|
Nope. It's not an action in of itself, it's NO action. The check is made as a part of whatever else you're doing that round, be it a full attack, or casting a spell, drinking a potion, or picking your nose.
I know it's not an action in and of itself. But you seem to be arguing that it doesn't impact your available actions at all. I don't believe that is correct, and while I respect your opinion that it was intended that way, I would like to hear something more concise from the devs themselves, because the level of strength, balance and concentration that hovering requires makes it seem unlikely that it should not be a tad more limiting than that.
If hovering were a specific action unto itself, it would have been stated as such. All other skills that have multiple applications and varying durations for each spell it out explicitly. This would have been done with the Fly skill if intended.
There have actually been a number of instances where the devs have admitted to errors of omission or vagueness, and I suspect that the Fly skill as it is currently worded is one of those cases. It has rendered some aspects of flight nonsensical and nonbelievable, and taken away a lot of the dynamics of maneuverability. I have a hard time believing that was intentional on the part of the devs.
You can't even say that it's a copy/paste error or artifact from 3.5 in this case because Paizo wrote the Fly skill themselves. RAW and RAI couldn't be clearer.
Au contraire, they could be considerably more clear. That's why we have a rules forum with threads like these! :)
Skill and Intelligence are only part of the equation. Physics still plays a role. That's why the Fly skill rules alone, without clarification from the maneuverability rules, are nonsensical. I don't care how intelligent an ancient red dragon is, I don't care how many years it has lived, I don't care that its magical (if the magic didn't improve its maneuverability any), I don't care how many ranks it invested in the Fly skill, I don't care what it rolls on the dice - it's not going to turn 180 degrees at full speed in the same amount of space as an eagle. I'm sorry, it isn't going to happen, no matter how many die-based gymastics you do with it. It isn't going to happen. That was why 3.5 made it impossible for a creature with a maneuverability of Clumsy to turn on a dime, because they understood that. I don't know if the Pathfinder devs just didn't take that into consideration, or if they left it out as an oversight, but the current Fly skill rules take a lot away from the dynamics and credulity of flight.
I total disagree with you on this.
Any creature that has HD and Intelligence, is going to be able to grow and advance. This also means that they would up their flying skill throw skill points, to compensate.
So as i understand it.
With Hover = Your not taking a move action, and can perform Full Round Actions.
When Not Hovering = You are taking a move action, and can take a standard action before or after your move.
When not Hovering = You still have to move 1/2 your fly speed, or You make a Fly check. If you fail the check you fall to the ground and take falling damage. If you Pass your fly check, you remain flying in the air.
Hover Feat = Lets you hover in the air without making a check. Without the feat you would have to make a DC 15 check to Hover. The advantage to the feat is that it lets you cast spells without worrying about failing a check, which may or may not cause disruption depending on if or if not you pass a concentration check.
Avoid Falling damage = Does not apply if you are falling because you failed a fly check or due to a collision.
.
(((While fly check is not an action. What people want to know is what kind of action is flying, so we can know what kind of action we can take while we are flying)).
.
Falling damage in past version was caped at 200 feet, as 20d6 was considered max damage from falling... Do not think there is a limit any more in Pathfinder so .... Ouch !!!
Anyway so far, this is my best Understanding.
|
|
Any creature that has HD and Intelligence, is going to be able to grow and advance. This also means that they would up their flying skill throw skill points, to compensate.
That's what I mean about skill and intelligence only being part of the equation. No amount of skill or knowledge is going to make the laws of physics suddenly stop working. You can put Evel Knievel in a semi truck, but its top speed on a curve still isn't going to match that of a motorcycle. It's simple physics. A dragon with 250 movement isn't going to double move 240 feet in one direction (almost 60 mph), spend ten feet to turn around, then move 250 feet back the other way in one round. But that's what the Fly skill says it can do if it rolls 7 or higher on the die.
I agree that a grown dragon can't do a 180 in the same space as an eagle. Why? Because the dragon itself fills the space of a hundred eagles.
Can they both do a 180 in their respective spaces? Hell yes (provided they make the check). The eagle gets it from natural agility. The dragon gets it through hard work and training.
The dragon is actually slightly better at it due to his higher fly speed and higher fly modifier. If this truly upsets you, there is nothing preventing you from taking all the ranks out of the fly skill and putting them elsewhere.
