The existence of a "fly" skill is actually contradictory to the existence of the climb and swim skills and the absence of a burrow skill. You can climb without having a fly speed, and you can swim without a swim speed, but you can't burrow without a burrow speed. If you have a swim speed, you don't have to roll swim checks under normal circumstances and gain big bonuses to the circumstances in which you do have to roll. Same goes for climb. Having a fly skill that is only usable when you have a fly speed directly contradicts the previous precedents for movement skills.
Having said that, I can see why you'd want a fly skill; to deal with the same sorts of things that you'd use your swim skill for even when you have a swim speed. But a new skill isn't the way to go here. I think Tumble might be a good choice for this sort of thing. Alternately, some sort of gestalt "Acrobatics" skill covering jump and tumble, with synergy bonuses with climb and swim, maybe? It'd sure make things easier for us thief-acrobat lovers~
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.
Likewise, I see your point too..
I'm just saying that there is a difference between looking at how the mechanics actually work, and making editorial decisions on whether they're necessary content.
We may be straying from the former to the later.
Granted Jason never said we couldn't evaluate from an editorial perspective, but are we actually looking at the rules to see if they work? ....however unnecessary we may think they are?
I'm in the no-fly-skill-league. No need for this. Simplify the existing rules for Aerial Combat and all is fine and good. I always avoid flying creatures because of the complex system of many different rules for flying, climbing, turning X degress, flying foreward X before Y, etc...Well, guess you know what i mean...
Pro fly skill:
I think it should be included because it is easy to house rule it out if you don't like to use it, but hard to house rule in if you do.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I find myself a bit torn. On the one hand, this is going a huge gap in the logic most character histories. Face it, people will try and get that skill "out of the way" with their first picks, way before flying normally becomes an issue.
On the other hand, i like the fact that something as complex as flying gets a skill of its own. I always wondered why jump would get its own skill, but everyone can fly with equal proficiency.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I find myself a bit torn. On the one hand, this is going a huge gap in the logic most character histories. Face it, people will try and get that skill "out of the way" with their first picks, way before flying normally becomes an issue.
On the other hand, i like the fact that something as complex as flying gets a skill of its own. I always wondered why jump would get its own skill, but everyone can fly with equal proficiency.
The problem of people taking it early is somewhat obviated by the requirement of being able to fly before you can take the skill. I'm mixed on the skill myself, but I like that that was addressed.
- Would this be less of an issue if there was a base race that had wings and could fly?
Yes. :)
That would no doubt open another can of worms, but stating "we will have a playable race that can fly naturally" will do a lot towards changing the direction of this conversation. But with that.. will come other questions.
To Burrito Al Pastor, likewise I see your point. It does become a question of where we draw the line. I only have a subjective answer that we draw the line after flying.
|
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.
We had a long-standing game where one of our players was a half-dragon fighter/ranger/dervish, and I allowed a feat to give him wings (since there's a feat to give tieflings wings in one of the FR sourcebooks), and I can tell you, average maneuverability was a PAIN! Counting squares, movement, and keeping track of direction was a total nuisance, to the point where I wasn't sure I'd ever allow a flying character again (unless their maneuverability was good or perfect).
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
I love the Fly skill. Been thinking of something like this for a long while. If there wasn't a Fly skill, I'd say use Acrobatics for maneuvering.
I think creatures with an innate Fly speed should get it as a bonus Trained skill.
Creatures that fly with no wings should get a bonus.
I was taken aback withthe Fly skill. However thinking back to a few games that involved higher level parties... Sebastian hit it on the nose that there needs to be a mechanic that tempers this activity to level of expierience.
I say leave it in and let it evolve!
Another question - would being on a broom of flying or carpet of flying be a Ride check or a Fly check?
I'm seeing some of the logic behind having this skill, but I still think the Fly spell and its kin still need to be tackled, as well as the base flying rules being simplified. Swim movement isn't nearly as complex as the base flight rules - I think the flight rules should be no more complicated than the swim rules, myself.
