify that it is purely mental. Maybe there are no purely mental actions aside from thought. It doesn't matter, because flight is not purely mental no matter how you look at it.

el cuervo wrote:

Crosspost from the other thread:

There is a distinction in the rules for paralyze that says that purely mental actions can be taken. That does not require that any other action be defined as mental or non-mental. That includes Fly, which does not distinguish between the mental part of flying or physical part of flying.

Flying is a physical act, made evidence by the fact that it uses a Dex-based skill roll to pass certain checks. The argument has been made that checks are not required for magical Fly unless making certain maneuvers and therefore Flying is not a physical act. This is wrong. It is a logical fallacy to assume as such. Compare this to walking:

You don't need a check to walk. You don't need a check to run. But to run at a sustained pace, you make a constitution check. To see if you can traverse difficult terrain you might make an acrobatics check. Does this mean that the base act of walking, which does not require a roll and has no associated stat, is not physical because it doesn't require a roll? No. The same logic can be applied to the ride skill. Basic riding requires no checks at all. Would you say then that riding is not physical, until it requires a check? No, because anyone can plainly see that riding is a physical act.

Now, let's perform a philosophical exercise and apply that same logic that we applied to walking and riding to flying:

When you are Flying, whether from the effects of a spell or from natural flight, you are still using a skill that requires dexterity. Even if you are not actively rolling to perform maneuvers, it does not change the stat or skill associated with that act, just like walking doesn't become a purely mental action because you are not actively performing "walk checks" and riding doesn't become purely mental because you aren't making ride checks. If magical flight was a purely mental, magical act, it would not be associated with the dex-based Fly skill, it would be associated with Spellcraft or something more

...

BLAH BLAH BLAH?! Thanks for showing a modicum of respect (that's sarcasm); I'm so glad I don't play games with you. Why don't you actually read what I wrote and try again?

If you are paralyzed and a giant picks you up, that's because the giant is taking a physical action (a standard action with a CMB check) to do so. Fly does not have it's own will. Fly cannot move you without you actually trying to Fly. That is why it requires a Dex-based skill to make more complex flight maneuvers, the same way Walk requires a dex-based skill (Acrobatics) to make more complex land-based maneuvers.

Crosspost from the other thread:

There is a distinction in the rules for paralyze that says that purely mental actions can be taken. That does not require that any other action be defined as mental or non-mental. That includes Fly, which does not distinguish between the mental part of flying or physical part of flying.

Flying is a physical act, made evidence by the fact that it uses a Dex-based skill roll to pass certain checks. The argument has been made that checks are not required for magical Fly unless making certain maneuvers and therefore Flying is not a physical act. This is wrong. It is a logical fallacy to assume as such. Compare this to walking:

You don't need a check to walk. You don't need a check to run. But to run at a sustained pace, you make a constitution check. To see if you can traverse difficult terrain you might make an acrobatics check. Does this mean that the base act of walking, which does not require a roll and has no associated stat, is not physical because it doesn't require a roll? No. The same logic can be applied to the ride skill. Basic riding requires no checks at all. Would you say then that riding is not physical, until it requires a check? No, because anyone can plainly see that riding is a physical act.

Now, let's perform a philosophical exercise and apply that same logic that we applied to walking and riding to flying:

When you are Flying, whether from the effects of a spell or from natural flight, you are still using a skill that requires dexterity. Even if you are not actively rolling to perform maneuvers, it does not change the stat or skill associated with that act, just like walking doesn't become a purely mental action because you are not actively performing "walk checks" and riding doesn't become purely mental because you aren't making ride checks. If magical flight was a purely mental, magical act, it would not be associated with the dex-based Fly skill, it would be associated with Spellcraft or something more appropriate for a magical means of flight.

When you are flying, whether via magical means or mundane, you are physically moving. Paralyze specifically prevents you from moving. Physical movement is not a mental action. It follows then that you cannot move while paralyzed even if you are under the effect of the Fly spell.