The only thing your inability to imagine such a thing as a dragon making a 180 is indicative of, is your lack of an imagination.
|
|
I agree that a grown dragon can't do a 180 in the same space as an eagle. Why? Because the dragon itself fills the space of a hundred eagles.
Can they both do a 180 in their respective spaces? Hell yes (provided they make the check). The eagle gets it from natural agility. The dragon gets it through hard work and training.
The dragon is actually slightly better at it due to his higher fly speed and higher fly modifier. If this truly upsets you, there is nothing preventing you from taking all the ranks out of the fly skill and putting them elsewhere.
The only thing your inability to imagine such a thing as a dragon making a 180 is indicative of, is your lack of an imagination.
I didn't say that it can't make a 180. I said it can't do it in a 10' space. And if it indicates my lack of imagination, then the writers of 3.5 had the same lack, because they actually wrote that into the rules, dude. They understood what some of you clearly do not.
I would like to know how this works in Pathfinder. As this is the Rules thread for the Pathfinder Game.
D&D 3.5 is no longer supported by WotC, so i no longer use that game. This tread can not answer question about Pathfinder, if you keep pulling up 3.5 rules, and trying to mix the two together, when pathfinder has changed the rules.
While Pathfinder tries to be backward compatible in the general sense, this is not true were they have changed the rules, come up with new rules, or modified the rules from the original game.
The way i see it, you have two option
1) Use the 3.5 rules of fly as listed in the 3.5 game system.
2) Ask question, and try to learn the Fly rules for Pathfinder game system
While the two system are similar, they are not exactly a like. So you will need to pick one or the other.
|
|
I would like to know how this works in Pathfinder. As this is the Rules thread for the Pathfinder Game.
D&D 3.5 is no longer supported by WotC, so i no longer use that game. This tread can not answer question about Pathfinder, if you keep pulling up 3.5 rules, and trying to mix the two together, when pathfinder has changed the rules.
The jury is still out on whether the Fly skill is meant to be backwards compatible or not. Clearly, there are those on here who believe it is not. Unfortunately, none of them are developers, and none of them are offering me very convincing arguments.
While Pathfinder tries to be backward compatible in the general sense, this is not true were they have changed the rules, come up with new rules, or modified the rules from the original game.
The way i see it, you have two option
1) Use the 3.5 rules of fly as listed in the 3.5 game system.
2) Ask question, and try to learn the Fly rules for Pathfinder game system
There is also option 3) Use the Fly skill as presented in Pathfinder, but only when the flying character meets the prerequisites as set out in the 3.5 maneuverability rules, which is the one I prefer and have been using from the beginning, and the one which best serves the backward compatibility concept of the Pathfinder game (the protests of Pathfinder purists notwithstanding).
I didn't say that it can't make a 180. I said it can't do it in a 10' space.
What brought on the 10' space? Just because it eats up 10' of movement doesn't mean they are actually flipping in 10'.
If anything, I think the entire maneuver is performed within their personal space.
A 15x15' dragon essentially flips within his own 15x15' space just as easily (or more easily, see above) as an eagle does so within their 5x5; space.
Please note, however, that this applies only to creatures that have the Flight special ability. Looking through the Bestiary, no winged creatures have this ability, and it seems to be limited mostly to things like demons and certain outsiders that achieve flight through means other than wings.Flight (Ex or Su) A creature with this ability can cease or resume flight as a free action. If the ability is supernatural, it becomes ineffective in an antimagic field, and the creature loses its ability to fly for as long as the antimagic effect persists.
Format: fly 30 ft. (average); Location: Speed.
Look again at the Format/Location line, as that line says exactly how this ability is shown in a stat block. Every creature with a fly skill has this ability, either as (Ex) when it flies with wings, or as (Su) when if flies magically. There is no need to refer to a flight ability anywhere else (e.g. on the SQ line).
Also, I don't think you understand what backwards compatibility means. According to your interpretation, it would also mean, for example, that you were supposed to use Pathfinder combat maneuvers in conjunction with 3.5 grapple rules, and that just makes no sense. Those, like the Fly skill, are completely new rules, and they are supposed to completely replace the original 3.5 rules. Backwards compatibility means that you can easily fit these new rules onto adventures or source books written for 3.5.
|
|
Look again at the Format/Location line, as that line says exactly how this ability is shown in a stat block. Every creature with a fly skill has this ability, either as (Ex) when it flies with wings, or as (Su) when if flies magically. There is no need to refer to a flight ability anywhere else (e.g. on the SQ line).