As an aside, it does also bring up the question of "what about burrow?" as it is a sort of "swimming through land". It isn't a skill you'd likely see in PC hands, but there's a few creatures that use the movement type. What it would do would be beyond me. But, if there isn't going to be a special skill for burrowing (and the mighty danger it has is collapse of the "tunnel" the creature is in), do we really need a special skill for fly?
|
|
I like the idea of using skill checks for flying situations. I don't like Flying as its own skill; it seems far too limited in scope compared to some of the other new skills. I would love to see this as an Acrobatics sidebar, with an addendum that reads "If you do not have a fly speed as the result of natural wings or a spell you have daily access to, you take a -4 to Acrobatics while flying."
It was said before, the most common classes that would want Fly are wiz/sorc and druid. These are also some of the classes least likely to take Acrobatics. I say, that's great! Working Fly into Acrobatics encourages PCs to take a skill they normally wouldn't consider. Imagine the wild-shaping druid that does take it; not only is he master of the air but he can shift to animal forms that dart in and out of threatened areas with ease. A mage trained in Acrobatics could fly better than his peers and protect himself better when fighting defensively.
Another question - would being on a broom of flying or carpet of flying be a Ride check or a Fly check?
I'm seeing some of the logic behind having this skill, but I still think the Fly spell and its kin still need to be tackled, as well as the base flying rules being simplified. Swim movement isn't nearly as complex as the base flight rules - I think the flight rules should be no more complicated than the swim rules, myself.
As an aside, it does also bring up the question of "what about burrow?" as it is a sort of "swimming through land". It isn't a skill you'd likely see in PC hands, but there's a few creatures that use the movement type. What it would do would be beyond me. But, if there isn't going to be a special skill for burrowing (and the mighty danger it has is collapse of the "tunnel" the creature is in), do we really need a special skill for fly?
We may not have a skill for "Walking", but we certainly have skills for "walking special maneuvers" (Balance, Jump, Tumble). We have a skill for "aquatic special maneuvers" (Swim). As for "burrow", it is a matter of breaking through the earth (damaging it to open a tunnel), then use a skill for "underground special maneuvers" (Escape Artist).
My point is, whenever there's a special obstacle to be overcome, we have a skill to do it. It stands to reason that flying, with wind, updrafts, thermals and gravity, warrants the same treatment.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
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.
Yeah my DM HATES flying characters. He forbade me from making a character with wings at 1st level, even though all she could do was glide. She wouldn't even be able to fly until 6th level, and even then really poorly. I think it was around 12th level that she got any good at it. Giving a skill that means you have to make certain checks to do things makes it not quite as powerful.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Just thought I would pop back in to clear up a few things.
- 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.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
This was another reason that I thought the Fly skill was a good idea, I just couldn't quote any of the Feats off the top of my head and didn't want to post without examples.
That aside, I think a 0-LA PC winged race with average maneuverability would be nice to have to have. At least for playtesting purposes. Make it, fluff it, stat it. Then we can use to test the flying rules better, give people the ability to use it without having to use magic, and make the appropriate changes. If people wish not to have a flying race as a base race in the final product, we can have them throughout the playtesting, exclude them from the final product and put the finished version of them in a supplement for the Pathfinder RPG.
OOOOOO, can it be the Derhii from J3Crucible of Chaos p.28-29. Please Jason, Pretty Please with big sprinkles and a cherry on top! =)
I was a bit upset when you didn't put up stats in the description for using them as a PC race... they are awesome!
I'm all for a flying skill. I think every campaign but Iron Kingdoms someone in my group had the ability to fly. I have a feeling the fly skill will see more use than the ride skill. I think it would be far more annoying if we had skill points per level instead of trained non trained. So a wizard now can focus on flying slills vs a more ground bound wizard. I also think the forces in the air that effect flying make in diffrent enough from acrobatics to make it's own skill. Most of the skills seem similar in concept to riding, a few my players wish they had during some flying chase sequences.