Malag wrote:

@Darklord Morius

It's actually getting more fun then that. According to some people in the topic, any person casting a spell with a movement type retains such movement even after being paralyzed because it's "mental action". Really, this is actually flexible thinking.

So being paralyzed prevents casting a silenced spell?

Say... teleport?

No one said that.

This spell instantly transports you to a designated destination.

Teleport instantly transports you. It does not require movement and it has only a Verbal component.

However, if you were paralyzed and you cast teleport, you would teleport naked, because:

You can bring along objects as long as their weight doesn't exceed your maximum load.

Hello everyone! My party has finished exploring the Catacombs of the Wrath, and now is going to go towards Thistletop.

Hoping that the Heroes of Sandpoint succeed in their aim, I'm already studying the 2nd adventure... and I must say that this "Skinsaw" not fond of it.

** spoiler omitted **

What do you all think?

Be careful how much you change it. The link to the rest of the story is

Just be careful when you make changes that you don't lose that connection or the PCs will be confused as to why this other guy matters.

Jeven, you are ignoring the fact that you can Fly without ever rolling once on the skill.

If the Fly skill was required to use the spell, it would say so.

The spell talks about requiring concentration.

The Fly skill is not required because it is an untrained skill. You still need to make Fly checks to perform certain actions. There is a limit to what you can do with Fly without making a skill check, just like Ride. Since both are Dex based, it is assumed that a physical action is required to Fly. You seem to think it's purely mental until you need to make a check.

It isn't. It's akin to taking 10 on your fly checks because the DC is low enough that it doesn't matter. You're still performing the physical, dexterity-based act.

el cuervo wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

El cuervo. Your stance isn't flawless. There are holes on both sides of the debate, you need to atleast accept that.

Having 0 strength can stop fly, due to overencumbrance.

You have yet to show in the rules enough evidence that magical flight is still a purely physical act. If you can not then the debate is still valid.

I think we are assuming a naked caster. ;)

Also, this thread isn't intended as a debate about whether or not you can do it, but instead to determine the penalties that accrue assuming you CAN do it.

I already stated the penalties. If you ignore all of the rules that don't allow this (and you shouldn't because this is the rules questions forum, not the house rules forum), then you would just take a -5 penalty on your fly checks from your dex being 0.

You are continuing to ignore the actual purpose of this thread.

We are assuming that Fly IS controlled mentally, and that the spell is still in effect despite STR 0 (naked caster).

Your assessment of having the penalties just be a -5 to DEX related things is incomplete, at best.

STR 0
Helpless
+4 to be hit (from helpless)
DEX 0
No actions other than mental (this is listed right in the text of paralysis, please don't ignore it)
Can be sneak attacked
Is vulnerable to coup de grace

That is the list. That is what the penalties are, assuming Fly is still in effect and the caster isn't encumbered. (and also that "Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally. " means that you control it mentally, by concentrating on it. Like it says.)

Despite my earlier comments, you CAN in fact make Fly (skill) checks, maybe...

Some would think a DEX of 0 precludes this and/or not being able to take physical actions precludes this.

If Fly (spell) is mentally controlled, it is feasible that you can still roll Fly (skill) checks, albeit at a -5.

You are continuing to ignore the actual purpose of the Rules Questions forum. This forum is for discussing rules as written. There is no written rule that allows you to fly when you are paralyzed. Please take the conversation to the House Rules forum where it belongs.

Up to Chapter 2 now and favourite bit is still that

** spoiler omitted **

My PCs have stuffed and mounted the "major" beasts they've encountered along the way and sent them all back to the Rusty Dragon. So far, hanging on the wall at the Rusty Dragon:

Needless to say, Ameiko loves my party because they make her inn the most appealing adventurer's tavern in Sandpoint, and with all the action occurring in Varisia lately, Sandpoint's become quite the adventuring hotspot. The heads remind her of her own adventuring days. I imagine not before long, we'll see a few more additions to the wall at the Rusty Dragon.