The only problem with that theory is that they do refer to it on the SQ line in several creature entries.
Also, I don't think you understand what backwards compatibility means. According to your interpretation, it would also mean, for example, that you were supposed to use Pathfinder combat maneuvers in conjunction with 3.5 grapple rules, and that just makes no sense. Those, like the Fly skill, are completely new rules, and they are supposed to completely replace the original 3.5 rules. Backwards compatibility means that you can easily fit these new rules onto adventures or source books written for 3.5.
You are entitled to that opinion, though I disagree with it. Furthermore, I don't interpret backwards compatability as meaning you are supposed to refer back to 3.5 in situations where the Pathfinder rules are vague, insufficient or incomplete, but simply that there is nothing wrong with doing so (versus the purists on here who cry foul at the very suggestion that the 3.5 rules might bring a little clarity to the sometimes severely truncated new rules in Pathfinder).
|
|
I didn't say that it can't make a 180. I said it can't do it in a 10' space.What brought on the 10' space? Just because it eats up 10' of movement doesn't mean they are actually flipping in 10'.
If anything, I think the entire maneuver is performed within their personal space.
A 15x15' dragon essentially flips within his own 15x15' space just as easily (or more easily, see above) as an eagle does so within their 5x5; space.
You're entitled to believe whatever you wish. If you choose to believe that the laws of physics should be rejected in fantasy roleplay even in the case of mundane flight, that's your prerogative. I don't choose to share that belief. And it isn't really relevant, because I run my game the way I choose, and the purpose of this thread wasn't to discuss what dragons can and cannot do, but to determine if someone can make a full attack while hovering. The other is just a sidebar. For the record, my problem isn't with the notion of a dragon being able to turn within its own space (or within a 10' space), but rather with it being able to do so at top speed without losing more than 10' of speed (the equivalent of losing only about 2 mph over the total distance, which is where it becomes broken).
How does it cause it to be "broken?" Does it really do so much damage to your game that it "breaks it" and you must rule otherwise?
I don't believe that for a moment.
|
|
How does it cause it to be "broken?" Does it really do so much damage to your game that it "breaks it" and you must rule otherwise?
I don't believe that for a moment.
My group is pretty highbrow. Techies and college graduates, and they tend to prefer a more realistic playing style than some groups. So, yeah, silliness that defies the laws of physics without being explained away by magic, can break a game. Some people are fine with the notion that a 747 can bugs bunny to a stop four feet off the ground with air brakes, but my groups likes a bit more realism in their game. If you think my house rules are a little science heavy, you should see some of the other GMs I play with. Not everyone prefers the same playing style.
|
So as i understand it.
With Hover = Your not taking a move action, and can perform Full Round Actions. If you fail the check you fall to the ground and take falling damage. If you Pass your fly check, you remain hoving in the air.
there a good point
do you make the check before or after full round action?
You make a check to keep flying at the end of the round, if you didn't move half your speed or at all.
Action: None. A Fly check doesn't require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.
The latter part being applicable when damaged/colliding while flying, or while in mid-air and NOT moving at all, i.e. ´Hovering´ (which doesn´t meet the `requirement` to move more than half speed, and thus forces a check even though you may not be taking ANY actions).
|
|
Action: None. A Fly check doesn't require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.The latter part being applicable when damaged/colliding while flying, or while in mid-air and NOT moving at all, i.e. ´Hovering´ (which doesn´t meet the `requirement` to move more than half speed, and thus forces a check even though you may not be taking ANY actions).
I can see that. However, I still don't see hovering as being so second-nature to all flying creatures that it should just be able to be used willy-nilly without ever impacting the other actions in the round. As I mentioned earlier, in the real world, there are thousands of different kinds of flying creatures, but relatively few of them actually have the ability to hover in place (and most of those are insects). For now, I'm going to stick to my house rule that you can only hover if you have Average or better maneuverability, and you can only hover as part of a full attack if you have the ability to hover without a check, such as with the Hover feat or Good or better maneuverability (which even a clumsy creature can attain by taking multiple instances of the Improved Maneuverability feat - which I don't believe is available in Pathfinder resources, hence why it is a house rule and not merely a reinterpretation of PFRPG rules).
|
|
On the other hand, I could also see allowing a full round attack action with hover by requiring a hover check for each attack, not just one check for the entire action. That's not necessarily contrary to the RAW, and it brings hover closer to being as challenging to accomplish as it actually should be.
