What happens to the Fly spell if you get paralized


Rules Questions

301 to 328 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yay! There are 128 more posts since last night, and literally no progress has been made by either side of the arguement! I think it might be time for some folks to FAQ and move on.

EDIT: 130.


Well we are making progress, Forseti seems to acknowledge that wording that functionally describes an action, can in fact allow for that action.

Levitate, he says, uses a mental action, which I agree with 100%.

The wording does NOT use the phrase 'mental action' though, it says you can 'mentally direct' it, and that it requires a move action.

So we have taken a step in the right direction there.

Now we just have to get people to realize that when the Fly spell states within its own text that it only needs as much concentration as walking, that we can treat it the same as Levitate.

Neither one uses the terminology 'mental action', but both clearly describe it in different words.

Why is one acceptable and not the other?

As for the topic of moving, and how paralysis affects it...
If we use the broad brush approach of saying that 'Paralyze' prevents all movement then we are faced with a situation where poisoning someone makes them immune to bullrush, and if they are on a cart, suddenly they aren't.

Of course, they can't fall to the ground, because that would involve movement.

That doesn't seem too logical to me, but apparently a valid argument against a magical spell being able to allow you to move.

Fly does not grant you a fly speed. It gives you the ability to fly at a speed of 60 feet (or less if encumbered)-if we are going to examine this at the microscopic level, then this distinction is going to have to be recognized.

So.

60 feet worth of movement that is something you can use with concentration (again, use the english meaning of the word, as it clearly isn't a reference to a spell duration, stop trying to make it that).

Levitate has been acknowledged as something that can use the actions allowed by the paralyzed condition, despite not having text to support this (but it was close enough to slip by somehow, and I agree wholeheartedly with this reading of the rules), so lets grant Fly the same courtesy and use it as intended, and as it is written.

Once again, while pointing and laughing at the naked, paralyzed, hardly able to maneuver sucker under it's effects. Remember that even if this works, his AC is 9 points worse and you can just coup de grace him anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forseti wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
So, TK doesn't work while paralyzed? Or is all of the above just another way of saying that you can't move your limbs or otherwise engage your muscles?
Isn't TK purely a mental action then? I thought I made an allowance for that.

Er, yeah, thus my recasting your entire set of examples as:

You can't move/activate your limbs/muscles. It would seem to cover the entirety of your examples with a simple rule.

Quote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
The claim that a single use of the word 'move' covers every single disparate meaning of the word is so 100% not how pathfinder works, I'm a bit surprised that you're trotting it out. Just when are we supposed to apply such broad definitions to the terms in the rules? Do you have any guidelines regarding that?
Presented as it is, conjuncted as an equal with another verb that isn't a rules term, and with no context at all to interpret which version of the game term it should refer to, the whole phrase "frozen in place and unable to move or act." seems to be one we need to interpret as just an English phrase and not one laden with rules terms.

Really! This is a breakthrough! Absolutely YES I agree 100%. This is a phrase that needs interpretation as just an English phrase.

Now, what does it mean to be 'paralyzed' in English?

It means that you can't move your limbs or otherwise engage your muscles.

Does it mean that you can't be moved? No, so obviously frozen in place is not literal, it just again reinforces no movement of voluntary muscles.

Does it mean that if you had some sort of mentally controlled exoskeleton, that you couldn't command it to move you? No. In fact people with paralyzed limbs are starting to do exactly that.

Therefore, the 'move' in context of an English interpretation can only mean exactly that, you can't physically move your limbs or otherwise engage your muscles.

Does fly require movement of limbs or engagement of muscles? Obviously not since there are creatures who fly lacking either or both.

Therefore, using the English interpretation of these phrases, fly should work while paralyzed.


Deadbeat Doom wrote:

Yay! There are 128 more posts since last night, and literally no progress has been made by either side of the arguement! I think it might be time for some folks to FAQ and move on.

EDIT: 130.

Sorry you feel that way, but clearly the 130 posts implies that some people are still interested in discussing this.

This is what we are doing to pass the time till the FAQ is answered. :D


_Ozy_ wrote:
Forseti wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
So, TK doesn't work while paralyzed? Or is all of the above just another way of saying that you can't move your limbs or otherwise engage your muscles?
Isn't TK purely a mental action then? I thought I made an allowance for that.

