Why a special skill for flying?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I'm just wondering why there is a special skill for flying. Unless you are an Avariel (Winged Elf) or a really powerful mage, I just don't see the need.


Ever sat through a two hour trigonometry argument about whether or not the dragon that's attacking your party can actually do something? I have. I *love* the new fly skill.

Dark Archive

Calamari wrote:
I'm just wondering why there is a special skill for flying. Unless you are an Avariel (Winged Elf) or a really powerful mage, I just don't see the need.

Because it didn't make sense that someone who has never flown before would know how to fly with utter perfection, despite that lack of skill.

If you've ever gone skydiving or even swimming underwater you understand it takes some effort to figure out how to effortlessly get your body into the position it needs to be.

And remember, uber powerful wizards can cast said fly spells on things like the party tank.

He would need them as well....

Shadow Lodge

But it makes sense that someone that has never flown before, say a 1st level wizard has some special training?

I'm not a fan of it, but it's not a huge deal. To me, it really seems like a change just to have PF be different from 3E.


Beckett wrote:

But it makes sense that someone that has never flown before, say a 1st level wizard has some special training?

Who says the training received to become a 1st level wizard didn't include having a fly spell cast on them or use of an item granting flight so they could understand the basic concepts of how flying works.

Shadow Lodge

It's possible, I just think one makes as much sense as the other. But what about the 10th level Diviner that has never flown before, but yet has max ranks?


I like the fly skill as it works really, though it is a skill that sees rare use, I personally dont mind having a good list of skills to use provided they can actually add something notable beyond roleplaying benefit. It takes a tiny ammount of space in the book and it gives some interesting guidelines and basic rules for flying, it prolly could use some synergy with acrobatics though.


Beckett wrote:
It's possible, I just think one makes as much sense as the other. But what about the 10th level Diviner that has never flown before, but yet has max ranks?

I assume that wouldn't be the case given you can't put ranks in Fly if you don't have some ready access to something that lets you fly. I assume that if you are putting ranks in that skill, that you are using that ability to fly to train.

From my perspective the fly skill was added to replace the previous table in 3.5 that granted some bonus or penalty to each level of your maneuverability rating. By switching it over to a skill, all creatures now use the same rules for flying without the necessity of needing a table to tell you if you can hover or not. I'm hoping that this shift ends up with flying (in general) being easier to apply in games.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Calamari wrote:
I'm just wondering why there is a special skill for flying. Unless you are an Avariel (Winged Elf) or a really powerful mage, I just don't see the need.

The inclusion of the fly skill was debated hotly during the playtesting. I don't see the need for it either.

Dark Archive

I see this as an either / or thing.

Either there should be a Fly, Climb, Jump, Swim skill, and then there should (also) be skills for Run and Burrow movement types, or there shouldn't necessarily be any of these skills.

Shadow Lodge

I agree. As for fly, what I coulod really see being a good choice is to make the Fly skill an alternate version of Ride, for flying mounts. As is, I just don't really care for it.

Contributor

Ride also includes flying mounts, and for that matter, I think it would include swimming ones--you'd certainly use the Ride skill to ride a dolphin, assuming you had one (which is easily option for druids).

It should also be remembered that this is the skill for doing tricky maneuvers, not just regular flying.

It's been said elsewhere that creatures that have the ability to move through stone do so as if they were swimming through the earth, so I'd just use Swim for them too. And in astral space, assuming you're using that, Fly seems a perfectly reasonable skill there too.

There aren't special skills listed for Skating or Skiing, though reasonably there should be, following the same logic--though as with Fly, you should also get some bonus for ranks in Acrobatics.

Dark Archive

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
It's been said elsewhere that creatures that have the ability to move through stone do so as if they were swimming through the earth, so I'd just use Swim for them too.

That's a decent point that I hadn't really thought of. I first noticed the movement types / skills thing when I was writing up dragon-descended kobolds with some racial skill bonuses based on their chromatic heritage. The black and greens and whites could easily get a +X to Swim checks, but the burrowing / tunneling stuff didn't flow as well, and giving those particular wyrmkin +X to Profession (miner) or whatever just didn't seem to cut it. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Beckett wrote:
It's possible, I just think one makes as much sense as the other. But what about the 10th level Diviner that has never flown before, but yet has max ranks?

Then he shouldn't unless he at least has access to the Fly spell. Or at the very least does not receive the class skill bonus until that happens.

Liberty's Edge

There seem to be a lot more opportunities for characters to fly under their own power now, so I am glad for the skill. So many sorcerer bloodlines now grant wings or flight ability, and winged magic items also provide flight. It is relatively easy to just simply fly provided a character has the means, but tight spaces, quick turns, and loop-de-loops require a little bit more skill, as the Qadiran flying carpet racers will likely tell you.

Contributor

From the description of the Fly skill:
"You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other special ability)."

This prevents the diviner 10 from suddenly being a master of the Fly skill when he learns the fly spell.


Flying isn't simply a matter of Acrobatics or Jumping without landing - manuevering in flight has a whole different type of inertia, you have to learn how to orient yourself in three open dimensions, and how to move without anything but air to push against. Learning the fly skill as part of generating a character would indicate that your character took the aerial equivalent of a scuba-diving class and xx hours of training before being allowed to do it unsupervised. If it's happening /after/ character generation, then it most assuredly should be roleplayed out - finding a teacher, developing a method of training, etc.

Having a Fly skill simplifies the process of aerial encounters immensely. A very nimble creature or person in the air would have a high fly skill, a flying brick would have a low one, and that's really all there is to worry about, instead of "Well, this is size L and Flight Class B, so it can do this and this..." "Yeah, but these factors lead to the same results, does that make any sense?" "No, but if you consider this...." discussions that do nothing but bog down gameplay.


Lyingbastard wrote:

Flying isn't simply a matter of Acrobatics or Jumping without landing - manuevering in flight has a whole different type of inertia, you have to learn how to orient yourself in three open dimensions, and how to move without anything but air to push against. Learning the fly skill as part of generating a character would indicate that your character took the aerial equivalent of a scuba-diving class and xx hours of training before being allowed to do it unsupervised. If it's happening /after/ character generation, then it most assuredly should be roleplayed out - finding a teacher, developing a method of training, etc.

Having a Fly skill simplifies the process of aerial encounters immensely. A very nimble creature or person in the air would have a high fly skill, a flying brick would have a low one, and that's really all there is to worry about, instead of "Well, this is size L and Flight Class B, so it can do this and this..." "Yeah, but these factors lead to the same results, does that make any sense?" "No, but if you consider this...." discussions that do nothing but bog down gameplay.

I like it, too. High-level characters are pretty likely to have some way to fly, and instead of arguing about whether or not you can pull off some maneuver, it boils down to:

Player: Can I fly past the giant, right up to the wall of fire, then go straight up?

GM: You can try. Roll a fly check. No, wait. Roll two fly checks.

Easy-peazy!


From a DMs perspective, I love the Fly skill. I hate it when the tank drinks a Fly potions and goes and cuts the Wizard down. Now they'll likely get blasted and fall out of the sky. It's much more dangerous for those not trained.


I like it because it nails down the rules for flying creatures into an easy to reference place, and uses a part of the system we already know back to front.

Fly movement was tucked away in a rarely referenced part of the book, with special rules that were practically completely exception based.

Now it's in the skill section, and (just like swim) racial bonuses are applied for those that have flying naturally.

It's just nice to have consistent rules for things like this. And while flight might not have been that frequent in past games, it's likely it was because the flight rules are squidgy, and avoided on purpose.
Now we can have more common flight in our games, with easier to understand and reference rules.

Shadow Lodge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

From the description of the Fly skill:

"You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other special ability)."

This prevents the diviner 10 from suddenly being a master of the Fly skill when he learns the fly spell.

Not trying to be difficult, I took it to mean that said Diviner had Levitate and Fly, just never ued them, but did want to keep them trained for later. I could even see Mage Hand being a reasonable excuss for learning to fly (skill). Anyway, bad example.


I like the skill. I have one playable race with wings, so it helps a lot.

Hell, now I can even put some monsters who fly and have half-decent rules to use with it.

The skill seems odd, but actually it does help a lot to try some flying battles. Plus, the player of the winged race loves it.


Kaisoku wrote:

I like it because it nails down the rules for flying creatures into an easy to reference place, and uses a part of the system we already know back to front.

Fly movement was tucked away in a rarely referenced part of the book, with special rules that were practically completely exception based.

Now it's in the skill section, and (just like swim) racial bonuses are applied for those that have flying naturally.

It's just nice to have consistent rules for things like this. And while flight might not have been that frequent in past games, it's likely it was because the flight rules are squidgy, and avoided on purpose.
Now we can have more common flight in our games, with easier to understand and reference rules.

I used to play quite a few Avariels, and the 3.5 fly system still kinda confuses me, especially when you threw in the special flying feats like Hover and such.

It seems based on the old 2nd edition fly rules, if I'm remembering them right.

The new fly skill is much easier to understand, and does seem more logical to me. I mean, a you put on winged boots and suddenly you've got an average maneuverability rating? I would think the first time you put those boots on, you'd try to take off, and your feet would go up while your head fell down, since you're so top heavy. It definitely takes skill to know how to maneuver, or even fly at all, effectively. Baby birds keep testing their wings out until they figure it out, they can't fly from the moment they have flight feathers.

Dark Archive Contributor

Beckett wrote:
It's possible, I just think one makes as much sense as the other. But what about the 10th level Diviner that has never flown before, but yet has max ranks?

What about the cleric with 10 ranks in Profession: Bookkeeper, even though he has never done any accounting?

Dark Archive Contributor

Beckett wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

From the description of the Fly skill:

"You cannot take ranks in this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other special ability)."

This prevents the diviner 10 from suddenly being a master of the Fly skill when he learns the fly spell.

Not trying to be difficult, I took it to mean that said Diviner had Levitate and Fly, just never ued them, but did want to keep them trained for later. I could even see Mage Hand being a reasonable excuss for learning to fly (skill). Anyway, bad example.

Sorry missed that. Same response.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Also, you can now have "Greatest American Hero" moments, with the hero careening all over the place.

Shadow Lodge

ChrisRevocateur wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:

I like it because it nails down the rules for flying creatures into an easy to reference place, and uses a part of the system we already know back to front.

. . .

It's just nice to have consistent rules for things like this. And while flight might not have been that frequent in past games, it's likely it was because the flight rules are squidgy, and avoided on purpose.
Now we can have more common flight in our games, with easier to understand and reference rules.

I used to play quite a few Avariels, and the 3.5 fly system still kinda confuses me, especially when you threw in the special flying feats like Hover and such.

See, I'm on the opposite on this. I think the 3E version was much simpler. You either could or could not do something, based on your manuverability rating. I think the real problem came with books like Draconomicon and Races of the Dragon (might be the wrong Dragon book). Draconomicon was the most messed up 3.5 I've ever seen and basically anything that's not fluff needs a complete errata (much was literally cut and pasted from 3.0 sources and no longer worked that way at all), while Races introduced a bunch of rules and feats that blatantly contradicted the Rules in the DMG, such as introducing feats to fly in Medium and Heavy armor, (which you could already do freely).


This is an interesting skill to have. Most parties can often fly once they hit the mid-levels. This adds a touch of realism to the game where in previous editions it was lacking. My dm actually had a similar houserule in his games. He didnt have a flyskill per se but a character who had never flown before had penalties assigned until he could adjust to the new environment. So we as Pcs would have to train during our off time for X amount of time before we could be effective flyers.

What I find interesting is the pcs unless they have a magic item or wings at low levels will not be able to have access to the fly skill. So the earliest possible time for a wizard to take ranks in the fly skill would be level 5.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Beckett wrote:


Not trying to be difficult, I took it to mean that said Diviner had Levitate and Fly, just never ued them, but did want to keep them trained for later. I could even see Mage Hand being a reasonable excuse for learning to fly (skill). Anyway, bad example.

Just never used them... in the context of an adventure played out by his puppetmaster the player. But I would take the maxed ranks to indicate that he does, indeed, use his fly spell in downtime.


I was very opposed to this skill when I first heard about it. Upon reviewing the actual rule, I have changed my mind. It is quite nice to have a single set of rules to remember for all flying creatures, and have the skill for stunt resolution without looking up the rules each time.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Beckett wrote:


Not trying to be difficult, I took it to mean that said Diviner had Levitate and Fly, just never ued them, but did want to keep them trained for later. I could even see Mage Hand being a reasonable excuse for learning to fly (skill). Anyway, bad example.
Just never used them... in the context of an adventure played out by his puppetmaster the player. But I would take the maxed ranks to indicate that he does, indeed, use his fly spell in downtime.

I was going to comment on that, but Bill here said exactly what I was going to say.

Really, you could have the same argument for anyone suddenly dumping a ton of skillpoints into any skill that they've never actually used in play yet. Fly at least brings in some realism with requiring actually having the ability to fly to put ranks into it.
That's about all you need to bring Flight skill in line with pretty much any other ability in the game (pick it up as you go, ret-con the actually "learning" during the non-detailed downtime).


Beckett wrote:
ChrisRevocateur wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:

I like it because it nails down the rules for flying creatures into an easy to reference place, and uses a part of the system we already know back to front.

. . .

It's just nice to have consistent rules for things like this. And while flight might not have been that frequent in past games, it's likely it was because the flight rules are squidgy, and avoided on purpose.
Now we can have more common flight in our games, with easier to understand and reference rules.

I used to play quite a few Avariels, and the 3.5 fly system still kinda confuses me, especially when you threw in the special flying feats like Hover and such.

See, I'm on the opposite on this. I think the 3E version was much simpler. You either could or could not do something, based on your manuverability rating. I think the real problem came with books like Draconomicon and Races of the Dragon (might be the wrong Dragon book). Draconomicon was the most messed up 3.5 I've ever seen and basically anything that's not fluff needs a complete errata (much was literally cut and pasted from 3.0 sources and no longer worked that way at all), while Races introduced a bunch of rules and feats that blatantly contradicted the Rules in the DMG, such as introducing feats to fly in Medium and Heavy armor, (which you could already do freely).

That's what I meant by the special flying feats making it really confusing.

Are you SURE you could fly in medium and heavy armor? I thought it was similar to the fact that you couldn't fly with more then a light load.


Here's what I mean about the problems with Flying in 3.5e:

- It's buried in the Carrying, Movement and Exploration rules. How often do you go there to reference something? So when the DM pulls out his big Dragon fight, there's a bit of excitement lost when he's going "Okay, he does a flyby and.. hold on... how much movement did that cost.. wait a second, where is the rules for clumsy maneuverability again? I never use the appendix, where is the flying rules anyways..."
It's found under "Moving in Three Dimensions -> Tactical Aerial Movement" by the by. Which is exactly the words the DM has in his head when he's trying to find it... not, you know, FLY or MANEUVERABILITY.

- It has a different rule for each category. Want to turn around and do a flyby? Okay... well, whether it's even possible in the space provided depends on the individual category (hard limits), and having 5 categories simply means having 5 sets of exception cases for a dozen factors of flying to remember.
So if you have a couple creatures and they each have a different maneuverability class, I can guarantee the DM is going to feel like he's in the spotlight juggling each time it gets to one of those creatures moving.
Benny Hill music would be appropriate.

.
On the flipside, the Fly skill is in the SKILL section. This means it's up front in a commonly referenced section, under a name you will have in your head when looking for said rule.

Additionally, having every action treated the same with every person, and just giving a bonus or penalty based on maneuverability, makes it so you can learn the rules once, and then just roll for success with the appropriate bonuses.

.

While an individual might not have a problem with memorizing 5 categories of 12 factors and just going with it, that doesn't make the rule good. It was just "good enough" for that individual.

A good rule is one that gets the job done the most discreetly possible, with the least amount of compromise.
Maybe that's just my computer programming training coming into play here, but it's how most RPGs are designed and refined.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Kaisoku wrote:

Here's what I mean about the problems with Flying in 3.5e:

<stuff>

A good rule is one that gets the job done the most discreetly possible, with the least amount of compromise.
Maybe that's just my computer...

well put


Kaisoku wrote:

Here's what I mean about the problems with Flying in 3.5e:

Stuff

What he said.


Kaisoku wrote:

A good rule is one that gets the job done the most discreetly possible, with the least amount of compromise.

Quoted, and bolded for emphasis, just because I think alot of people (myself included at times) tend to forget it. Its a game, and while its roots may be rules heavy tactical combat simulation, its grown way past that, and most people (myself included) don't need a rule for every exception, as the rulebook at that point would be a collection of tomes (ever seen the shelf at a univeristy library just devoted to one branch of physics, its frigging HUGE...now imagine a ruelbook trying to sum all that up...in language the average person can understand) that would be rather unwieldy. Having Fly as a skill pretty much condenses down what used to be a section in the PHB, a section in the DMG, a section in the MM (eventually multiples) and some splatbook with the expanded versions and explanations down into one, neat easy part of the skills section. And they even did what they could to keep it simple, while elaving it open enough that when the truely weird happens, the DM can adjucate based on how s/he wants it in that instance, without having telling the resident rules lawyer to keep it to themselves.

Yeah, I love rules like that, I hope Paizo keeps that philosophy in mind as much as they can.

Shadow Lodge

ChrisRevocateur wrote:


Are you SURE you could fly in medium and heavy armor? I thought it was similar to the fact that you couldn't fly with more then a light load.

Sure. MM1 page 312 under Fly (on phone so will not type it all out)

"A Flying creature . . .if carrying no more than a light load, see page . . . (Note that medium armor does not necessarily constitute a medium load.) . . ."


I think they could have left this skill out of well.

1) Characters who have the spell should be good at it after awhile. Also, wizards don't need yet another skill drain.

2) Characters who are inexperienced with flying could have roleplayed their inexperience and DMs could come up with some rules on the spot.

3) The amount of times it will get used, it could have been left out. In my 30 years of DMing, I can think of maybe 1 time I could have used it.

This skill belongs wherever "Use Rope" went. I was really surprised to find that it survived Beta.


Jason S wrote:

I think they could have left this skill out of well.

1) Characters who have the spell should be good at it after awhile.

Sort of like "characters that do a lot of talking should be good at Diplomacy", and "characters that do a lot of disarming traps should be automatically good at it after a while"?

Measuring the effect of repeated practice at something is exactly what skill points are for.


Jason S wrote:

I think they could have left this skill out of well.

1) Characters who have the spell should be good at it after awhile. Also, wizards don't need yet another skill drain.

2) Characters who are inexperienced with flying could have roleplayed their inexperience and DMs could come up with some rules on the spot.

3) The amount of times it will get used, it could have been left out. In my 30 years of DMing, I can think of maybe 1 time I could have used it.

This skill belongs wherever "Use Rope" went. I was really surprised to find that it survived Beta.

Well they need something to make up for the lost concentation skill...

Well I can see your point on this and from a pc perspective I agree with you. However I remember with Overland flight there was some confusion in my group what can be done and what couldnt. My friend had this spell and there was arguements between the Dm and him on how it worked if you could hover and spellcast, and remain airborne. They worked something out between them. My friend had to tell the dm precisely how he was in the air when he casted the speccific spell. It got very confusing

Dark Archive

Frostflame wrote:
Well they need something to make up for the lost concentation skill...

That's a horrible rationalization for a good skill. I'm insulted you expected me to believe such a ruse.

Quote:
Well I can see your point on this and from a pc perspective I agree with you. However I remember with Overland flight there was some confusion in my group what can be done and what couldnt. My friend had this spell and there was arguements between the Dm and him on how it worked if you could hover and spellcast, and remain airborne. They worked something out between them. My friend had to tell the dm precisely how he was in the air when he casted the speccific spell. It got very confusing

THIS is why the fly skill was instituted. It brought all the rules together, created a situation where you could easily find them, and broke the mold of "big guys aren't agile".

Look at Draco in Dragon heart. He was HARDLY a clumsy flier, yet DnD 3.5 would have you believe he wasted 40 ft of movement, to wheel about. He could do some aerial maneuverability, and turning around could easily create issues for him, but if he had to flip about, he could.

Under the old rules, that isn't even possible.


Dissinger wrote:
Frostflame wrote:
Well they need something to make up for the lost concentation skill...

That's a horrible rationalization for a good skill. I'm insulted you expected me to believe such a ruse.

Quote:
Well I can see your point on this and from a pc perspective I agree with you. However I remember with Overland flight there was some confusion in my group what can be done and what couldnt. My friend had this spell and there was arguements between the Dm and him on how it worked if you could hover and spellcast, and remain airborne. They worked something out between them. My friend had to tell the dm precisely how he was in the air when he casted the speccific spell. It got very confusing

THIS is why the fly skill was instituted. It brought all the rules together, created a situation where you could easily find them, and broke the mold of "big guys aren't agile".

Look at Draco in Dragon heart. He was HARDLY a clumsy flier, yet DnD 3.5 would have you believe he wasted 40 ft of movement, to wheel about. He could do some aerial maneuverability, and turning around could easily create issues for him, but if he had to flip about, he could.

Under the old rules, that isn't even possible.

Please I was joking about that...

No it was a needed skill more for the aerial monsters than pcs. Alot of arguements broke out as to what an aerial creature could do and couldnt. Now Gms know exactly how much expeirence an aerial creature has in flying and what tricks it can do in the air. Dragons should be master flyers by all accounts


Dissinger wrote:

Look at Draco in Dragon heart. He was HARDLY a clumsy flier, yet DnD 3.5 would have you believe he wasted 40 ft of movement, to wheel about. He could do some aerial maneuverability, and turning around could easily create issues for him, but if he had to flip about, he could.

Under the old rules, that isn't even possible.

Better yet, if you've ever played to the videogame Drakengard (Drag-On Dragoon in Japan) from Square-Enix, you really know what kind of aerial dog-fight a Dragon is capable of...

Hardly easy to represent Angelus (Drakengard 1) and Legna (Drakengard 2) with the flying rules of 3.x ...

Shadow Lodge

Frostflame wrote:
Alot of arguements broke out as to what an aerial creature could do and couldnt. Now Gms know exactly how much expeirence an aerial creature has in flying and what tricks it can do in the air.

Thats not really true, though. The Flying rules are basicly in two places in 3.5, Monster Manual (Glosery under Movement types) and DMG (Under Movement). Both are pretty straight forward and direct.

Frostflame wrote:
Dragons should be master flyers by all accounts

If you mean just barely able to stay in the air, but probably not pull of much manuvers, sure. Now a few (mostly metalic and oriental) I can see being agile, maybe.

Dark Archive

Beckett wrote:
Frostflame wrote:
Alot of arguements broke out as to what an aerial creature could do and couldnt. Now Gms know exactly how much expeirence an aerial creature has in flying and what tricks it can do in the air.

Thats not really true, though. The Flying rules are basicly in two places in 3.5, Monster Manual (Glosery under Movement types) and DMG (Under Movement). Both are pretty straight forward and direct.

Frostflame wrote:
Dragons should be master flyers by all accounts
If you mean just barely able to stay in the air, but probably not pull of much manuvers, sure. Now a few (mostly metalic and oriental) I can see being agile, maybe.

One of the problems, was that the rules don't take that into account at all. A Colossal dragon that should be maneuverable couldn't be because the rules for sizes moving in flight was set in stone. This is why such a rule was set in place.

And really if it takes you more than a book to nail down a SINGLE rule set, you need to learn to coalesce the information into one place, even if you decide to print it twice.

Shadow Lodge

Dissinger wrote:
One of the problems, was that the rules don't take that into account at all. A Colossal dragon that should be maneuverable couldn't be because the rules for sizes moving in flight was set in stone. This is why such a rule was set in place.

What I mean, I don't think a Colossal Dragon should be Manuverable. With the exceptions of maybe hatchlings, I think a Dragon, (with max ranks and skill focus now) should be struggling to do anything but fly from A to B. :)

Dissinger wrote:


And really if it takes you more than a book to nail down a SINGLE rule set, you need to learn to coalesce the information into one place, even if you decide to print it twice.

DMG pretty much says "you can fly with a Light Load only, and flying follows all the normal rules for movement See MM for rules."

It is smaller and more direct than the PF Fly Skill.

Dark Archive

Beckett wrote:
Dissinger wrote:
One of the problems, was that the rules don't take that into account at all. A Colossal dragon that should be maneuverable couldn't be because the rules for sizes moving in flight was set in stone. This is why such a rule was set in place.

What I mean, I don't think a Colossal Dragon should be Manuverable. With the exceptions of maybe hatchlings, I think a Dragon, (with max ranks and skill focus now) should be struggling to do anything but fly from A to B. :)

Dissinger wrote:


And really if it takes you more than a book to nail down a SINGLE rule set, you need to learn to coalesce the information into one place, even if you decide to print it twice.

DMG pretty much says "you can fly with a Light Load only, and flying follows all the normal rules for movement See MM for rules."

It is smaller and more direct than the PF Fly Skill.

What if I bought the DMG hoping to get all I needed to run a game, and then find out I need yet another book? What if I can't afford the monsters manual? Just because the game is designed to use a trilogy of books and nothing else doesn't mean that I'm going to sit there and buy all three. Maybe when I have the funds eventually I'll get them, but its ludicrous to split the rules up, just to make money.

Especially after how players reacted to the "blue books" in 2e. They bought the DMG and kept the 1e guide simply to avoid having to buy them all. Either make a comprehensive book that includes all the rules in one easy to find area, or don't include them at all in the book.

Forcing me to dig through book X to find rule Y only to get referenced to book Z is frustrating and time consuming. I should not need to have a table next to me just for my books while I GM a game.


I would actually be surprised if the rules are used much in most home games. I think most people are just going to ignore it, and flying creatures are going to fly without worry about a skill.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why a special skill for flying? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.