Does anyone think there was a need for a Fly skill before Pathfinder?


Skills & Feats

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

A lot of the Pathfinder changes did not surprise me, at least in the sense that I had heard of them before. But the Fly skill caught me completely off-guard. I have spent a lot of time over the years on various discussion boards discussing house rules. Not only have I failed to see even a vocal minority clamoring for a rule like this, I never even heard of it at all before Pathfinder.

Seriously, is this skill necessary? The rules were flying were not that difficult to follow before. I think it adds add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game to have this as a skill. Does anyone disagree with me?


I agree. But they're not going to remove it.


Personally, I like it. I kind of think of it a "tumbling for fliers", as well as, a means of codifying how flight works. Also, through the skill, it allows you to accomplish things that the normal flight rules do not allow.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm a broken record, but in my opinion Fly offers nothing that Acrobatics couldn't have covered for airborne combatants. But that's just me.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Personally, I like it a lot (although I admit that I never thought of it before)...

IMHO, it just makes (common) sense for it to be a skill, like Swim.


I've never heard it requested, but I've always disliked the manoeuvrability tables. Those always felt arbitrary and limiting, to me. If the Fly skill replaces those, then I can get behind it. Resolving funky flying moves with a simple skill check sounds a lot easier.


I hated that every PC after 5th level was expected to be a "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" character, flying around using potions or whatever with gleeful abandon. Adding the Fly skill makes those characters possible (through investing in the skill), but no longer the assumed default. And that makes me REALLY happy!

Also, the various flying feats seemed kind of awkward. A simple set of skill checks is much more elegant, to my mind.


All I can figure is that the fly skill will come into play because they are going to rework the rules for flying and flight types (clumsy, good, perfect, etc) altogether. Creatures will just get the fly skill corresponding to their level of proficiency instead of remembering if an average flyer can do a loop or 45 degree ascent.


Fly skills has been in my game for well over a year now. I like the way its done in pathfinder.It always bugged me one little spell or cap and you became the red baron of D&D.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
It always bugged me one little spell or cap and you became the red baron of D&D.

LOL! That's the quote of the day, man. Awesome.


It sounds to me as if a lot of people interpret the fly spell too literally. The most common complaint I am hearing so far is that it gives PCs to much maneuverability on the battlefield. I don't understand why that is so bad when the ability is so limited. The spell has a short duration, only affects a single target, and it doesn't even grant the best maneuverability. It is a powerful spell, but only in optimal conditions. If you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, then a good portion of your time should be spent in a dungeon anyway where flying simply isn't that useful much of the time.

I've been playing the game for 10 years in three different cities with at least several dozen people, not counting RPGA (where my exposure to other players easily reaches into the hundreds). This idea is so new to me it baffles me. Why are flying PCs so disruptive to your games?

And technically speaking, the Red Baron was a very mediocre pilot. His skill lay in his marksmanship, which was impressive both inside and outside of the cockpit. He was also a trained sniper.

The Exchange

I for one neither see a need for the fly skill, nor shall I use it in my game. If I need rules of this nature, acrobatics seems to cover it quite well to me.

Liberty's Edge

While I hate the manuveurabuility chart from the DMG (and the fact that it would ahve been useful on any given DM screen!), I also see no real purpose for the Fly skill.

Does it require converting monsters to account for the skill? If it is so important to have this movement skill, then why not a Burrow skill for monsters as well?

THe only reason I can find for the skill is to explain why Climb and Jump can't be consolidated into an Athletics skill.

"They have their own skill, so Fly should too!"


airwalkrr wrote:
If you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, then a good portion of your time should be spent in a dungeon anyway where flying simply isn't that useful much of the time.

Obviously you haven't played in "A Gathering of Winds." Or the grimlock caves in "Three Faces of Evil." Or a good number of Paizo's other adventures.

Liberty's Edge

I just had the thought of an Eddie Izzard skit with the Fly skill as a discussion.