Er, yeah, thus my recasting your entire set of examples as:

You can't move/activate your limbs/muscles. It would seem to cover the entirety of your examples with a simple rule.

Quote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
The claim that a single use of the word 'move' covers every single disparate meaning of the word is so 100% not how pathfinder works, I'm a bit surprised that you're trotting it out. Just when are we supposed to apply such broad definitions to the terms in the rules? Do you have any guidelines regarding that?
Presented as it is, conjuncted as an equal with another verb that isn't a rules term, and with no context at all to interpret which version of the game term it should refer to, the whole phrase "frozen in place and unable to move or act." seems to be one we need to interpret as just an English phrase and not one laden with rules terms.

Really! This is a breakthrough! Absolutely YES I agree 100%. This is a phrase that needs interpretation as just an English phrase.

Now, what does it mean to be 'paralyzed' in English?

It means that you can't move your limbs or otherwise engage your muscles.

Does it mean that you can't be moved? No, so obviously frozen in place is not literal, it just again reinforces no movement of voluntary muscles.

Does it mean that if you had some sort of mentally controlled exoskeleton, that you couldn't command it to move you? No. In fact people with paralyzed limbs are starting to do exactly that.

Therefore, the 'move' in context of an English interpretation can only mean exactly that, you can't physically move your limbs or otherwise engage your muscles.

Does fly require movement of limbs or engagement of muscles? Obviously not since there are creatures who fly lacking either or both.

Therefore, using the English interpretation of these phrases, fly should work while paralyzed.

Thank you for that, I was about to switch to Portugese, I hear it's a great language for RPG rules debates. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I feel that to do Rules Lawyering justice, we should debate in Infernal. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadbeat Doom wrote:
I feel that to do Rules Lawyering justice, we should debate in Infernal. :)

Meh, I would have to put a point in Linguistics for that. I was gonna start working on Diplomacy instead, apparently I come across as a bit of D-bag. :D


ok now first things first my interpretation of what was intended to happen when someone is paralyzed while under the effects of a fly spell is:

"They stay hovering in place unable to move but do NOT fall."

That is what I think the D&D designers felt would happen. It is also what I think the FAQ will come back with as a ruling.

That does not mean I agree with it, though if we get FAQed I will abide by whatever the ruling is. After reading the fly spell for the whateverth time. I kind of agree with Alexd1976 on most points and disagree on a minor one.

I agree that "The subject can fly at a speed of 60 feet" means that the spell is providing all locomotion on its own and thus acts more like a mount or TK.

I agree "Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking" means she uses a mental action of concentration which costs the same action economy as things classified as a move action in order to direct the spell to move her what ever distance she wishes within the spells defined speed.

Those are the major points I agree with.

I do not agree that paralyzed's STR penalty would drop ones CC as I believe it is considered a temporary penalty and it should be treated as ability damage:

PF core pg 555 wrote:

For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.(removed as irrelevant)

Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage,(removed as irrelevant)

Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense.

str ability damage either doesn't effect CC(it is not a skill or statistic listed with the STR paragraph on pg 555) or it lowers all weights by 1 pound per 2 points of str damage(it is a statistic listed with STR period) NOTE this only applies to ability damage. ability drain is actually a true reduction and would force recalculation of CC.


Nafairy, thanks for the support, but I'm pretty adamant about that STR thing... here's why:

"A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0"

It's not drain or damage or anything else... so I read it as treating their STR score as 0, which means their UNDERWEAR would encumber them.

The magic rules, being a wacky and often nonsensical thing, tells us that Fly grants a feather fall effect when the spell ends...

Being encumbered doesn't end the spell.

Splat.

Even assuming that everything I have asserted about Fly working while paralyzed is true, there are still so many penalties that it basically doesn't matter.

You would literally have to be naked to stay in the air. I really can't imagine a scenario where this would EVER come up.


that's fine. it is a difference of you treating paralyzed as differing from other things while I treat it as being the same as an "ability penalty for a limited amount of time." as written in the second sentence of the rules I quoted. no big deal, and I would respect that decision at your table as I would hope you would respect my decision at mine.^_^

but I do have a slight counter for armor only:

fly spell wrote:
it cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears.

so by a strict as written reading the fly spell separates and then discounts armor. note I do NOT feel this is what it means, but it is a correct way to interpret that sentence.