Put me in the camp of those who thinks that Fly should be folded into Acrobatics. I understand the reason for having a skill replace the complicated flying maneuvers currently taken with Monster Feats. But this really should be folded into the Acrobatics skill.
I'm a hundred percent in favor of this, but there are some issues. First, I look at races and monsters with natural swim and climb speeds, and they don't have to make the appropriate checks because they have climb and swim speeds. Would this mean that a Raptoran doesn't need to make fly checks? Would this mean that the party that guzzles fly potions without taking the skill is in danger of dropping out of the sky if they don't move every round?
The idea that a wizard can polymorph into a flying creature and rule the skies is one thing. The idea that a barbarian can drink a potion and zip around the skies like it's completely natural is a little weird. Of course, magic altogether is a little odd. I recently started requiring move silently checks from my flying invisible rogue because I was tired of it being taken for granted that flying magically produces no sound whatsoever. Of course, if the rogue's move silently was bad, I have no doubt she would have started carrying around a pebble with silence cast on it. Magic is the coolest tool a player can have and the bane of a DM's existence.
If you put the magic problem aside, a fly skill is good as a replacement for the maneuverability chart because it takes away a static element of flight and says that manticore could be really good at flying or really bad, just like a fighter can be great at acrobatics or not-so-much. Why don't you need to make a check to run without tripping or burrow without burying yourself? Don't know. Should there be a similar skill check? That depends on the DM, but you can't run if the terrain is rough and if it isn't, you become flat-footed. Seems fair to me. Flying, on the other hand, carries only benefits, regardless of the maneuverability. No lost Dex bonus. No terrain preventing its use. Only a chart that determines whether a creature can hover or not, make a sharp turn or not--if the chart says no, they just can't.
Streamlining the rules doesn't mean that only rules that are relevant to every race and class should be considered. I consider a fly skill to be adding options to the game, rather than cluttering it up. If no one ever drinks a fly potion, no big. But it's there if they do, and the manticores appreciate it.
Christopher Carrig
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
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I like the Fly skill. However, I think that the skill should allow users to "take 10" and achieve basic effects without the need for a roll. Simply moving from point A to point B should not require a check. Various maneuvers such as wingovers, dive bombings, etc. certainly should require a check though.
So yes, keep the skill, but keep the frequency with which it needs to be employed to a minimum. Creatures who can fly naturally should automatically succeed on checks up to a certain difficulty (say 20). Anything beyond that, I'd say a check is warranted.
I'm with Fatey as long as it allows people to fly normally without making rolls. I don't see why a creature that is native to the air needs to use the skill though. Dolphins don't need to make a swim roll, and I've never seen a bird blow his fly roll.
I think fly should stay.
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...
Fly is a 3rd level spell, which means the wizard has to be a least 5th level to cast it. A 5th level wizard with a dexterity of 10 has a +8 modifier on the Fly skill. Just take 10 to hover, & you'll get an 18.
Yet another mystery solved!
I understand the logic behind a fly skill, but I don't think it should be there. It's something similar to 3.0's scry skill, IMO. I think the best move would be to fold it into Acrobatics or a similar skill. I think it's just one of those skills that is only useful to a relatively small subset of adventurers and will often get overlooked. That said, I haven't had a chance to test it in-game, so maybe an aerial adventure is in order to check it out.
Actually, my gut response was WTF(?) (as another on these boards put it). However, after reading it, it makse sense, not only for flying mounts but flying races as well (such as the cherubim elves from Monte Cook's Ptolus). The Fly skill is a flying creature's version of the Tumble skill (more or less).
Now whether or not there are enough groups (consumers) out there playing such creatures, or even GMs that allow them in their games, to warrant the space it takes up in the RPG guide or not is a whole 'nother story.
I'm with Fatey as long as it allows people to fly normally without making rolls. I don't see why a creature that is native to the air needs to use the skill though. Dolphins don't need to make a swim roll, and I've never seen a bird blow his fly roll.
