If I have a fly speed of 30 feet with average maneuverability (as with a Strix), and I want to use as much of the movement as possible to move forward while ascending (essentially an upwards diagonal) how far do I get with that 30 feet?
I'm having difficulty breaking it down in my head. Forward would net me 6 squares. Ascending would only net me 3 squares. So am I now 3 squares high and 6 squares forward? Or is that 60 feet?
One square forward= 5 feet
One square up= 10 feet
One square forward = 15 feet
One square up = 25 feet
One square forward= 30 feet
30 feet = 3 forward and 2 up
Hmmm don't think i did that right
one square forward= 5 feet
One square up +10= 15 feet
One square over +5= 20 feet
One square up +10= 30 feet
So its 2 up and 2 over instead of 6 over
|
If I have a fly speed of 30 feet with average maneuverability (as with a Strix), and I want to use as much of the movement as possible to move forward while ascending (essentially an upwards diagonal) how far do I get with that 30 feet?
Rulebook page 259: If you want to ascend, it costs you an additional 5 feet of movement for each square that you move upward.
NOTE: It says NOTHING about "descend". So if you wanted to go forward and down with 30' of movement, you go 6 squares forward and presumably as many squares down as you wish (though I guess it's within reason per GM judgement?).
This seems deliberate as the rules go on to say in another paragraph that in Zero-G and Low-G, it costs nothing to ascend, and double in High-G.
Here's where it gets wonky ----
Rulebook says (as to additional movement types like fly): Generally speaking, these additional movement types follow the normal rules for movement, except as detailed below.
The Flight rules don't say anything about overriding the regular rule that you pay extra movement for diagonal movement. Is ascending and descending therefore subject to this rule? If so, with 30' of movement and descending, if you apply this rule, you would move only 3 squares forward and 3 down, and it resolves the issue of how far down you can descend (6 squares straight down). Going up is a bear, as you would only go 2 forward and 2 up using 25' of movement (if I'm doing my math right!).
NOTE: I'm assuming a single move of 30' in my examples, not a 60' double move.
And of course, I may be completely and utterly wrong, but look it over and see what you think...
I'm assuming you descend at your normal movement rate, unless you choose to go into freefall, at which point you must make a Fly check to catch yourself before taking falling damage.
Maybe forward ascending flight costs the same as diagonal movement + 1 square?
So it would be 10 feet for the first square (5 for the first diagonal + 5 for ascending) then 15 feet for the second square (10 for the second diagonal + 5 for ascending). You've used up 25 feet of movement and are now 2 squares forward and 2 squares above your original position.
Lame GMs might also consider it a 45-degree upward turn, and dock you that last 5 feet for it (totaling 30 feet of movement).
Personally ive always treated it as just 5 additional feed per square ascended. Honestly I always thought thats how it was supposed to pay out until reading this. So basically like difficult terrain. For a 30' move 15' forward and 15' up which creates a 45 degree ascension angle. Anything beyond this seems overly punitive and unnecessarily complicated.
Yeah, my interpretation would be likewise. Similarly, if you wanted to fly straight up, you could go 30' up, but you'd have no horizontal movement at all.
The rulebook explicitly states it costs twice as much to ascend. So if you go straight up 15 feet, it costs you 30 feet of movement.
If you want to change direction while flying, it costs you an
additional 5 feet of movement to turn 45 degrees. If you want
to ascend, it costs you an additional 5 feet of movement for
each square that you move upward. For example, suppose you
have a fly speed of 60 feet. As a single move action, you can fly
forward 20 feet, turn 45 degrees to the left, and fly one square
diagonally (all of which costs 30 feet of your movement).
You can then ascend 15 feet, which costs another 30 feet of
movement. At this point, you have used your full 60 feet of
flying movement, so your move action is over.[/b]
So straight up is definitely double movement cost.
Interestingly, climbing speeds have an advantage over flight when ascending, assuming appropriate surfaces to climb. With a successful climbing check at -5, you can even ascend at twice your climb speed in a single move action.
That's not quite right, Hiruma. The book actually says "If you want to ascend, it costs you an additional 5 feet of movement for each square that you move upward."
That distinction is important for things like movement multipliers (such as difficult terrain, moving diagonally, or having some kind of movement penalty). Since it's an extra 5 feet, and not x2 movement, it might not get multiplied in the same way.
For example, let's say a magical fog cloud makes all movement within it cost double. To fly up one square, it would cost you three squares, not four (one square of movement, doubled due to the fog, then add one more because you're ascending).
It could easily be argued the other way too I guess (one square of movement, add one for ascending, then double for four), but the distinction remains important when discussing rules interpretations.
That's not quite right, Hiruma. The book actually says "If you want to ascend, it costs you an additional 5 feet of movement for each square that you move upward."
That distinction is important for things like movement multipliers (such as difficult terrain, moving diagonally, or having some kind of movement penalty). Since it's an extra 5 feet, and not x2 movement, it might not get multiplied in the same way.
For example, let's say a magical fog cloud makes all movement within it cost double. To fly up one square, it would cost you three squares, not four (one square of movement, doubled due to the fog, then add one more because you're ascending).
It could easily be argued the other way too I guess (one square of movement, add one for ascending, then double for four), but the distinction remains important when discussing rules interpretations.
In terms of affects that would multiply movement penalties I believe your first example of 2 squares turning into 3 would be correct as it would fall into line with the multiplier to rolls example given in the books.
Interesting, though not what I was indicating.
|
First of all sorry for my English.
You are skipping the main thing. "While you are flying, at the start of each turn, choose a primary direction for the round (including up or down). You can move your full fly speed in a straight line in that direction."
Including up or down.
This means that if your main direction is a straight line up, you can use all your speed going up. No additional cost, since you are not changing your flight direction.