Nafairy wrote:

that's fine. it is a difference of you treating paralyzed as differing from other things while I treat it as being the same as an "ability penalty for a limited amount of time." as written in the second sentence of the rules I quoted. no big deal, and I would respect that decision at your table as I would hope you would respect my decision at mine.^_^

but I do have a slight counter for armor only:

fly spell wrote:
it cannot carry aloft more weight than its maximum load, plus any armor it wears.
so by a strict as written reading the fly spell separates and then discounts armor. note I do NOT feel this is what it means, but it is a correct way to interpret that sentence.

Can't believe I missed that.

So naked, unless wearing armor.

Interesting. :D Magic is funny.


alexd1976 wrote:

Well we are making progress, Forseti seems to acknowledge that wording that functionally describes an action, can in fact allow for that action.

Levitate, he says, uses a mental action, which I agree with 100%.

The wording does NOT use the phrase 'mental action' though, it says you can 'mentally direct' it, and that it requires a move action.

Since "mental action" isn't a game term, any English phrase that means or implies the same applies. If you want to treat "mental action" as a game term, you make the Paralyzed condition so much worse, because many more options will be eliminated as viable. Casting Still Silent spells with no material components, for example.

alexd1976 wrote:
Now we just have to get people to realize that when the Fly spell states within its own text that it only needs as much concentration as walking, that we can treat it the same as Levitate.

Here's where we stray apart. If the Fly spell states that flying needs as much concentration as walking, we should treat it the same as walking.

alexd1976 wrote:
Neither one uses the terminology 'mental action', but both clearly describe it in different words.

The Fly spell really does no such thing.

alexd1976 wrote:
Why is one acceptable and not the other?

Because "Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking" is not in any way equivalent or implying the same thing as "You can mentally direct the recipient to move up or down" They are semantically as far apart as "The sky is blue" and "Fish breathe water".

alexd1976 wrote:

As for the topic of moving, and how paralysis affects it...

If we use the broad brush approach of saying that 'Paralyze' prevents all movement then we are faced with a situation where poisoning someone makes them immune to bullrush, and if they are on a cart, suddenly they aren't.

Of course, they can't fall to the ground, because that would involve movement.

Being moved isn't the same as moving. Really, this line of argument is pure and unadulterated nonsense. When you're asleep on a bus, are you moving? No. When you're asleep in your bed on a planet circling the sun at a speed of 29.78 km/s, are you moving? No!

alexd1976 wrote:
That doesn't seem too logical to me, but apparently a valid argument against a magical spell being able to allow you to move.

Why? If a spell grants you the ability to fly ("the subject can fly"), including a speed that depends on the material your armor is made of, it grants you a new mode of movement, not the ability to mentally propel yourself through the air. Your body is doing the flying.

alexd1976 wrote:
Fly does not grant you a fly speed. It gives you the ability to fly at a speed of 60 feet (or less if encumbered)-if we are going to examine this at the microscopic level, then this distinction is going to have to be recognized.

Of course it grants you a fly speed. Otherwise you couldn't take 5' steps while using fly. I'm really looking forward to that ruling.

alexd1976 wrote:
60 feet worth of movement that is something you can use with concentration (again, use the english meaning of the word, as it clearly isn't a reference to a spell duration, stop trying to make it that).

In the English definition of "concentrate", it is an all or nothing thing, as you've quoted yourself. And, more importantly, the Fly spell doesn't tell you you need to concentrate. It only tells you it needs as much concentration as walking. You find me how much concentration it takes to walk, and we'll talk. For now, everything points to walking not taking any concentration at all. Mindless creatures cannot concentrate on anything for lack of a mind, yet still they walk. Barbarians can walk while raging. Obviously the amount of "concentration" it takes to walk is none at all, so flying doesn't need concentration either. As much as none at all, is none at all. Flying by means of Fly is just a new way of taking move actions to move. And to charge. And to take 5' steps. It's magic.

alexd1976 wrote:
Levitate has been acknowledged as something that can use the actions allowed by the paralyzed condition, despite not having text to support this (but it was close enough to slip by somehow, and I agree wholeheartedly with this reading of the rules), so lets grant Fly the same courtesy and use it as intended, and as it is written.

