
Stephen Klauk |

Really, Paizo is gathering up skills and combining them, and then drops this in our laps.
We don't have a skill for "Walking" and D&D land-based movement is pretty screwy and unrealistic as it is (have you ever seen someone run into a wall or other obstacle or attempt to "walk backwards" with the ground movement rules?). Making a fly skill is really extraneous. If you want to fix how flight works, I say do it as follows:
Moving In Three Dimensions
Tactical Aerial Movement
Once movement becomes three-dimensional and involves turning in midair and maintaining a minimum velocity to stay aloft, it gets more complicated. Most flying creatures have to slow down at least a little to make a turn, and many are limited to fairly wide turns and must maintain a minimum forward speed. Each flying creature has a maneuverability, as shown on Table: Maneuverability. The entries on the table are defined below.
Minimum Forward Speed: If a flying creature fails to maintain its minimum forward speed, it must land at the end of its movement. If it is too high above the ground to land, it falls straight down, descending 150 feet in the first round of falling. If this distance brings it to the ground, it takes falling damage. If the fall doesn’t bring the creature to the ground, it must spend its next turn recovering from the stall. It must succeed on a DC 20 Reflex save to recover. Otherwise it falls another 300 feet. If it hits the ground, it takes falling damage. Otherwise, it has another chance to recover on its next turn.
Maneuverability
There are five levels of maneuverability of flying creatures. The effects of each are listed below.
Perfect: A creature with perfect flying ability is capable of hovering in place and can perform a “run” while flying. The creature can even make one 90 degree turn while “running” in flight. It has no minimum forward speed.
Good: A creature with good flying ability capable of hovering in place and can perform a “run” while flying. Its minimum forward speed is 1/3 its movement rate.
Average: A creature with average flying ability cannot hover, but can perform a “run” while flying. Its minimum forward speed is 1/2 its movement rate.
Poor: A creature with poor flying ability cannot hover and cannot perform a “run” while flying. Its minimum forward speed is 2/3 its movement rate.
Clumsy: A creature with clumsy flying ability cannot hover and cannot perform a “run” while flying. Likewise, its flight is so limited that it can only make one turn of 90 degrees when moving. Its minimum forward speed is 2/3 its movement rate.
Climbing, Diving and Hovering
Flying creatures can trade 20 feet of forward movement to climb 10 feet up while moving 10 feet forward, or can trade 20 feet of forward movement to climb straight up 10 feet.
A flying creature can trade 15 feet of forward movement to dive 10 feet down while moving 10 feet forward, or can trade 5 feet of forward movement to dive straight down 10 feet.
Hovering in place takes 20 feet of flying movement. Creatures wishing to attack other opponents while flying must hover in place while making their attacks, unless they are using Fly-by Attack.

Joey Virtue |

I dunno - as a DM, I think a Fly skill is a great replacement for that darn maneuverability chart in the DMG. And there is some argument in favor of Fly, since there is a Climb and Swim skill.
Now, where's the Burrow skill ... that's what I want to know! :)
Yeah but when you read the skill they still have manevuverability

![]() |

I love the fly skill. A pet peeve of mine is the invisible flying party, which arises very frequently in my games, particularly above level 10. By requiring a skill to make full use of the ability to fly, the power level of flight is brought down to a level that I find much more satisfactory. I think it's one of the best features of the new game.
Plus, with the lack of skill points, characters can always just pick up the fly skill at the appropriate level rather than having to dump points early on into something they may or may not use.

![]() |
I like Fly as a skill. Yes, it's slightly odd to earth-bound creatures such as ourselves ;-)
Actually, I like it because wizards with the fly spell and druids in bird form aren't immediately, perfectly proficient. The lack of proficiency balances out fly as an otherwise game-cracking ability.
Also, what about Harry Potter and his broomstick? Using that thing definitely requires ranks in some skill! (no snide comments, please ;-)
Finally, I loved seeing Fly as a Wizard class skill. Instead of 4E's "flying is wrong bad," flying is now something that defines what a wizard is, which actually fits quite well with mythology.