On the other hand, I could also see allowing a full round attack action with hover by requiring a hover check for each attack, not just one check for the entire action. That's not necessarily contrary to the RAW, and it brings hover closer to being as challenging to accomplish as it actually should be.
I hope you're decreasing the challenge rating of every monster you're nerfing in this manner (ie, everything with a fly speed and more than one attack).
You're making a change in the intended function of the rules for no real benefit aside from a misplaced sense of "reality". Hint: people can summon fire out of thin air that mysteriously doesn't find extra space to go into if it hits a barrier it can't destroy. Physics do not apply to Pathfinder.
|
|
Hint: people can summon fire out of thin air that mysteriously doesn't find extra space to go into if it hits a barrier it can't destroy. Physics do not apply to Pathfinder.
That's not entirely true. A fireball, for instance, will not move beyond its stated distance(it doesn't last enough to accomplish that, it's an instantaneous flash, then it's gone), but it will blast through an open doorway, and it will move around corners to fill. If you take a flamethrower to a wall with an open door, you'll see it will act the same way.
A fireball, for instance, will not move beyond its stated distance(it doesn't last enough to accomplish that, it's an instantaneous flash, then it's gone)
Grenades are instantaneous flashes, too, but if you set off a grenade in a 6" square metal box with an opening on one side, the blast WILL extend farther out of that one side (and with more force) than it would if you'd set off the grenade in a wide open space. Volumetric explosions, although required for realism and to support physics as we know it, are entirely ignored in Pathfinder. So are most other basic physics principles.
That's not entirely true. A fireball, for instance, will not move beyond its stated distance(it doesn't last enough to accomplish that, it's an instantaneous flash, then it's gone), but it will blast through an open doorway, and it will move around corners to fill. If you take a flamethrower to a wall with an open door, you'll see it will act the same way.
Incorrect. Fireball is a blast area spell, not a spread area effect. It will not "move around corners". Check out the rules for area effects in the Magic chapter of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
That's not entirely true. A fireball, for instance, will not move beyond its stated distance(it doesn't last enough to accomplish that, it's an instantaneous flash, then it's gone), but it will blast through an open doorway, and it will move around corners to fill. If you take a flamethrower to a wall with an open door, you'll see it will act the same way.Incorrect. Fireball is a blast area spell, not a spread area effect. It will not "move around corners". Check out the rules for area effects in the Magic chapter of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Fireball is a spread and will wrap around obstacles if they are within its area. Blasts don't exist in Pathfinder as they are a 4E mechanic.
|
|
That's not entirely true. A fireball, for instance, will not move beyond its stated distance(it doesn't last enough to accomplish that, it's an instantaneous flash, then it's gone), but it will blast through an open doorway, and it will move around corners to fill. If you take a flamethrower to a wall with an open door, you'll see it will act the same way.Incorrect. Fireball is a blast area spell, not a spread area effect. It will not "move around corners". Check out the rules for area effects in the Magic chapter of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
As RavingDork pointed out, fireball is a spread effect.
[u]Fireball[/u]
School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes
Grenades are instantaneous flashes, too, but if you set off a grenade in a 6" square metal box with an opening on one side, the blast WILL extend farther out of that one side (and with more force) than it would if you'd set off the grenade in a wide open space. Volumetric explosions, although required for realism and to support physics as we know it, are entirely ignored in Pathfinder. So are most other basic physics principles.
Unlike a grenade, though, a fireball's potential is almost entirely incendiary, whereas grenades have a concussive element to them. As the fireball description explicitly states, "The explosion creates almost no pressure." Although it does also say this: "If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does."
Of course, fireball isn't the only example of calling up magical fire from out of nowhere, so some of the other fire spells may support your example, but I didn't care to look up every fire spell just on the spur of the moment.
But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it isn't the rejection of physics itself that doesn't sit well with me sometimes - it is the rejection of physics without some kind of explanation (such as magic).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it isn't the rejection of physics itself that doesn't sit well with me sometimes - it is the rejection of physics without some kind of explanation (such as magic).
It's a DRAGON. By any application of physics it shouldn't be able to fly at all.
But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it isn't the rejection of physics itself that doesn't sit well with me sometimes - it is the rejection of physics without some kind of explanation (such as magic).It's a DRAGON. By any application of physics it shouldn't be able to fly at all.
Ever read Flight of Dragons? It's a book that explains how dragons could have existed and how they might have been able to do all their miraculous feats while obeying the laws of physics.
|
|
But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it isn't the rejection of physics itself that doesn't sit well with me sometimes - it is the rejection of physics without some kind of explanation (such as magic).It's a DRAGON. By any application of physics it shouldn't be able to fly at all.
I understand that. And that is what willful suspension of disbelief is all about. But the developers clearly didn't intend dragons to be as aerodynamic and dextrous in flight as, say, a bird, or else they would have upped their maneuverability rating a few steps and explained it away as the result of the dragon's magical nature. But they didn't do that, they left them as clumsy as any normal creature of their size.
Ever read Flight of Dragons? It's a book that explains how dragons could have existed and how they might have been able to do all their miraculous feats while obeying the laws of physics.But as I mentioned earlier in the thread, it isn't the rejection of physics itself that doesn't sit well with me sometimes - it is the rejection of physics without some kind of explanation (such as magic).It's a DRAGON. By any application of physics it shouldn't be able to fly at all.
I haven't, but if this summary is accurate, it sounds like that for Dragons to be 'realistic', they would indeed be able to pull off all the acrobatic feats that birds can. Near-weightlessness, hollow bones, etc.
I understand that. And that is what willful suspension of disbelief is all about. But the developers clearly didn't intend dragons to be as aerodynamic and dextrous in flight as, say, a bird, or else they would have upped their maneuverability rating a few steps and explained it away as the result of the dragon's magical nature. But they didn't do that, they left them as clumsy as any normal creature of their size.
But here's the thing. They're NOT as aerodynamic and dextrous as birds. As I've demonstrated in the exact numbers given above. They are however able to fly better than one would expect through the application of sheer skill. Real life pilots vary widely in skill and experience, and the really good ones can do things with big planes that you'd never expect (remember Sully?) from such a 'clumsy' aircraft. Had the designers intended Dragons to be clumsy fliers, unable to do much more than fly straight and turn in big swooping arcs, they wouldn't have as many ranks in Fly.
The Fly skill works exactly as intended. It just doesn't work with your preconceived notions.
I can maybe see the argument that it is a non-action for creatures that fly by means other than wings and have the flight special ability (which winged creatures do not) that allows flight to be initiated or ended as a free action.
All creatures with flight speed have the flight ability. Whether or not they have wings has nothing to do with it. I would have thought this relatively obvious. After all, it tells you specifically that it shows up in under the movement line as "fly # feet (maneuverability)." It is only mentioned outright in non-winged creatures' entries, because it wouldn't be obvious that they could fly at all otherwise.
I can start flying in place as a free action. It doesn't take a move action until I leave my square.
Therefore, starting or stopping flying (and be extension, hovering) is a free action, and therefore cannot be done when dazed or stunned.
For example: I am standing on the ground. I start flying (free action), move 30 feet to my enemy (move action), and attack (standard action). In the next round, I make a fly check to hover (non-action), and make a full attack action against my foe (full round action). Having vanquished my foe, I stop flying and drop 5 feet (free action) and teabag his corpse in celebratory victory.
It's that easy.
The FLY skill clearly states that use of the FLY skill is either as a REACTION or as part of a MOVE action.
Um, actually...
Check: You generally need only make a Fly check when you are attempting a complex maneuver. Without making a check, a flying creature can remain flying at the end of its turn so long as it moves a distance greater than half its speed.
Action: None. A Fly check doesn't require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation.
The fly skill clearly states that it is not an action. Ever. It's not an either/or thing. It's just not an action, ever.
HOVERing is clearly not a reaction, so therefore it is a MOVE. It is a flight maneuver (just like sharp turns) and requires some amount of concentration and coordination on the part of the flyer.
Hovering is a reaction. It is a reaction to "Not moving during your turn." That's exactly what it's there for.
By the same token, there is a (slightly easier) check for "Moving less than half your speed during your turn." That's also a reaction.
The ones that would be considered part of a move are the actual ones taken during movement. Such as turning more than 45 degrees, turning 180 degrees, or flying upwards more steeply than 45 degrees. All of these are done as part of a movement but the flight check is still not eating up an extra action in any way. The check is, as the Action part above mentions, made as part of the movement, but does not take any action in and of itself.
In short, flight maneuvers never take actions, no matter what you're doing. Whether you happen to be moving at the same time is incidental. You will never spend an action on any of the maneuvers listed on the flight table. They will either be part of another action (such as an actual move action to... move somewhere), or they'll be a reaction (not meeting the usual criteria for staying aloft - such as hovering).
HOVERing is not a reaction. Making a FLY check to stay airborne after being damaged, a midair collision, or negating falling damage are examples of reactions. If you look at the fly skill in the core rulebook, HOVER is listed with the MANEUVERs (p.96 core rulebook). Mid-Air collisions, Reducing falling damage, and staying aloft after taking damage are not listed with the maneuvers because they are reactions
If you'd really like to call it a maneuver, that's fine. But it is still not an action of any sort, nor is it being done as part of another action. It is a reaction to the fact that you are not doing what Flight normally requires to avoid a check, that is, flying more than half of your speed on your turn.
Are you actually using a move action while you do it? Are you actually, physically, moving from one location to another? Because that's what a move action does for you, and that's not what you're doing, because that's exactly what hovering is there to not do.
Again, look at the Action associated with the Fly skill. None. There is never an action for Fly checks, but that's exactly what you're arguing - that, in order to hover, you need to spend some kind of action to do it. I get that you're saying you need to do it as 'part' of something else, but there's no other actions going on. Hover specifically means that there are no other actions going on.
As an example, what would you say if someone wanted to delay their turn? If they were literally taking no actions whatsoever, and were just hovering? By your logic here, you're saying they need to make some kind of action to do this, but Fly specifically states that you don't ever need to do that. So yeah, hovering is basically a reaction to "not flying normally."
There's no way HOVERing is a reaction. HOVERing is something you actively do just like treading water in a pool, its not in response to someone else's action or some unexpected danger; you actively choose to flap/swim in place. Just like in a pool, your "MOVE" action is to tread water or hover in place. If you stop flapping your wings or swimming your arms then you immediately sink/fall, so your MOVE action is the purposeful intent to resist gravity pulling you down even thoug you arent moving squares on the map.
This is all reiteration that you're saying Hovering is an action of some sort. That you need to actively spend some form of actions to Hover. I'll say it one more time: Flight checks and any maneuvers associated with them are never, EVER actions. They may be made as reactions or as part of other actions, but they are not ever actions on their own. This is extremely explicit in the skill description, so if you don't want to believe that, then I'm really not sure what else to tell you...
I guess, here's one last point. I'm still calling it a reaction to not flying normally, but if you really want to argue that it needs to be done as part of another action, let's go back to idea of Hovering in order to full attack. Why can you not make this Hover check as part of your full attack action? Why, again, are you arguing that you need to spend specific actions, such as a Move action, on something that explicitly states you never need to spend actions on it?
Edit: Man, I feel like I needed to italicize heavily in that. I even went with an all-caps'd word :/
If HOVER is a reaction, then I could push a surprised winged creature off a 20 foot cliff and he could make a HOVER check before he hit the ground even though it wasn't his turn, which makes no sense.
This is a weird comparison. You don't get to choose what form of reaction you take. That's like saying you can react to "Avoid collision damage," when you're in the middle of high wind speeds (with nothing else around, that is).
He could try and "reduce falling damage" because it is a reaction though, but HOVER is not a reaction.
Right... because it's a reaction to falling. That's exactly what it's there for. That's not what Hover is meant for.
You are caught up in the idea that you must be actively moving squares to take a movement action, which is not true.
And you're caught up in the fact that you need to take any actions at all. Which, as I said, doesn't really get much simpler than "No, you don't." Which is exactly what Fly says for all of its uses.
There's actually an easy solution: Paizo can get off their ass and simply indicate which uses are REACTIONS and which uses are part of another action.
Yeah, I guess that's an easy solution.
Of course, there's also the easier solution that it doesn't matter because you never need to spend an action on fly checks. Ever. There's really not much that needs to be clarified here.
There's actually an easy solution: Paizo can get off their ass and simply indicate which uses are REACTIONS and which uses are part of another action.
Your attitude and phrasing is exactly the opposite of anything that would encourage a reasonable person (such as myself) to provide you with answers to your questions.