Levitate has text to support it. Fly does not. "use it as intended"? So no 5' steps while using Fly then?


Just isolating a point from the wall of text above:

Since so much of the argument that flight by means of Fly is a mental action allowed by the Paralyzed condition depends on the phrase: "Using a fly spell requires only as much concentration as walking", I feel it's vitally important to the discussion to establish just how much concentration it requires to walk. The phrase is meaningless without that.

Sczarni

Honestly people, I really have my own beliefs about this, but if the same comments are cycling around 24/7, it becomes pointless to prove anything. As it is, a person with the last comment will "win" the argument.


Malag wrote:
Honestly people, I really have my own beliefs about this, but if the same comments are cycling around 24/7, it becomes pointless to prove anything. As it is, a person with the last comment will "win" the argument.

You're right, you know.

That's why I said earlier that we're getting nowhere with this conversation. The last 3-4 pages have been the same arguments endlessly repeated, because we each see the answer so differently that the other sides arguments mean nothing to us. Thus, it's pretty meaningless to continue. I say just play it how we like at our tables and hope for the FAQ.


Malag wrote:
Honestly people, I really have my own beliefs about this, but if the same comments are cycling around 24/7, it becomes pointless to prove anything. As it is, a person with the last comment will "win" the argument.

The only way to win here is to step back, take a good look at yourself and this huge pile of @#$*&!%, and realize it's a waste of time to discuss like this about something so infimus.

#1 Most Important Thing of The Game: Have Fun (Not at the expense of the fun of others.)

It's just a game. We're not Titans reshaping the Universe. The only people you really have to convince of your opinion are the ones siting at your table, and if you can't come to an agreement, toss a coin or something.

Anybody who "wins" a thread like "this", loses as a human being.


Kchaka wrote:
Anybody who "wins" a thread like "this", loses as a human being.

~Shrug~

Everything about Pathfinder is not about winning or losing, but having fun. I don't really know why it would be fun to go on for pages with this stuff, but then, I don't know a lot of things.


I'm sad that you can have armor on in this situation, I preferred to imagine a naked, helpless caster floating around, not an armored one.

The thrill is gone.

*walks out, sounds of car starting*


Well he would be mighty uncomfortable. after all it says armor not clothing or outfits(and some spells and abilities specify to "Treat clothing as armor with a 0 AC bonus for the purpose of this ability" meaning by strict raw clothing and outfits are not considered armor till told to consider them as such for an ability) so by your rules he can't have anything on under that chainmail/leather and that stuff chafes like hell without stuff under it. also the breastplate and chain shirt only cover the torso.^_^


Johnny_Devo wrote:
Malag wrote:
Honestly people, I really have my own beliefs about this, but if the same comments are cycling around 24/7, it becomes pointless to prove anything. As it is, a person with the last comment will "win" the argument.

You're right, you know.

That's why I said earlier that we're getting nowhere with this conversation. The last 3-4 pages have been the same arguments endlessly repeated, because we each see the answer so differently that the other sides arguments mean nothing to us. Thus, it's pretty meaningless to continue. I say just play it how we like at our tables and hope for the FAQ.

This is why I issued the CHALLENGE for new rules text.

No one replied to that post. :-(

At least it is up to 46 FAQ clicks.

/cevah


alexd1976 wrote:

A side note, to the strict RAW crowd:

Don't play barbarians.

When they rage, they can't do anything requiring concentration, and it has been shown that walking requires concentration, so they can't walk while raging.

RAW.

Or should we apply the idea that 'concentration' is really 'Concentration', as has been done in this description of the Fly spell, so they can do anything they like except use spells with a duration of 'Concentration' and the listed restricted skills.

Since patience isn't a mechanical term, the limitations on a barbarian suddenly don't look so bad.

RAW

I've mentioned the death thing, but will do so again:

The only mechanical penalty for being dead is that you don't heal normally, or with magic. But that's okay, because having -1000 hitpoints doesn't affect you. So don't bother keeping track of your hitpoints if it's at anything other than 0 (when you are 'Staggered').