Majuba |

I agree with Sebastian (*shudder*). I like the Fly skill's mechanics -I can see players loving bragging about making a Fly check to do this or that.
That said - *possibly* it should be segmented into the Monster Manual sort of section - not that it can't be chosen by PCs.
I'd compare the "can't use until higher level" part to the 3.0 Scry skill, but much higher on the flavor and the *need*.

![]() |

I find myself in agreement with the majority of this group in regards to the Fly Skill. As a GM I KNOW that I would never use it. I think that putting the maneuverability class in the spell would be fine. Also making the Druid or any other character taking the shape of a flying creature be limited to that creature’s flight ability would be fine. There is no need for a new skill that very few are going to spend a slot on.

Stephen Klauk |

Actually, I like it because wizards with the fly spell and druids in bird form aren't immediately, perfectly proficient. The lack of proficiency balances out fly as an otherwise game-cracking ability.
But the druid nor wizard needs to take proficiency with Natural Weapons, and I'm sure they'd be as unfamiliar as attempting to take someone down with a bite as a wolf as they would be trying to fly as a bird.
Also, what about Harry Potter and his broomstick? Using that thing definitely requires ranks in some skill! (no snide comments, please ;-)Finally, I loved seeing Fly as a Wizard class skill. Instead of 4E's "flying is wrong bad," flying is now something that defines what a wizard is, which actually fits quite well with mythology.
If you want to use "flying stunts" that go beyond the basic flight movements, I think it would be a better to use the Acrobatic skill for that instead of inventing a whole new skill of "Fly". In many ways, having a Fly skill is a punishment along the same line that 4E is trying to punish its use.

Epic Meepo RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32 |
I like the idea of Fly checks, but it occurs to me that Fly is essentially just aerial acrobatics. With that in mind, perhaps Fly should be rolled into the Acrobatics skill as an "Acrobatics while flying" sidebar. After all, it only makes sense that the ability to fly helps you to balance, jump, and tumble (and - if you have a fly speed - vice versa); so maybe they should be the same skill.

![]() |
I get the general idea of what the skill is trying to address... creatures that don't normally fly would probably need practice to do so effectively, even with magic.
Possible solutions:
Anyone who has ever hang-glided will tell you that the physical aspect of contolling the glider is probably closer to the Acrobatics skill (aspects of the old Balance skill specifically), or perhaps simply a Dex check for complex manouvers. Granted, we're not talking about piloting a glider, but your own body.
Having flown both unpowered sail-planes and powered planes as well, its all about the coordination of power, pitch, roll, and yaw.
Seeing astronauts in zero-G training taking several flights to get accustomed to moving around while weightless is another analogy I can think of... again, a Dex based check probably.

Stephen Klauk |

I'm lovin' fly as a skill. As the rules are now flying is too common and messes up the assumed "medieval" base of the game. It is great flavour if Wizards can fly reasonably easily but "Fly potions all around!" can't turn your party into sci-fi jet packers.
I think that problem is in the Fly spell itself, not a need for a Fly skill. I think maybe Fly (and related spells) should be revised so that it grants Poor maneuverability flight at 5th-10th level, Average maneuverability at 11th-15th level and Good maneuverability at 16th-20th level. [/i]Potions of Fly[/i] then would be horrible for combat use and if you want a good item that gives you usable combat flight, it's going to cost quite a bit.

Kirth Gersen |

I'm TOTALLY on board with the Fly skill. I've always found it completely absurd that a person who drinks a potion could all the sudden not only fly, but could perform aerobatic spectacles that put a trapeze artist to shame, and without getting a hint of motion sickness or vertigo. That always strained my credibility WAY beyond the breaking point, to the point where we houseruled that all "fly"-related spells and magic items (boots of flying, etc.) gave the worst possible maneuverability class unless you spent a feat on their use. In retrospect, a skill (analogous to Swim) is a lot more reasonable, and more likely to see use. This is one rule that I wish had been implemented a LONG time ago!

firbolg |

I think the Fly skill is a worthy addition, but may need some DM arbitration.
Ender's Game was a great example of the practical ins and outs of gaining and using such a skill. Acquiring the ability to fly doesn't really equate with the ability to use it (certainly that's the way I've been ruling on it for the last few years- Broomsticks should be treated with respect).