"I say dragon come down here. Do you have ranks in the Fly skill? If not, then you can't really fly. I'm sorry; those are the rules that I just made up."


airwalkrr wrote:
It sounds to me as if a lot of people interpret the fly spell too literally. The most common complaint I am hearing so far is that it gives PCs to much maneuverability on the battlefield. I don't understand why that is so bad when the ability is so limited. The spell has a short duration, only affects a single target, and it doesn't even grant the best maneuverability.

Overland Flight...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Do we really like the idea that a PC can put on a cloak of the bat or use some other magic to fly and suddenly understand the complexity of air currents at various altitudes, the impact of terrain on wind patterns and how thermals work? You have to go to school just to fall out of plane and float down in a parachute. The only thing that annoys me about the Fly skill is that it didn't dawn on my before to require that someone who uses flight magic actually know what they are doing. I just see it like Ride. You can still fly without the skill you just can't fight on wing.

I would like to see clarification on whether this also extends to polymorphing into flying shapes. That is implied but not said outright. And limitations for untrained flight would be in order.

I have already added this to my Eberron Campaign just to differentiate the normal magic fliers from the "born to the skies" Lyrandar sorcerer who focuses on air and flight magic. He can now stand out from the rest of the party in his skills. I did give him a bonus (+2) to this skill in place of the normal +2 balance, for his background. With his magic and marked powers he is a real threat to flying critters that come at the party.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
airwalkrr wrote:
If you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, then a good portion of your time should be spent in a dungeon anyway where flying simply isn't that useful much of the time.
Obviously you haven't played in "A Gathering of Winds." Or the grimlock caves in "Three Faces of Evil." Or a good number of Paizo's other adventures.

I have completed campaigns for all of the adventure paths that appeared in Dungeon magazine. The examples you point out say nothing to discredit my underlying point. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I said flying is rarely useful whereas I meant to imply it was only uncommonly useful. And those two adventures are perfect examples of where having the fly spell is useful in only one or two parts of a much larger dungeon complex. In my opinion you have only helped prove my point.


Pathos wrote:
airwalkrr wrote:
It sounds to me as if a lot of people interpret the fly spell too literally. The most common complaint I am hearing so far is that it gives PCs to much maneuverability on the battlefield. I don't understand why that is so bad when the ability is so limited. The spell has a short duration, only affects a single target, and it doesn't even grant the best maneuverability.
Overland Flight...

...which has even worse maneuverability.

And it's higher level.


Sunday, my group switched over to Pathfinder Alpha (we were waiting for a couple of class conversions). The wizard of the group cast fly for the first time (new to D&D or Pathfinder) and was disappointed that he was unable to fly like Superman or turn on a dime. I have no problem with the skill as it stands to help with manueverability of creatures, mounts or magic flying conveyances (brooms and carpets in particular). I do think that the Fly spell was fine before with the Good maneuverability. Maybe the spell needs a little rework to give a better bonus to manuevering or allow the spell's target to take 10 on Fly rolls for manueverability. In theory, the skill works well for most situations, but appears to be broken in practice. I am also wondering how the change will effect monster feats such as Hover or Wingover. They can be used as writen but do they create any potential problems? I have not playtested this combo yet, so I do not know.


mindgamez wrote:
You have to go to school just to fall out of plane and float down in a parachute.

If I am not mistaken, you are advocating we now have a Fall skill. I mean, how on earth can my character be expected to know how to use the feather fall spell properly.


airwalkrr wrote:
And those two adventures are perfect examples of where having the fly spell is useful in only one or two parts of a much larger dungeon complex. In my opinion you have only helped prove my point.

Fly would sure be handy in the Hextor temple as well, when you hit the central room. And it's invaluable in "The Champion's Games." And "Wormcrawl Fissure" (how else do you cross the moat of green slime?). Or consider "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk," in which almost every single delve encounter involves rough terrain, chasms, elevation differences, enemies on balconies, or some combination of the above?

And in 1e, it was even better, because we all know Gygax put covered pits in every flat surface... Continued claims that flying is not useful more often than not would seem to show a lack of thought or a faulty memory; or more likely stems from the fact that it's a useful supposition to make if you dislike the Fly skill for emotional reasons and are simply looking for reasons to get rid of it. Also, I'd point out that flying through narrow tunnels is no problem at all if no skill check to maneuver is needed.

To my mind, it's needlessly clunky to have maneuverability classes, and also feats for Hover and Wingover and Dive, if all that can simply be rolled into a single skill, analagous to Ride. So I'll keep Fly as a skill. If you don't like it, houserule it away, by all means. But don't imply that flying is "only uncommonly useful."

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
airwalkrr wrote:
mindgamez wrote:
You have to go to school just to fall out of plane and float down in a parachute.
If I am not mistaken, you are advocating we now have a Fall skill. I mean, how on earth can my character be expected to know how to use the feather fall spell properly.

No actually pointing out that a modern parachute is an airfoil and is really a simple glider with poor maneuverability. Pretty sure it takes some skill.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Trojan Dwarf wrote:
Sunday, my group switched over to Pathfinder Alpha (we were waiting for a couple of class conversions). The wizard of the group cast fly for the first time (new to D&D or Pathfinder) and was disappointed that he was unable to fly like Superman or turn on a dime. I have no problem with the skill as it stands to help with manueverability of creatures, mounts or magic flying conveyances (brooms and carpets in particular). I do think that the Fly spell was fine before with the Good maneuverability. Maybe the spell needs a little rework to give a better bonus to manuevering or allow the spell's target to take 10 on Fly rolls for manueverability. In theory, the skill works well for most situations, but appears to be broken in practice. I am also wondering how the change will effect monster feats such as Hover or Wingover. They can be used as writen but do they create any potential problems? I have not playtested this combo yet, so I do not know.

I see your point about the fly spell itself. Fly doesn't require much understanding of flight. You defy the conventions of flight by normal creatures. Think up, you go up. That really should be treated as different from the guy with the 20' bat wings growing out of his back. He has to obey the laws of fantasy physics. The fly spell doesn't. Hmmmm, more thought needed. Give fly by thought magic a bonus to flight skill and treat flier as trained while spell is in effect?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fly would sure be handy in the Hextor temple as well, when you hit the central room. And it's invaluable in "The Champion's Games." And "Wormcrawl Fissure" (how else do you cross the moat of green slime?). Or consider "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk," in which almost every single delve encounter involves rough terrain, chasms, elevation differences, enemies on balconies, or some combination of the above?

Fly is useful in all of those situations. So it fireball, by and large. The fact of the matter is that making Fly a skill doesn't fix that at all. PCs can still fly; they just can't hover or maneuver as easily. A flying PC now needs to make 1-3 Fly checks per round in the name of balancing something that didn't need to be balanced that badly in the first place.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Continued claims that flying is not useful more often than not would seem to show a lack of thought or a faulty memory;

Once again, you misrepresent my position. I have never said flying is not useful, merely that it is uncommon to find its use necessary or warranted. Every situation you have described has been perfectly navigable without the fly spell. The spell makes each of those situations easier, but then, so does fireball, or haste, or stinking cloud. The situations in which fly is likely to be more useful than that of other commonly-used 3rd level spells are few. It is my experience that it is used more often as a combat spell to gain tactical advantage that is not necessarily any greater than would be gained by using another 3rd-level combat spell than it is used to gain the kind of overwhelming advantage that would necessitate such a large change in the rules regarding flying.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
To my mind, it's needlessly clunky to have maneuverability classes, and also feats for Hover and Wingover and Dive, if all that can simply be rolled into a single skill, analagous to Ride.

And in my mind, it is needlessly clunky to require skill checks every single round when it was possible to do the same thing in 3.5 without skill checks. Many DMs will avoid having clumsy or poor fliers take to the skies simply out of a sense of avoidance of the extra rolls that slow combat down. Many players will avoid casting fly for the same reason. It isn't necessary to fix flying when it wasn't broken in the first place.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
So I'll keep Fly as a skill. If you don't like it, houserule it away, by all means. But don't imply that flying is "only uncommonly useful."

It doesn't come up enough to include in the core rules for PFRPG. Including it will necessitate a lot of extra rolls that will simply result in many people avoiding the rules completely. As a result, we will see an interesting and dynamic combat option avoided much like grapple was in 3.5. I am simply trying to help the designers avoid that pitfall.


mindgamez wrote:
No actually pointing out that a modern parachute is an airfoil and is really a simple glider with poor maneuverability. Pretty sure it takes some skill.

It probably does, but then again, it isn't magic. I can understand a PC who just grew wings not being used to them and needing to adjust. Savage Progression classes account for this by starting with poor or clumsy maneuverability and advancing to better maneuverability as the character levels up. A fly spell is not a mechanical device that you have to learn how to use anymore than a haste spell. Should we require that PCs who are hasted train themselves because they aren't used to moving so quickly? It is magic, that should be enough of an explanation. If you don't like the way it lets PCs or NPCs zip around the skies it would be far easier for you to house rule it one maneuverability class lower for your campaign than to make it a core rule for everyone's campaign that this spell is virtually useless and will cause combat to take considerably longer unless you invest skill points in it. There is no other precedent like that in the game. I don't see why fly needs to be the only exception.


airwalkrr wrote:

And in my mind, it is needlessly clunky to require skill checks every single round when it was possible to do the same thing in 3.5 without skill checks. Many DMs will avoid having clumsy or poor fliers take to the skies simply out of a sense of avoidance of the extra rolls that slow combat down. Many players will avoid casting fly for the same reason. It isn't necessary to fix flying when it wasn't broken in the first place.

It doesn't come up enough to include in the core rules for PFRPG. Including it will necessitate a lot of extra rolls that will simply result in many people avoiding the rules completely. As a result, we will see an interesting and dynamic combat option avoided much like grapple was in 3.5. I am simply trying to help the designers avoid that pitfall.

(Light bulb goes on): I think I see where you're coming from now; your issue with the skill is in smoothness of game play, if I understand correctly.

Player: "I dive in a back loop and stab him as I sharply pull up from the ground!"
3.5 DM: "OK, roll to hit."
Pathfinder DM: "OK, roll to see if you pull off the loop... now what's that DC? Do you still have enough movement distance to reach him? Then roll for pulling up before you hit the ground. DC for that? Um, let me check the table again."

That's certainly a legitimate concern. From my standpoint, swimming requires a Swim skill, and Combat Exertise and Mobility require feats. So I still feel that aerial combat mastery should require SOMETHING; evidently Mr. Bulmahn agrees. Maybe if the mechanics could be streamlined, and the skill checks minimized, then both of our concerns would be addressed?


To address the OP, yes, I have seen flight skills used in fantasy OGL stuff. I've also impemented it myself in my own campaigns, though it was a damn sight worse than the Paizo implementation. Frankly, even in mid-quarters fly is a really damn nice spell. Good maneuverability means hovering, turning in place, tight doughnuts, controlled rapid descent, vertical zigzags, 180-degree partial-forward-velocity vertical-axis spins, etc. Red baron nothing, you're a superhero with that kind of flight ability. Provided you have enough room to move meaninfully in combat in three dimensions, fly as a spell has value. With the Fly skill, at least you have to actually do something to become non-mechanized air-mobile infantry.


airwalkrr wrote:
mindgamez wrote:
You have to go to school just to fall out of plane and float down in a parachute.
If I am not mistaken, you are advocating we now have a Fall skill. I mean, how on earth can my character be expected to know how to use the feather fall spell properly.

I think it is obvious that you are mistaken.

The Fly spell has been used to incredible effect in every single game of D&D my group has ever played. To say it isn't really more useful than fireball is grossly misrepresenting the usefulness of the ability to defy gravity.

That said, the Fly skill could easily be replaced by Concentration or Spellcraft checks to make room for some other material.


My problem with the Fly skill is the fear that it's going to be a massive PC nerf bat, with nearly no effect on the monsters, due to the dreaded "racial bonus".

It Appears to be equal at the moment because you get skill ranks/HD (or level) and such, but in the end all its really going to do is serve as a means to keep PC's from flying around without investing massive skill points into it.

This just means wizards will be allocating a skill point to it every level, while anyone who used to drink a potion of Fly will now just skip it- while the winged creatures/monsters will be largely unaffacted due to racial bonuses that make them as adequate (or not) at it as they previously were.

The *exact same thing* could have been accomplished far easier: by making any flying spell have one or two worse maneuverability rating, and then do the same to any magical item that allows for fly.

The effect is the same- PC flight gets a big nerf: but it takes up far less book space, is far less confusing, and doesn't require you to change so much as a monster statistics block.

-S


Personally I think flight should just be added into another skill like acrobatics, maybe even swim and say flight magically is similar to swimming.

Liberty's Edge

airwalkrr wrote:

A lot of the Pathfinder changes did not surprise me, at least in the sense that I had heard of them before. But the Fly skill caught me completely off-guard. I have spent a lot of time over the years on various discussion boards discussing house rules. Not only have I failed to see even a vocal minority clamoring for a rule like this, I never even heard of it at all before Pathfinder.

Seriously, is this skill necessary? The rules were flying were not that difficult to follow before. I think it adds add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game to have this as a skill. Does anyone disagree with me?

Yeah, I disagree with you. It is not something I thought of or heard of before, but I prefer the fly skill implementation over the maneuverability classes we had before for a few reasons.

1) It puts danger back into flying, especially for winged creatures. Too often I've seen both players and judges rely on flying as a safety zone, because aside from special spells or effects there was no means of bringing them down.

2) It allows flyers to attempt difficult maneuvers with consequences for failure.

3) It allows poor natural flyers to overcome racial weakness with skill, without using poorly implemented feats.

That said, I think there are still a few things with the skill that need to be tweaked. I think natural flyers need to be able to take 10 on fly checks (like climbers and swimmers can, although I don't think every creature with wings should be considered a natural flyer). And I think that the DC's need to be tweaked a bit to make the threat more real (the DC 10 for being attacked is kind of a joke - a wizard with a single rank in the skill and 10 DEX using a Fly spell can only fail on a 1, why even bother having the check in the first place?).

Now, you pointed out that you think this is needlessly complex. I would argue that its no more complex than the existing system, its just different. In general, I don't think it will involve that much more dice rolling, with the exception of flight in severe weather.

Liberty's Edge

airwalkrr wrote:
Fly. Seriously, is this skill necessary? The rules were flying were not that difficult to follow before. I think it adds add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game to have this as a skill. Does anyone disagree with me?

I do not disagree with this, I agree with you.

-DM Jeff


Robert Little wrote:
1) It puts danger back into flying, especially for winged creatures. Too often I've seen both players and judges rely on flying as a safety zone, because aside from special spells or effects there was no means of bringing them down.

Agreed

2) It allows flyers to attempt difficult maneuvers with consequences for failure.

3) It allows poor natural flyers to overcome racial weakness with skill, without using poorly implemented feats.

Agreed

Robert Little wrote:
That said, I think there are still a few things with the skill that need to be tweaked. I think natural flyers need to be able to take 10 on fly checks (like climbers and swimmers can, although I don't think every creature with wings should be considered a natural flyer). And I think that the DC's need to be tweaked a bit to make the threat more real (the DC 10 for being attacked is kind of a joke - a wizard with a single rank in the skill and 10 DEX using a Fly spell can only fail on a 1, why even bother having the check in the first place?).

Creatures with with options for Climb and Swim movement rates, they don't have "maneuverability ratings" such as flier do. So, I'd say that the skill already has that part covered with the bomuses/penalties for your maneuverability class. Adding an additional +10 would realy trivialized the DC's more than they already are. As an option, perhaps using a creatures size catagory act as a modifier.

I do agree with you though, that the DC's do need to be bumped up some. Perhaps increasing the DC's as a whole by 5.

Liberty's Edge

Pathos wrote:


Robert Little wrote:
That said, I think there are still a few things with the skill that need to be tweaked. I think natural flyers need to be able to take 10 on fly checks (like climbers and swimmers can, although I don't think every creature with wings should be considered a natural flyer).
Creatures with with options for Climb and Swim movement rates, they don't have "maneuverability ratings" such as flier do. So, I'd say that the skill already has that part covered with the bomuses/penalties for your maneuverability class. Adding an additional +10 would realy trivialized the DC's more than they already are. As an option, perhaps using a creatures size catagory act as a modifier.

Yeah, thinking back on it it would be overkill to have them be able to take 10. I don't know that I think there should be a separate modifier for size - I think that maybe the manuverability rating of some creatures may need to be adjusted to reflect the new system.

Sovereign Court

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Here's the way I see it. If you like the idea of a Fly skill, there it is. Any NPC or monster who can fly will have a few ranks. If you don't like it, don't use it. Erase it from character sheets, don't let players put any skill points in it, and just use Acrobatics for how well flying creatures fly. If you want, re-assign the Fly ranks somewhere else. This is one of those situations where it is easier to have too much information and ignore some of it than to try to separate a Fly score out of an Acrobatics number for those who want it separate.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I like the skill.

It often is not a choice between which 3rd level spells you are using, but which ring (or other item) that you are using.

With the item, it is possible to fly all the time. Bypassing floor traps, avoid leaving any kind of tracks, etc...

It also increases your movement to 60 (40 if in medium or heavy armor). That usually has a large impact on tactical movement. An example is flying up, then over, then back down, all without having to make an acrobatics check or use mobility, or suffer from AoOs.

As for having to make several rolls...how about just making one, the toughest. If you fail, the DM determines what happens.

As well, this is something that could go on the DM's screen, so that there is no need to look it up when you need the DC to execute XX maneuver.


No.


Big Fish wrote:
No.

No what? O,o?

:oP


Yes, stick with it. I like it. I vote keep fly.


airwalkrr wrote:


Seriously, is this skill necessary? The rules were flying were not that difficult to follow before. I think it adds add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game to have this as a skill. Does anyone disagree with me?

Very doubtful the skill is necessary IMO. Where is the corresponding walk and run skill?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

CastleMike wrote:
airwalkrr wrote:


Seriously, is this skill necessary? The rules were flying were not that difficult to follow before. I think it adds add an unnecessary layer of complexity to the game to have this as a skill. Does anyone disagree with me?
Very doubtful the skill is necessary IMO. Where is the corresponding walk and run skill?

Acrobatics?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Maybe if the mechanics could be streamlined, and the skill checks minimized, then both of our concerns would be addressed?

That would be ideal. I still wish it didn't need to be a skill though. Requiring players to have a skill just to use a spell seems draconian.

Doombunny wrote:
The Fly spell has been used to incredible effect in every single game of D&D my group has ever played. To say it isn't really more useful than fireball is grossly misrepresenting the usefulness of the ability to defy gravity.

So you are implying that fireball is not used to incredible effect in every single game of D&D your group has ever played? Fireball clears the battlefield of your enemies. I can't imagine a more incredible effect than that.


airwalkrr wrote:
I still wish it didn't need to be a skill though. Requiring players to have a skill just to use a spell seems draconian.

In my campaign, it would be a blessed relief. Either way, there's got to be some way we can both be satisfied with it. It's a game rule, not world politics; the lack of a solution for both of us just means that our creativity is insufficient to the task, not that one can't be found.


Maybe you could remove the skill, but add a feat that gives you great flying ability.
Or add Fly to Acrobatics like our group is doing.


Gnome Ninja wrote:

Maybe you could remove the skill, but add a feat that gives you great flying ability.

Or add Fly to Acrobatics like our group is doing.

Requiring a feat to use potions of fly would be fine with me; a feat or a skill, either way is OK. It could be a bonus feat for natural flyers.

I know a lot of people advocate rolling it into acrobatics, but that just doesn't sit well with me. Realistically-speaking, I can tumble and jump, and have very good balance, but I also get airsick. Game mechanically, acrobatics is already verging on "too good," to my mind. I'd just like flying characters to somehow be an exception, rather than the default.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
In my campaign, it would be a blessed relief. Either way, there's got to be some way we can both be satisfied with it. It's a game rule, not world politics; the lack of a solution for both of us just means that our creativity is insufficient to the task, not that one can't be found.

Well, I rather like the idea of simply reducing the mobility class of fly spells since hitting the PCs with a nerf bat seems to the be the main idea behind implementing this skill in the first place. Of course, at that point I think we need to try to gauge whether the gamer community at large thinks such a change is necessary, then let everyone who doesn't like it house rule it. Either way, I will probably keep flying the way it was in 3.5. But I like Paizo products and will probably keep buying them so not only would I prefer to not have to house rule things, I think it would be in the community's best interest not to include the Fly skill in the core rules if there is not a significant demand for it. I don't think there is a significant demand for it. Maybe I am wrong, but this thread hasn't seemed to invite overwhelming support (although those that support it do tend to be arguing with me more, heh).

I would be happy if the skill were minimalized to the extent that I could ignore it in future Paizo publications without having to do significant conversion.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Requiring a feat to use potions of fly would be fine with me; a feat or a skill, either way is OK. It could be a bonus feat for natural flyers.

I know a lot of people advocate rolling it into acrobatics, but that just doesn't sit well with me. Realistically-speaking, I can tumble and jump, and have very good balance, but I also get airsick. Game mechanically, acrobatics is already verging on "too good," to my mind. I'd just like flying characters to somehow be an exception, rather than the default.

I agree with you completely. You know, this probably could be solved by simply reducing the maneuverability rating of spells then allowing PCs to take the Improved Flight feat (Draconomicon) that increases your maneuverability rating by 1. Good fix for those who think it is too easy for PCs to fly, easy to ignore for those who think 3.5 fly is fine.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Requiring a feat to use potions of fly would be fine with me; a feat or a skill, either way is OK. It could be a bonus feat for natural flyers.

I know a lot of people advocate rolling it into acrobatics, but that just doesn't sit well with me. Realistically-speaking, I can tumble and jump, and have very good balance, but I also get airsick. Game mechanically, acrobatics is already verging on "too good," to my mind. I'd just like flying characters to somehow be an exception, rather than the default.

Realistically, the skill is silly. 1st-level characters with a rank in Fly would imply they have practiced the skill. How? a Fighter could invest a rank in Fly...but how did he train? I can't imagine he can go around flying before even 1st level. Its' more plausible for a Wiz or Drd or Sor, but still, they can't even cast it when they can start "training." The whole idea of Fly as a skill is unrealistic.

As a feat that gives you more abilities, it would both be a bigger decision to be really good with flight and it would imply extensive training, not just investing in something so you'll be good with it later. It would be a one-time deal. I think that fly should still be decent without it, but with this, it becomes very good.


Gnome Ninja, you have made an excellent point. In fact, I am changing my mind on this one. Drop the fly skill. In fact, just stop tinkering with the skills.

1 to 50 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / Skills & Feats / Does anyone think there was a need for a Fly skill before Pathfinder? All Messageboards