RAW

So please make sure you adhere to the rules above with the same commitment you have shown in trying to convince us that concentration (the english word, as used in the Fly spell) isn't a mental action.

If you think the above examples are ridiculous, poorly written, incomplete or just an outright mistake, I will agree with you completely.

They are ludicrous!

But they are RAW, so make sure you use them as written, just like your interpretation of Fly.

And don't forget, Martial Weapon Proficiency can't be granted by a feat, so keep that in mind when making your character. (Confused? Don't be, all the feat does is remove the penalty to hit, nowhere in the description does it grant you actual proficiency-RAW).

Some of the above examples may not come up often, so pay close attention and make sure to apply the rules correctly when they do.

Your vigilance will be appreciated by your fellow players.

So now that RAW has shown to not back your side, you are attacking it?

Yay for last ditch efforts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is no conclusive argument for any interpretation.

The way I see it, this is what would happen to a human who is under the effect of a Fly Spell and fails her saving throw versus a Hold Person Spell.

That person will linger frozen and hovering in the air.

Why do I believe this is what would happen?

A) Why she does not fall? Just check CRB, on Hold Person Spell, that grants the target Paralyzed condition if she fails her saving throw, it reads:

"A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown."

It clearly states that a winged creature falls, so we have to assume that flying non-winged creatures do not fall. If the general case had been "flying creatures fall", then the spell would have not specified 'winged', just like the sentence for swimmers, which does not specify any kind of locomotion.

B) Why she can not move?

That is what Paralysis does. You can not move. To understand this, just imagine there is a spell that grants the ability to breath -water-underwater, but prevents the recipient to breath air. Would you say that if that person is paralyzed would be able to breath air just because breathing can be considered a mental task -if was not a mental task then all paralyzed creatures will choke, and they don't- ? Answer: of course not. Paralysis does not affect other spells, affects creatures in a very specific way: they can not move.

So, paralysis prevents any kind of movement, regardless the type of movements you are able to do. Consider them mental, physical or whatever, if it is a movement, paralysis forbids it.

Bonus:

Could you move things -or even yourself- via Telekinesis? Of course. But I'm not referring to the concept of Telekinesis, I'm referring to the Spell, because Hold Person targets persons, and not spells, so Telekinesis would have not been dispelled.

Saying that Fly spell grants you Telekinesis (the Spell) is not right, even though we could understand that, conceptually, that is what actually happens.


Numarak wrote:

There is no conclusive argument for any interpretation.

The way I see it, this is what would happen to a human who is under the effect of a Fly Spell and fails her saving throw versus a Hold Person Spell.

That person will linger frozen and hovering in the air.

Why do I believe this is what would happen?

A) Why she does not fall? Just check CRB, on Hold Person Spell, that grants the target Paralyzed condition if she fails her saving throw, it reads:

"A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown."

It clearly states that a winged creature falls, so we have to assume that flying non-winged creatures do not fall. If the general case had been "flying creatures fall", then the spell would have not specified 'winged', just like the sentence for swimmers, which does not specify any kind of locomotion.

Paralyzed is a general condition. The Fly spell is a specific means to fly, and if the Fly spell has additional criteria for staying up in the air, they will apply, regardless of what a general condition tells us.

The Fly spell tells us you can't fly when you're carrying more than your maximum load. Paralyzed gives you an effective strength score of 0. So, if you have anything on your person at all, except for the armor you're wearing, you're going to be overburdened and no longer able to fly. Crash!


No longer able to Fly equates to not move, not to "fall and crush".

The same way that if you are burdened with more than your carrying capacity you are not drag to the center of the planet, you just can't move.

Imagine that you have an effective STR of 1 and I put a rock of 500Lbs. on your head, would you say, per the rules, that you start burrowing? No, per the rules, you won't be able to move. The same happens if you are flying. Does that makes sense "in our world"? Probably not, but, per the rules, I haven't read anywhere that when you are overwhelmed by the weight you are carrying, you start to approach the center of the planet, the only thing I've read is that "you slow down", and that's it, not even a "you fall prone".