![]() |

I feel that the Fly skill could be integrated as a subset of a more generalist Acrobatics skill.
Better yet, it could be used as a specialist skill, one of a number of quite focused skills (way more themed than the new set proposed in the alpha rules), which can be developed with the old "granular" advancement of skill points.
To put it shortly, specialist skills ad simply added to the generalist "mother skill": thus the Fly skill is a further modifier to the Acrobatics skill. The former is gained through the few skill points available, while the latter is developed through the standard mechanic proposed in the alpha rules.
Another example of specialist skills would be the old Listen, Spot and Search skills, that could represent individual super-specialization on a single aspect of the more generalist Perception skill.

WelbyBumpus |

I don't like the fly skill, either. Streamline the aerial maneuvering rules, but don't do it as a skill.
This seems a really odd inclusion. You streamlined grappling, tripping and other combat effects without a Grapple skill or Trip skill (come to think of it, CMB might work as a skill. But I'm not in favor of that.).

Kelvar Silvermace |

I was a bit surprised when I first saw it, but now, having thought about it and having read the posts above, I think it's pretty cool. Especially with the Harry Potter analogy, I think it might add something to the game. I like the idea that another Wizard might be higher level, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a better flier.
(Although I do find the rules [both old and new] for keeping track of flight and turning and whatnot to be a bit more involved than I'd like. My eyes start to glaze over every time I try to read it).
But overall, yeah, I guess you could say I think it's pretty fly.

Phil. L |

I'm ambivalent about the Fly skill. On the one hand I like the fact that they are trying to fix the flying rules, on the other hand I don't want to have to roll Flying skill checks for my monsters (I wonder if monsters that can fly get the Fly skill and can take 10 on it? Does this mean creatures will need to take ranks in the skill?)
My bigger beef is with the skills rules in general.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Ah yes... the Fly skill.
So, it occurred to us very early on in the process that it was odd that Climb and Swim both had a skill check, due to their chance of failure and harm, but Flying, which is perhaps even more perilous, did not. Instead, fly has an odd subsystem that works on its own mechanic. This led to a number of corner case problems as well, such as tripping a flying creature, or grappling a flying creature. There are no rules for determining how to bring down a flyer.
This made the Fly skill an obvious choice from that angle. I realize that it is not a very useful skill for PCs, since they do not generally have the ability. That said, I still feel that it has a place in the game.
Of course, I am open to your thoughts and ideas. Keep em coming.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

donnald johnson |

i like the fly skill.
its like the greatest american hero (cheesy 1983 sitcom)
he was abismal when he first tried to fly. and didnt really get much better.
whats the use of having player progression if there are some tasks that you can automatically do with a simple spell, or wild shape, or a potion or whatever. might as well start every game at 20th level.

Alzrius |
I think the problem with having a Fly skill is that it creates some confusion about what creatures with natural flight abilities can do. Similar to how creatures with a natural swim speed don't need to use half of the listed uses for the Swim skill.
I think that there should be a new skill, called Maneuver, which would have Climb, Fly, Swim, and Tumble all folded into it. That would (IMO) work much better than having the Fly skill be part of Acrobatics (which is for special movements under normal conditions, whereas Maneuver is - generally speaking - about trying to pull off normal movement under difficult conditions.
By itself, however, Fly should go. It's just not a good skill, since it makes little sense from an in-game standpoint, and it likely won't see much use. Scry was like that, and there was a reason it was dropped in 3.5.