Then you don't see many birds closely. Just by tuning in on Animal Planet, you can see those "Funniest Videos" thing and witness birds missing land spots, crashing into tree limbs during windy days and whatnot.
And dolphins have to make Swim checks to avoid hazards.
My two CPs.
I agree with many of the others. Getting rid of the limited use skills was nice. However, I think Fly should just default to Acrobatics skill.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I'm with Fatey as long as it allows people to fly normally without making rolls. I don't see why a creature that is native to the air needs to use the skill though. Dolphins don't need to make a swim roll, and I've never seen a bird blow his fly roll.
lol, never seen a bird fly into a window Krue? ;)
I'm with Fatey as long as it allows people to fly normally without making rolls. I don't see why a creature that is native to the air needs to use the skill though. Dolphins don't need to make a swim roll, and I've never seen a bird blow his fly roll.
This is going to be a slight tangent but it is related.
I see a bird blow its fly roll all the time. I own an African Grey Parrot, and up until this spring my wife had a love bird.
A love bird, the size of a golf ball and weighing only a few ounces, is the very definition of maneuverability. They can fly where they want, land where they want. Their weight in proportion to their wingspan doesn't quite lend itself to hovering, but they have a great deal of control.
An African Grey is a clumsy bird. It takes considerable effort to keep themselves in the air, and that translates to velocity, which cuts down their ability to handle a turn. The harder mine tries to stay in the air, the faster she goes, and after two laps around the living room she will generally hit the wall. She just can't bank a hard turn fast enough. That is, if she doesn't make it back to her cage or get to me to land on my shoulder.
Can she fly across the room and land on my shoulder? Yeah, pretty easily. That would represent a pretty low DC for her. Maybe negligible.
Add any variables like me ducking, and her not wanting to then end up landing any place where our cocker spaniel might intercept her before we do, and those DC's rise quickly. Flying doesn't look so easy even for a bird when you don't have all the room in the world and nothing else to consider except what you're doing.
****************
I've read a lot of comments about swimming, burrowing, or walking. I take the point, except that despite the fact they're all mediums of movement, they aren't the same thing... any more than walking and driving a car is.. and driving a car is an accepted skill in many RPGs.
Plus the environment has less chance of causing physical injury upon failure. You can't fall while swimming, the worst that happens is you don't move as quickly as you like. You can't fall while burrowing, the worst that can happen is that your tunnel collapses behind you- good thing you can burrow! If you fall while flying, you can get hurt. The only reason birds don't get hurt so much is that they have little weight or mass. Unlike a dragon or playable PC.
With running, swimming, burrowing, the biggest factor is speed (like a Run skill). Flying becomes a little more difficult, because speed doesn't help necessarily help maneuverability. You have three dimensions to move through without a surface to stand on. You have falling damage as a consequence for failure.
************************
The problem with Acrobatics is that it then implies anybody with Acrobatics can fly. I don't mean this as a snark, but I never met a gymnast who intuitively knew how to hang glide or fly an ultra light.
*********************
SUGGESTIONS:
1.) I'm not that familiar with the 3.5 rules concerning maneuverability, but make sure size is a modifier. Smaller, lighter creatures have an advantage.
2.) Give races with innate flight ability starting skill bonuses to account for lifelong experience and practical training.
I'm keeping it in 3.5 and Pathfinder for my home campaigns, just to warn anyone who might end up playing in my games. Flying races will gain a +8 racial bonus to Fly checks, to keep them even with the swimmers and climbers. But to all you suckers with the backpacks of potions of fly... no more "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." We're back to D&D. Yeah!
I'm with Fatey as long as it allows people to fly normally without making rolls. I don't see why a creature that is native to the air needs to use the skill though. Dolphins don't need to make a swim roll, and I've never seen a bird blow his fly roll.
You must not get out of the house much. ;^)
So you've never seen a bird hit a window? Or get hit by a car? Birds crash into things all the time. Maybe it's a blown perception roll or a failed reflex save?