It is true that the spell reads "and it cannot carry aloft more weight than...", but again, not being able to carry that aloft does not imply that they start to fall; there is a logic problem when people reads simple implications as double ones (Ex. "If it rains, the floor is wet; so as the floor it wet it must have rained"; wrong conclussion, I just passed by pouring water with a Decanter of Endless Water).

On the other hand, as Nafairy pointed out, we could understand that nothing but stat drain will affect CC. But this is a moody point and an argumentation for another place.

And again, the only thing we know about paralyzed flying creatures for sure is -due the Hold Person spell- that if they flight by means of moving some wings, they fall, others do not.


Numarak wrote:

No longer able to Fly equates to not move, not to "fall and crush".

The same way that if you are burdened with more than your carrying capacity you are not drag to the center of the planet, you just can't move.

Imagine that you have an effective STR of 1 and I put a rock of 500Lbs. on your head, would you say, per the rules, that you start burrowing? No, per the rules, you won't be able to move. The same happens if you are flying. Does that makes sense "in our world"? Probably not, but, per the rules, I haven't read anywhere that when you are overwhelmed by the weight you are carrying, you start to approach the center of the planet, the only thing I've read is that "you slow down", and that's it, not even a "you fall prone".

It is true that the spell reads "and it cannot carry aloft more weight than...", but again, not being able to carry that aloft does not imply that they start to fall;

Of course they're meant to fall. "Carry aloft" is flowery language that has no place in rules text, but it obviously has to imply "not being able to remain airborne." If not, you could build a 1000 ton castle on a platform carried by 4 flying mice. (If the platform can support it too of course.)

Numarak wrote:
there is a logic problem when people reads simple implications as double ones (Ex. "If it rains, the floor is wet; so as the floor it wet it must have rained"; wrong conclussion, I just passed by pouring water with a Decanter of Endless Water).

Totally inapplicable to this situation, there's no question of incorrect reciprocal implication, just the question of how to interpret rules language not fit to be rules language. In such a case, always go with RAI unless you don't care about the game making sense. Your prerogative of course.

Numarak wrote:
On the other hand, as Nafairy pointed out, we could understand that nothing but stat drain will affect CC. But this is a moody point and an argumentation for another place.

We could, if there was such a limitation in the rules. There isn't. Ironically, that actually is a case of incorrectly applied double implication. Heh.

Numarak wrote:
And again, the only thing we know about paralyzed flying creatures for sure is -due the Hold Person spell- that if they flight by means of moving some wings, they fall, others do not.

Anything that can't hover without making a fly check is in trouble. The rules interaction between Fly spell, fly skill and Paralyzed condition is obviously deeply flawed due to some aspects of some of the three changing between 3.5 and Pathfinder, and some not. But it's ludicrous to have a negative condition like Paralyzed grant the hover ability to flyers that don't have it when they're not paralyzed. Like creatures using the fly spell (which did grant the abilty to hover in 3.5, but no longer).


Just noticed this was listed as answered, but did not see the PDT post.

/cevah

FAQ

Quote:

Flight and Magical Flight: Can a paralyzed or stunned creature keep flying with magical flight? Does a creature with magical flight not apply bonuses or penalties to Fly checks because it doesn’t have a “natural” fly speed? Does flying make a creature immune to being flat-footed?

No, any creature that loses all actions can’t take an action to attempt a Fly check to hover in place and thus automatically falls. That includes a paralyzed, stunned, or dazed creature. Magical flight doesn’t act any differently, even for paralysis, as it isn’t a purely mental action. A creature with 0 Dexterity can’t fly, and paralysis sets a creature’s Dexterity to 0. Despite the fact that the Fly skill mentions that bonuses and penalties from maneuverability apply to creatures with natural fly speeds, they apply for any fly speed. If they didn’t apply to creatures that gained flight artificially or through magic, then those maneuverabilities (like the listed good maneuverability for the fly spell) would have no game effect. Finally, the statement “You are not considered flat-footed while flying” means that flying (unlike balancing using Acrobatics or climbing) doesn’t automatically make you flat-footed or force you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC; it doesn’t mean that flying makes you immune to being caught flat-footed.


It was posted in a different thread with a very similar title.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Falls like a stone.

301 to 328 of 328 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What happens to the Fly spell if you get paralized All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.