John Robey |

Ah yes... the Fly skill.
So, it occurred to us very early on in the process that it was odd that Climb and Swim both had a skill check, due to their chance of failure and harm, but Flying, which is perhaps even more perilous, did not. Instead, fly has an odd subsystem that works on its own mechanic. This led to a number of corner case problems as well, such as tripping a flying creature, or grappling a flying creature. There are no rules for determining how to bring down a flyer.
This made the Fly skill an obvious choice from that angle. I realize that it is not a very useful skill for PCs, since they do not generally have the ability. That said, I still feel that it has a place in the game.
I don't want to sound too snarky here, but I suspect that in a few years this would be one of those "What was I thinking???" rules. 0.o I don't think there's anything wrong with making rules to handle flight necessarily, but I don't think it's something that should burden the skill system. Go for Dex rolls, Ref saves, or a rarely-seen application of the Acrobatics skill, rather than creating a whole new skill just for this.
-The Gneech
PS: IMO, of course. :)

Watcher |

It occurs to me that the complaint with the Fly Skill isn't so much as how it's been written.. but due to the fact that it seems contrary to the notion of streamlining the rules.
That is, if there is no practical application- why have a skill for it?
Let's turn this question upside down.
What if there was a practical application, what would then we do without a skill?
My point is, flying in a campaign setting is as difficult as the designers want to make it. There are possibilities of winged races, cultures that thrive and depend on wide-spread use of flying animals and other devices.
If you're writing a core book of rules, you cover for contingencies.
Granted, flying was only a high level option in 3.5 and in most campaign settings.
But this isn't 3.5, and it's not just any campaign setting.
The presence of these rules and Jason defense of them might represent a surprise to be revealed later. Like a place in Golarion where flying is an option to a range of different levels, necessitating this otherwise exotic skill..

pfooti |
I'm not happy with the Fly skill at all, personally. I do like the suggestion that the Fly spell give improving maneuverability as CLs improve, but considering that the magic behind Fly and its cousins (Mass Fly, Overland Flight) is somewhat unclear, I don't think adding a skill makes a lot of sense either.
For example, the Fly spell makes you fly. Why would it cause you to fall out of the sky? You don't have wings. If you did have wings and had to worry about flapping something, then I can see: that's where skill comes in. But magical flight is more superman-esque. You just sort of fly with your mind.
Of course, this isn't the end of the world, it just forces wizards to take a skill they'd otherwise spend on other stuff. Wizards still have tons of skills.

![]() |

I don't like the fly skill.
Human fighters don't have to make a run check to see if they don't trip when they Charge.
Why should a natural avian of any type have a fly skill if I don't have a run skill?

I’ve Got Reach |

As I will likely state in another thread, to say that I was surprised by this "unexpected maneuver" (said in my best Darth Sidius voice) in the unveiling of Pathfinder RPG is an understatement.
Although I haven't read the rules yet (and I understand that they are free for downloading), the fact that Fly is a skill, leads me to believe that this may be a high-fantasy game. In my game world, you can go ahead and "white-out" the fly skill right off your character sheet. No PC will fly, and only select monsters (which are rare in and of themselves) will fly.

![]() |

As I will likely state in another thread, to say that I was surprised by this "unexpected maneuver" (said in my best Darth Sidius voice) in the unveiling of Pathfinder RPG is an understatement.
Although I haven't read the rules yet (and I understand that they are free for downloading), the fact that Fly is a skill, leads me to believe that this may be a high-fantasy game. In my game world, you can go ahead and "white-out" the fly skill right off your character sheet. No PC will fly, and only select monsters (which are rare in and of themselves) will fly.
Do you allow the fly spell in your games? How about magic items that allow you to fly? If you allow those things, then that's what the fly skill is for. If you don't allow those things then you are correct, you might as well remove the skill from the list.
Since you haven't read the rules yet, you probably aren't aware the fly skill does not let you fly on your own.

![]() |

I am indifferent about the fly skill. I don't hate it. I really don't like it either. I can't imagine it becoming common enough in most campaigns to worry about.
But this isn't 3.5, and it's not just any campaign setting.
The presence of these rules and Jason defense of them might represent a surprise to be revealed later. Like a place in Golarion where flying is an option to a range of different levels, necessitating this otherwise exotic skill.
I appreciate this sentiment but we are being asked to judge these rules based on what appears in the document. It would very difficult to playtest material while trying to take into account potential setting material to be revealed in the future.
As for the specific setting, so far these rules have been mostly setting generic. I hope they stay that way honestly.