When a falcon catches and eats another bird, my guess is that the falcon won the opposed fly check in order to close to melee distance.
Dolphin's make swim rolls all the time. They love making swim rolls! Just go to Sea World and watch the show. When the jump out of the water, I don't think they're using the jump skill - they don't have any legs! I guess the flaming hoop could be an acrobatics check. But riding on the wake of a ship is probably a swim check. Or maybe balane?
Anyway, I don't think the fly skill is that bad of an idea. Aquatic creatures use the swim skill and get good swim bonuses for being, well, aquatic.
Terrestrial creatures have plenty of movement skills (acrobatics, balance, etc.) I suppose you could argue that we're getting a raw deal since we don't get a bonus / take 10 for terrestrial movement. But the rules for swimming for example are skewed towards land creatures jumping into the water. So aquatic creatures get a bonus to represent their advantage over terrestrial creatures in the water.
I'm to the point where I could live with a Fly skill if it is used to 1) Avoid hazards (such as a midair collision with a tree or another flyer), 2) To avoid being checked by Strong winds and the like or 3) For special stunts, like perhaps pulling out of a dive at the last second, checking a fall or losing a pursuing flyer. Much the same things you might use Swim for.
I'd really not like to see it used for basic turning and such. Hover I'm not so sure about, and definitely not "move less than half speed and remain flying".
With the way all the other movements are handled, do we really need to keep track of maneuverability in the game?
Also, note that the way the skill is built (based on Dex) that something like a hummingbird has a better chance of not being "Checked" or "Blown Away" than say, a hawk or even a wyrmling dragon.
Also, note that the way the skill is built (based on Dex) that something like a hummingbird has a better chance of not being "Checked" or "Blown Away" than say, a hawk or even a wyrmling dragon.
I think part of the problem is that the chart doesn't go down to Fine. A hummingbird is actually way less than Tiny in size. (Tiny is 1 to 8 pounds and 1 to 2 feet) Maybe they should be blown away even easier than Tiny critters.
But really, why worry about hummingbirds? It could come up, but how often, really?
|
|
Try thinking about the fly skill this way.
Riding on the top of an animal is not a natural movement for any of the basic races, so the Ride skill exists. Most characters are able to ride normally, but are unable to perform complex actions while atop a mount. This is the same for the Fly skill. While flying, a character can fly normally without making any checks, it is only when they try to do something complex that they need to make a check.
I am perfectly okay with the Fly skill for this reason. Especially when you can wait until you have an ability that grants flight to take Fly as a skill.
But really, why worry about hummingbirds? It could come up, but how often, really?
I only mentioned it because of the hummingbirds high Dex and Perfect maneuverability, which with the way the skill is built, would give it enough of a bonus to match something like a small dragon. There will likely be several more cases up the scale where smaller, more maneuverable things will stay in the air where larger ones will get blow down - things that just may seem odd when it happens. Hummingbird was just a more dramatic case.
I'd be a bit more comfortable with the Fly skill, if...
1. We had a core race that had wings... honestly, I'd like to see one of the seelie fey types, particularly since my wife uses one of those naughty looking fairies from Reaper minis as her game miniature... whether she has wings or not. (I'm not about to argue over that, took me months to get her to play in the first place)
2. We had the possibility of having one or two flying creatures listed straight up in the equipment guide rather than an afterthought in a monster manual... yes, they should be expensive, but it would be neat.
3. Paizo or perhaps a supporting 3rd party publisher... assuming that there will be an opening for that... did an aerial guide.... I was always wanting one of those books with the airborne boats but never got one. Yes... again, these should be very expensive and not easy for just the average joe to get, so to speak.
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 must agree. This happens in a lot of my games aswell. So it's nice to balance it out.
I think the skill should stay.
My suggestions are:
Natural flyers (wings, etc) should get a bonus to their flying skill, and can take 10 even under stress.
Fancy movement, like wingovers, should require a skill check, with failure causing the flyer to continue in the original direction for another 5' per 5 points that the DC is missed by.
My observations are:
It should not be rolled into acrobatics. Acrobatics has already a fairly large "porfolio". I haven't seen anyone saying that climb, swim and such should be rolled into acrobatics, so why so for fly?
Someone mentioned that birds are acrobatic while flying. I agree, but I have never seen a bird being acrobatic while on the ground.
I would not want to see all flying creatures suddenly turn in to tumblying experts. Visions of dragons, wyverns, pegasii, etc... rolling, jumping and such thru an enclosed space that does not allow flying.
My first thought on seeing a Fly skill was "WTF!?!?". But after some thought, I gotta say I've warmed up to the idea. What might be really useful would be a scenario where I could sit down with some friends and playtest the Fly skill.
Two issues:
A. Flying should be more dangerous. I can't think of even one movie monster that doesn't crash when fighting heroes. Forcing Flying checks when flyers take damage seems appropriate, with failures forcing unintended course changes or something.
There also needs to be actual rules addressing what happens to flyers when they get Stunned, Dazed, etc.
B. Another vote to fold Flying into Acrobatics.
My first thought on seeing a Fly skill was "WTF!?!?". But after some thought, I gotta say I've warmed up to the idea. What might be really useful would be a scenario where I could sit down with some friends and playtest the Fly skill.
Same here. The comparison to climb and swim makes sense, except anyone can attemp to climb or swim, not everyone can fly. I think this might be more of a corner-case monstrous skill like control shape or whatever it is lycanthropes use.
Maybe this is a case where the addition is too far from 3.5 to fulfill the backwards compatibility requirement?
|
|
Remember that skills are not only for PCs. Monsters get them too. And monsters with Climb speeds have Climb skill. Monsters with Fly speeds should have the Fly skill. And it really simplifies the system by replacing the handful of feats you need if you want to be an effective flying monster.
Give it to druids so they can take advantage of wildshape, give it to wizards and sorcerers if they want to be better with their fly spells, but I think it's main use is for the monsters.
And of course (as others have said), it really simplifies things if you have a flying PC race in your game.
Originally i was against the skill, and was just going to rule that you must choose an environment to be 'proficient' in (on the ground, in the air, in water, ect) and in other areas take a penalty. However, the more i read about this the more i'm in favor of it. Make it trained only. Trained can take 10 for normal movement (racial flyers, wizards with spells of potions) with rolls if you want to do something fancy (close to melee range with the dragon, swoop down and pick up the fighter since he doesn't have ranks in fly, ect).
This way fly is useful, doesn't slow the game down and avoids overpowering the spell at higher levels. Want to cast fly on the whole party? great, but unfortunately Orthog the barbarian has no ranks in flight, so if you want him to do much than hover in place or move erratically as he tries to control his direction you'd better plan on carrying him or at the least towing him.
It was said before, the most common classes that would want Fly are wiz/sorc and druid. These are also some of the classes least likely to take Acrobatics. I say, that's great! Working Fly into Acrobatics encourages PCs to take a skill they normally wouldn't consider. Imagine the wild-shaping druid that does take it; not only is he master of the air but he can shift to animal forms that dart in and out of threatened areas with ease. A mage trained in Acrobatics could fly better than his peers and protect himself better when fighting defensively.
I'm against this, personally. I don't want wizards doing cartwheels through combat. That drastically changes the identity of wizards. Though to a lesser extent, I have the same objection when considering druids. There's a difference between encouraging characters to take an atypical skill choice and nearly requiring them to in order to use one of their more popular class abilities. If rogues could fly and wizards couldn't, for some reason, I'd be gung-ho for making Fly into Acrobatics. But since that's not the case (and when you consider things like dragons and other bulky flyers, as others have said), I'm for leaving Fly as a skill. That being said, I think its application needs to be expanded, i.e., more opportunities for its use. I'm not sure if I like the thought of a flying PC race, simply aesthetically, but there should definitely be options for flying from the very start of the game to make Fly relevant and important.