Malitia Invictus |

I must say that I like the idea of a Fly skill, but I appreciate the concerns others have brought up in this thread. I'm not sure I'd like to see it combined with Acrobatics, however, since the classes (Wiz, Sorc, and Druid) that need the Fly skill the most need Acrobatics the least. I think I could learn to like the Fly skill more if there were opportunities to use it at lower levels (especially since I favor skill points over the new system at this point). Maybe if their were lower level spells that granted some kind of flight ability, like a spell that let you fly but required you begin and end your movement on the ground or fall. Or maybe spells like Fly could grant an insight bonus on a caster's fly skill...
Like Matthew, I'm also curious as to how the Fly skill will work with flying mounts. Will the rider need to be skilled at Fly, Ride, or both? Will a skilled rider be able to overcome a clumsy flier's lack of skill in Fly? What about brooms, carpets, and other flying "vehicles?"
It's a decent start, but I think I'll need to see a bit more before I implement it in my games. Maybe some stats for a flying monster, like a griffin, with and without a rider, and maybe a rewrite of the Fly spell.

![]() |

I personally think this is a great idea. Especially when you consider the impact it will have when the *monsters* start taking it. Now I don't have to worry about what happens when my players launch a grappling hook at a flying imp or whatever -- it'll just make a Fly check opposed by their CMB. Clean and simple.
Players flying around in a high-level game would also be a good place to use this. We have Acrobatics, Climb, and Swim; why not Fly?

![]() |
I like the fly skill. I think it needs to stay. Why?
The first think when thinking about fly skill is to stop thinking about the classical races. Don't think about humans, elves, half-orcs... Think about the non-standard races. Has anyone tried to play as a race with the ability to fly? It sucks. Unless you have perfect maneuverability you end up burning feats on things like hover, wing-over, and like. It hurts as you burn your few precious feats to make a racial ability not suck. On top of which flying itself is highly situational. Sure, being able to fly around is fun, but does nothing for you in a hallway with a 8 foot ceiling.
The only time flying is broken is when spellcasters get perfect maneuverability go up in the air, hover/sit there and rain death from above. It helps stop that (if only a little).
I like the fly skill. It makes having non-perfect maneuverability worth-while, while simultaneously nerfing perfect maneuverability. It expands the system while weakening the ability to fly. Heck, I hoping that it may open up a space for a 0-LA race with the ability to fly(average maneuverability).
And on a side note: Fly shouldn't be add to Acrobatics. If fly is added to it, creatures that fly would take it. Last thing I think most people want is acrobatic Dragons doing cartwheels and tumbling around the battlefield.

hallucitor |

I understand the need for a skill check for flying in situations, as you would need one for riding in situations, but I'm in agreement that Acrobatics would handle this well.
Eh, give them credit though... we are in just the first few days of the open playtesting and they've given a whole year to knock out the dents. I figure we'll see at least a few more incidents like the Fly down the road.
But yes, roll fly into acrobatics... otherwise the skill sticks out like a sore thumb.

![]() |

However, I'm reading the fly skill, and I'm stumped. Let's say a wizard casts Fly on himself. He then wants to hover in place, and the Fly DC is 15. He rolls a total of 12.What's the penalty for failing his check? The Fly rules don't say...
Very good point, Archade! What should be done about this?

![]() |

Just thought I would pop back in to clear up a few things.
- The Fly skill does not let you fly. It is only a measure of how well you can fly if you have the ability to do so from another source.
- There have been some concerns about people on flying mounts. This would work in the same way as people on mounts with the ability to swim or climb. You make Ride checks, you mount makes the movement skill checks.
- If you fail a fly check, you must abide by the minimum rules of movement for flying or land.
- Would this be less of an issue if there was a base race that had wings and could fly?
- A great point was raised here that I forgot. One of the big reasons we put this skill in was that if you actually played a character that could naturally fly, the rules were brutal on you if you wanted to do anything but move from one spot to another. You had to burn a lot of feats to get the job done in many cases.
Please continue with the discussion. I will check back in.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer