Full Attack while Flying?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Give the Barathu mk 2 force soles ^_^


Give them to everyone! I like to think that's what the Oprah equivalent in the Pact Worlds does in her shows.


Claxon wrote:
Vexies wrote:
This is all well and good but I keep coming back to the Barathu and any other future PC race that does not have a natural land speed. In these cases I find it highly improbable that they would keep a PC race from being able to attack seeing as that race as no choice but to fly at all times because it lacks a land speed. Just like they hand wave these races in regards to armor, holding weapons, augmentations and cyberware I would imagine this rule would follow suite as well.

I wouldn't.

If they want to full attack they can land like Xenocrat says. The only detriment is that they can't stay in the air out of reach of other creatures if they want to full attack. It's a fair trade in my book. Either land at the end of your previous turn if you want to take a full action on the next round (such as a full attack) or you accept that in order to stay flying you are limited to a single attack each round.

There is no problem here at all, except that flying isn't as good as it used to be in Pathfinder, and personally I consider that a feature not a bug.

And to follow up on this, I have a Dragonkin soldier who is taking Hit and Run style as their secondary style so that they get a free move action to be able to full attack while flying. Moving 5ft is enough to stay flying, and with my Dragonkin's natural reach and a reach weapon its rare that I'll have to worry about provoking for movement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

well my point is there really is no landing for a Barathu. It has no feet or even legs, its not even solid so it doesn't really ever land. It's native planet has no ground, there is no land to land on. This creature's native state and constant source of movement is floating / hovering always.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Vexies wrote:
This is all well and good but I keep coming back to the Barathu and any other future PC race that does not have a natural land speed. In these cases I find it highly improbable that they would keep a PC race from being able to attack seeing as that race as no choice but to fly at all times because it lacks a land speed. Just like they hand wave these races in regards to armor, holding weapons, augmentations and cyberware I would imagine this rule would follow suite as well.

I wouldn't.

If they want to full attack they can land like Xenocrat says. The only detriment is that they can't stay in the air out of reach of other creatures if they want to full attack. It's a fair trade in my book. Either land at the end of your previous turn if you want to take a full action on the next round (such as a full attack) or you accept that in order to stay flying you are limited to a single attack each round.

There is no problem here at all, except that flying isn't as good as it used to be in Pathfinder, and personally I consider that a feature not a bug.

And to follow up on this, I have a Dragonkin soldier who is taking Hit and Run style as their secondary style so that they get a free move action to be able to full attack while flying. Moving 5ft is enough to stay flying, and with my Dragonkin's natural reach and a reach weapon its rare that I'll have to worry about provoking for movement.

Except in this case we're talking about creatures that cannot land. How, precisely, is a Barathu Operative meant to function?

Also, for a fun wrinkle: What happens if the character with a Fly speed is under the effects of a first level Flight spell (effectively Slow Fall)? Can they full attack while falling 60 feet?

Also, what is the actual speed a character falls at? I'd assume it's impacted by gravity and atmosphere?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vexies wrote:
well my point is there really is no landing for a Barathu. It has no feet or even legs, its not even solid so it doesn't really ever land. It's native planet has no ground, there is no land to land on. This creature's native state and constant source of movement is floating / hovering always.

That’s a fine house rule, but this is the rules forum and there are no rules in the barathu stat block denying it the ability to land and function normally. Or install leg and feet augmentations - the uplifted bear provides a precedent for that sort of limitation, but the barathu doesn’t have it.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


Except in this case we're talking about creatures that cannot land.

We are? I thought we were talking about the barathu, a creature with published rules that modify some of its capabilities but say nothing about resting/landing on the ground making it unable to act normally. Nor are there any general rules about creatures without land speeds being unable to do that. So it seems we’re talking about your house rules in the rules forum, which isn’t the right place for it.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Also, 4 barathu could merge together, permanently gaining legs in the process, and full attack just as competently as any other biped.

There's even GM discretion in their Adaptation ability to come up with new evolutions; wouldn't be hard to say 4 barathu could merge and turn their normally swift action hover into free action hover.

If you're complaining about the PC-playable barathu not being able to full attack, remember that it's a young version and it's not very capable of anything, yet.


OK. Let me see if I am understanding this debate correctly.

No one has a problem with flying creatures that use a move action to move through the air not being able to make a full attack, yes? That seems reasonable to me.

The problem is with hovering.

A creature without perfect maneuverability must use a move action to hover and so also can't make a full attack. No one has a problem with this either, yes?

So the problem is with hovering when having perfect maneuverability. Which currently still prevents making full attacks because hovering must use either the move action or swift action each round.

Now, this is getting into homebrew/houserules/FAQ territory:

It seems to me like the fix for this is to give an additional designation to creatures with a fly speed and maneuverability rating: a hover rating. Hover rating could be either 'manual', or 'automatic' (names open to suggestions). Maybe even only have the 'automatic' hover rating and if a creature doesn't have it, then it must be 'manual'.

Anyway, a creature with an 'automatic' hover rating can hover with no action needed - it literally takes them no effort or thought to hover. Creatures with 'manual' hover rating must take the move or swift-with-check options to hover.

So Barathu could be given an 'automatic' hover rating and can then make full attacks unless they use their move action to actually move around.

On the other hand, a character using a high-tier jet pack or fly spell that has perfect maneuverability, would still only have a 'manual' hover rating and so cannot make full attacks without landing/perching somewhere first (or dropping out of the sky like a brick).

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Definitely homebrew.

I don't think Paizo thinks this is a problem. In all likelihood, it was designed on purpose.

But even if they somehow missed this detail, the time required to edit every flying creature thus far to include a "hover maneuverability" would probably prevent them from wanting to make the change back at all.


In general i'm not sure paizo thought through all the ramifications of a swift action being part of a full attack takes up. It makes making something a swift action almost worthless. Thats a lot of feats and abilities that had their impact reduced to meh because of it.

Sovereign Court

I don't mind full attacks during flight being difficult to achieve. It keeps combat on a fair footing.

That said, I do think there are some cases when it might be appropriate:
- A barathu in an actual gas planet environment where it's effortlessly buoyant.
- A creature like a void hantu that's explicitly not bothered by any amount of gravity.
- Anyone in a zero-G environment (it's not really flight anymore, although a fly speed helps if you're trying to go somewhere).

I think the number of creatures that can stay airborne without effort, as opposed to creatures that stay in the air due to wings/propulsion, is relatively small.


Ascalaphus wrote:
I think the number of creatures that can stay airborne without effort, as opposed to creatures that stay in the air due to wings/propulsion, is relatively small.

I would think so too.

And on thinking on this some more, it could probably be automated. Any creature who has a fly speed because of an innate, permanent ability should have the hover rating of automatic. Creatures that are getting a fly speed because of a spell, equipment, or other temporary ability gain would not.

Also note that this would only apply to creatures that have a perfect maneuverability rating already. Creatures with natural wings that only have average maneuverability wouldn't get the automatic hover.

...

Could also add a third level of hover to the drone options that grants automatic hover...


Xenocrat wrote:
Vexies wrote:
well my point is there really is no landing for a Barathu. It has no feet or even legs, its not even solid so it doesn't really ever land. It's native planet has no ground, there is no land to land on. This creature's native state and constant source of movement is floating / hovering always.
That’s a fine house rule, but this is the rules forum and there are no rules in the barathu stat block denying it the ability to land and function normally. Or install leg and feet augmentations - the uplifted bear provides a precedent for that sort of limitation, but the barathu doesn’t have it.

This correct. Brathu may not have a move speed, but nothing prevents them from landing. And they can choose mutate to have a 15ft move speed.

So the whole line of reasoning is incorrect.

Quote:

Early Stage Adaptation

An early stage barathu’s body is mutable and can adapt to many different situations. Once every 1d4 rounds as a swift action, an early stage barathu can reshape its body and adjust its chemistry to gain one of the following qualities. The adaptation lasts until the beginning of the early stage barathu’s next turn. Unlike more mature barathus, early stage barathus are not generally capable of more complex adaptations.

Upper limb refinements enable the barathu to add an additional amount of damage to melee attacks equal to its Strength modifier.
A toughened dermal layer grants its a +1 racial bonus to AC.
Developed lower limbs grant it a base speed of 15 feet.
Molecular-level modifications grant it resistance 2 against a single energy type (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic).
Elongated limbs extend its reach to 10 feet.


Well the 15ft move speed adaptation doesn't help with the full attack issue because it takes a swift action, killing your full attack option that turn, and expires before your next turn. So landing/resting on the ground is the only option under the rules if they want to full attack.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think the adaptation was being pointed at in order to refute the idea that barathu can't land.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Is anybody actually playing flying this way, though, in practice? It seems like it adds a huge hassle and frankly "looks" dumb in terms of the in game world (you're going to tell a new player they have to land Quig's drone even though it's obvious from the art that it can't actually do that?).

And make no mistake, it is a major hassle. The people saying "just land" are glossing over that this (at a minimum) means you have to spend some sort of movement to land, and then some sort of movement to take off again if you want to go back to flying. In practice, the action economy ends up being something like requiring a humanoid to move into position and then go prone before ever full attacking (note that I'm not saying that a landed Barathu is literally prone in terms of things like bonuses/penalties to attacking, though I could absolutely see some GM's arguing that it should be that way).

It's an even bigger problem for spellcasters who want to cast a spell that takes a full action (or a full round) to cast, like the good version of Magic Missile, or any Summon Monster spell. See, a melee character could, in theory, just say "meh, I'll do my full attack and risk the acrobatics check as a reaction to avoid falling damage", but a caster can't do that, since taking a reaction while casting is explicitly one of the things that will cause a spell to fail. If you have the wrong kind of GM, they may even try to catch-22 you by arguing that the falling damage should also interrupt the spell (which is untrue - it's only damage from an attack that targeted your AC or was caused by a failed saving throw that interrupts a spell). In any case, it's a fairly onerous limitation to impose, and it sets up a sort of slapstick looking situation where your hapless flying caster is basically faceplanting after casting the spell.

I can't see how any of that makes the game better. It just slows down play at the table and/or makes a character look foolish, all so that... what, exactly? What is the upside? That it makes flight worse than it was in Pathfinder? Why is that a good thing? Why do we want to punish new players who naively assume that their hover drone should have no problems hovering and shooting?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I assume you mean aside from 'Because it's the rule, and every SFS table is going to play it like this?'

Don't get me wrong, I understand your point. Coming from Pathfinder, it seems like a silly and probably unneeded change.

That being said, welcome to Starfinder, where the rules are different. By all means, change it in your home game if you want. Or play in a group with no magic users so only your GM has to worry about how weird of a rule this is. Or refuse to play until Paizo decides you were right and they were wrong and they change it back to Pathfinder rules.


The hover drone has no problems hovering and shooting. The mechanic has to use master control to do so. It turns out the hover drone's flight utility is balanced by it's lesser combat utility.

I really don't see how it slows down play. Flight is just no longer as attractive an option anymore. Once people realize they can't full attack in the air or cast their big spells there, they adapt and land first. They tend to stay grounded if they know they need a big action early in combat.

A lot of things take a round or two to set up in starfinder. Changing grips, switching weapons even with quick draw, reloading, etc. all remove the option to full attack or cast a full action spell.

It's something my players and I struggle to remember, but I prefer it over the pathfinder version.

Sure it's a bit weird that a barathu has to land to cast certain spells, but apparently flight takes a lot of concentration and effort, even with perfect maneuverability.


The hover drone works fine. It just needs to use master control to have a move and standard action, and then it can hover or move and make a single attack.

It just can't full attack.

Everything works fine except spell casters that want to cast a spell as a full round action. In which case you accept that you need to land first.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

However, if a GM wanted to house rule that creatures with perfect maneuverability could hover as a free action I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.


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

A) It doesn't work fine. If you are going to try to go full RAW it's actually a nonstop wall to wall rules nightmare. You have to have a brand new player keep track of declaring a primary direction of travel for the drone at the start of every turn (because that's what the rules require), and then you have to do the math to calculate how much movement you lose to make a 45 degree turn to change direction or to ascend/descend. Then you have to keep very rigorous track of actions to make sure they aren't "cheating" by accidentally hovering when they should have ended up falling.

Here's how easy it is to make that mistake - Turn 1 player moves the drone into the position they want to shoot from, and then take a shot. Mechanic moves up, but can't get into position to shoot yet, so has to move next turn. Turn 2, Mechanic moves into position, shoots, and then declares the drone will use it's standard action to shoot as well. Boom. Drone has to fall because the mechanic didn't say "I land the drone" on turn 1 - and likely wouldn't have had the movement to do so anyway. So, now your brand new player using Quig is feeling "gotcha-ed" by the rules.

Even if you, as the GM, take the time to explain exactly how the rules work so that the player isn't caught out by them, do you really think the net result of that conversation would be "Oh, this seems like a cool and fun system"? I would simply not allow new players to play hover drone mechanics, full stop, if I felt it was at all important to adhere to the very strict RAW here.

B) Hover drones just can't full attack while hovering is not an acceptable answer. Nor is "Casters just have to land to cast full round spells". It doesn't match the fictional logic of the world, it is not necessary for balance, it makes gameplay slower, and simply makes characters uncool. Like, this is probably the biggest problem. Above and beyond the simple barriers to play your creating, you are full on making characters behave in a way that is nonsensical within the fiction of the world AND also makes them look frankly foolish. There is literally no redeeming feature to it except "it's what the rules say" - which merely means the rules are wrong, and need to change.

C) I've played at well north of 50 different SFS tables (probably pushing 100, in fact), both online, locally, and at local and national conventions. I have NEVER seen the flying rules enforced this strictly, which is why I'm completely unconvinced that it is a good or necessary thing to have happen. I would be willing to bet that literally no single person on the entire planet has EVER played the flying rules strictly correctly.

Heck, even the example in the book gets the rules for determining direction of travel wrong. It treats the last 30 feet of movement (the movement straight up) as if it was in the primary direction of travel (which was "forward", initially), so actually instead of being able to go 15 squares straight up, the flyer should have only been able to ascend at a 45 degree angle, which would have used up 4 squares of movement for the first square, and then 2 more for the second, ending the movement 2 squares "forward" and one square lower than the position in described in the example.

I would go so far as to say that within the actual real world of a group of players in a game (especially a game with time constraints, like SFS), it is fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to play the rules strictly RAW. Even if you only strictly enforce the action economy limitations and discount the excessively tedious movement restrictions, because of the way it limits how a player can actually participate in the game (and no, this is not actually only about full attacks/full round spells, see D below), it's going to necessitate that players with flying characters/drones need to be extra thoughtful (IE slower).

D) What "flying utility" do hover drones actually have, though? Have you actually played out the implications of what you are advocating for there? Here's a thing you might want to try with a hover drone (using manipulator arms and the Master Control ability): Make an engineering check to disable a camera on the ceiling. Sounds good? WRONG. Disable device is least one full round action for even a "simple device", so your drone can't actually do an engineering check without falling, even if you are directly controlling it. Note that a hypothetical Barathu Mechanic ALSO couldn't do it - in fact, the only way a Barathu can use the engineering or computers skill to do anything of note is to land first, which is a patent absurdity.

Of course, you could give your drone climbing claws so it could just land an perch near the camera before - oh, no you can't. Hover drones can't take climbing claws. Hmm. The Computers skill runs into the same problem. A hover drone can't even assist a mechanic on Computer/Engineering checks generally, unless it can assist from the floor. Which... it's size tiny. Hmmm. Will your GM even allow it to reach, say, a typical control panel? Expect table variance!

Okay, well, what about being a scout? It can kinda do that, if you use the one mod slot at first level for a camera... but a stealth drone is objectively better in that role (stealthier and faster and better perception checks) AND has better firepower (since it can get into an elevated position with climbing claws, and STAY THERE without costing a move action, and it can full attack from there if needed).

So, what is the utility? Mobility? On a one to one basis the stealth drone is faster both horizontally and vertically. Hilariously, both a stealth drone or a combat drone could take the flight mods (if you are a high enough level), as well as the climb speed and swim speed mods. The Hover drone can take neither of those two options, so that's another corner-case disadvantage to the hover drone. Even the simple utility of "get in the way of that thing" isn't there for the Hover drone, since it is tiny, and thus its square can be moved through freely.

Even worse, because of the action economy issues, as a unit a mechanic and a hover drone are actually significantly LESS mobile, especially if they want to do anything productive. Having to land to cast your big spell, or take a full attack, or do your skill monkey job, or whatever, means you will be generally a round behind in your impact, relative to a walker/climber/swimmer, and that assumes the optimal case where the place you landed initially is where you need to be for the entire encounter. Every time you have to spend actions to take off to fly and then land again, you are losing another 1-2 rounds of impact on the encounter. Lord help you if you thought it would be interesting to have a Barathu Mechanic with a Hover drone. Far from being mobile, if you choose to fly, then in almost any practical situation you will be slower, less free to maneuver, and less able to contribute nearly as effectively to really whatever it is the party is trying to do, at least if you are following the actual strict RAW.

Yeah, the more I think about this, the worse and more ridiculous it gets. I just don't see how anyone wins by trying to be picky with the fly rules. It doesn't seem to make anyone's gameplay easier, more balanced, or more fun. It just throws up tons of of situations where common sense and what the rules say just don't line up at all. Here's a fun riddle for you, for example: Say you are GMing a SFS scenario where the big boss is some incorporeal energy being that ONLY has a fly speed with perfect maneuverability, and has no way to become corporeal. In its tactics box, you are told that on the first round of combat it will always activate its special ability to read the minds of all visible foes (to gauge their fears for follow on mental attacks). You note that ability is listed as a full round action. Combat starts. On its first turn, why doesn't your big bad boss take it's full action to read minds, and then fall 500 feet straight down (the max possible fall distance) towards the center of the planet? Please show your work.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:


B) Hover drones just can't full attack while hovering is not an acceptable answer.

Why not?

From a balance point of view why should you have your full offensive capabilities while also being immune to melee?
From the lore point of view, whats the problem with drones operating more like tiny helicopters and aircrafts instead of floating gun turrets?


Ixal wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:


B) Hover drones just can't full attack while hovering is not an acceptable answer.

Why not?

From a balance point of view why should you have your full offensive capabilities while also being immune to melee?
From the lore point of view, whats the problem with drones operating more like tiny helicopters and aircrafts instead of floating gun turrets?

And from the "how it actually feels for a player" perspective?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Ixal wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:


B) Hover drones just can't full attack while hovering is not an acceptable answer.

Why not?

From a balance point of view why should you have your full offensive capabilities while also being immune to melee?
From the lore point of view, whats the problem with drones operating more like tiny helicopters and aircrafts instead of floating gun turrets?
And from the "how it actually feels for a player" perspective?

Why should a player feel entitled to full attack while flying?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A) You warn the new player that hover drones are a bit complicated them make them a handout from pg. 259. The same flight rules apply to jetpacks, forcepacks, and flight spells. Flight speeds are somewhat complicated, but they aren't that bad. You need to reference the rules when you start, but just like diagonal movement on foot you eventually remember the little bits.

B) 1) I really don't know why you think flying drones have to be able to full attack. See Ixal's response above.

B) 2) Average maneuverability is not being able to fly with ease. You have to focus on keeping aloft. Be it with a jetpack, a forcepack, flight spells, telekinesis (contemplatives), gas bladders (barathu), etc. I completely understand why you can't take your mind of not flying into walls/the ground/etc while attempting to cast a spell.

Perfect maneuverability makes less sense, I'll grant, but I'm not sure PCs can actually get perfect? Polymorph maybe? I haven't looked into it.

C) It is certainly not fundamentally impossible to play with fly speeds as written. It takes a bit more thought, but just like spells, or characters planning to charge an enemy, or readied actions, a player should be thinking about what exactly they are going to do on their turn when it isn't their turn.

D)Flying utility - staying away from melee only creatures. Retrieving objects that are high up, placing grapple hooks for allies, scouting with a camera for the group from a high place/at a long disance/with less fear of reprisal, etc.

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Make an engineering check to disable a camera on the ceiling. Sounds good?

That sounds incredibly difficult to do on a jetpack. A jetpack gives average maneuverability, same as the hypothetical barathu mechanic. They should really get a ladder. Or they could find a handhold and just hang on. You don't need to make an athletics check to climb just to hang on after all, you only have one 'hand' free, but that's enough to cast spells, shoot a pistol, and possibly disable that camera. The hover drone is out of luck here.

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
A hover drone can't even assist a mechanic on Computer/Engineering checks generally, unless it can assist from the floor. Which... it's size tiny. Hmmm. Will your GM even allow it to reach, say, a typical control panel? Expect table variance!

Most drones can't aid another their mechanic on engineering or computers checks. Most engineering or computers checks are full actions or more. Aid another requires the same action type as the one being aided. If the mechanic is taking a full action, the drone can't.

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Having to land to cast your big spell, or take a full attack, or do your skill monkey job, or whatever, means you will be generally a round behind in your impact, relative to a walker/climber/swimmer, and that assumes the optimal case where the place you landed initially is where you need to be for the entire encounter. Every time you have to spend actions to take off to fly and then land again, you are losing another 1-2 rounds of impact on the encounter.

Yes, exactly. That's the price of flight. If you like to perform full actions at the start of combat, you should endeavor to be on the ground at the start of combat. If you like to perform a lot of full actions, you should probably remain grounded.

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Lord help you if you thought it would be interesting to have a Barathu Mechanic with a Hover drone.

Sounds like every other mechanic with a hover drone. The barathu is on the ground shooting while the drone hovers and shoots. Personally I think the FAQ needs an update that the mechanic can donate his swift action without the move action, which solves the issue of them being unable to both float and shoot.

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Here's a fun riddle for you, for example: Say you are GMing a SFS scenario where the big boss is some incorporeal energy being that ONLY has a fly speed with perfect maneuverability, and has no way to become corporeal. In its tactics box, you are told that on the first round of combat it will always activate its special ability to read the minds of all visible foes (to gauge their fears for follow on mental attacks). You note that ability is listed as a full round action. Combat starts. On its first turn, why doesn't your big bad boss take it's full action to read minds, and then fall 500 feet straight down (the max possible fall distance) towards the center of the planet? Please show your work.

It turns out that incorporeal creatures aren't prevented from landing or standing on solid surfaces. So I would either

A)Have it started as landed somewhere, or

B)Have it start floating, it used the ability. It falls, and deliberately passes through the ground. Note that it doesn't fall 500', it falls until it has fully passed through the floor, as it must remain adjacent to a solid object's exterior. Now it has some time to plan.

Incorporeal wrote:

An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid

objects but must remain adjacent to such an object’s exterior,
and so it cannot pass through the center of an object whose
space is larger than its own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GarretMander and Ixal have covered what I would have said.

Well done folks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ixal wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Ixal wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:


B) Hover drones just can't full attack while hovering is not an acceptable answer.

Why not?

From a balance point of view why should you have your full offensive capabilities while also being immune to melee?
From the lore point of view, whats the problem with drones operating more like tiny helicopters and aircrafts instead of floating gun turrets?
And from the "how it actually feels for a player" perspective?
Why should a player feel entitled to full attack while flying?

It's not an unreasonable expectation - and making a character with the ability to fly with the expectation of being able to full attack while doing so, only to find out that it's almost impossible, would be feel pretty terrible for that player.

From a game design perspective, this is a problem. If it is intended that no character be able to fly while full attacking, then, frankly, the books need to do a far, far, far better job of making that clear alongside player options (see: races with a flight speed) that make flight a basic part of the character.

This just makes stacking as many ways to get Haste as possible effectively mandatory for all characters with a flight speed, which is definitely not a good outcome design-wise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure... except that when making a character with a fly speed, or say, buying a jetpack, I would expect a player to crack open the rule book and look into how flying works.

Considering every flight capable race I'm seeing has an average mobility, and that jet packs, force packs, and the flight spell only grant average mobility, I don't think anyone should be going into such a character expecting to fly and full attack. Even if they're still stuck on using a swift action = no full actions.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There are so many interactions that were either not at all considered or well thought out not to mention explained. IF we ever get that FAQ update maybe just maybe some of this might be explained or cleared up. I have no problem with the rules as put forth by those in this tread. Limiting the offensive capabilities of flying in general is a balancing measure and I can be fine with that. What I find highly suspect though or just not at all considers was how this prevents entire races who ONLY have a flight speed from ever full attacking. At the end of the day you can fluff that "landing" for say a Barathu as just hovering only a few feet above ground but its still very odd.

Like most things in Starfinder though im sure its meant to be hand-waved and fluffed. Species with no hands can hold guns after all so apparently creatures with no legs can land as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The second bit of art shows a barathu 'standing' on a single tentacle... I'm not sure why you would think they can't land on a solid surface and use guns or swords or whatever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


It's not an unreasonable expectation - and making a character with the ability to fly with the expectation of being able to full attack while doing so, only to find out that it's almost impossible, would be feel pretty terrible for that player.

From a game design perspective, this is a problem. If it is intended that no character be able to fly while full attacking, then, frankly, the books need to do a far, far, far better job of making that clear alongside player options (see: races with a flight speed) that make flight a basic part of the character.

This just makes stacking as many ways to get Haste as possible effectively mandatory for all characters with a flight speed, which is definitely not a good outcome design-wise.

Let me turn it around and ask why it would be a reasonable expectation that you can simply hang in the air and make full attacks with all the benefits it brings?

And I would expect a player to read the rules about flying before making character build around flight. Its not the fault of the rules that the players has wrong expectations because he doesn't read them.

And that a character who wants to make full attacks should get haste is pretty universal. Extra actions are very powerful in nearly every RPG.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:

It's not an unreasonable expectation - and making a character with the ability to fly with the expectation of being able to full attack while doing so, only to find out that it's almost impossible, would be feel pretty terrible for that player.

From a game design perspective, this is a problem. If it is intended that no character be able to fly while full attacking, then, frankly, the books need to do a far, far, far better job of making that clear alongside player options (see: races with a flight speed) that make flight a basic part of the character.

This just makes stacking as many ways to get Haste as possible effectively mandatory for all characters with a flight speed, which is definitely not a good outcome design-wise.

It's totally unreasonable, actually. Because the only reason for them to have that expectation would be not reading the rules for what they're trying to do. Generally, this kind of thing is from people that assume Starfinder is Pathfinder Rules In Space. Crazy thing, though... it actually isn't. In fact, we have a whole new game here, with different rules and everything!

To your other point; In Starfinder, the intent appears to be that the advantages of flight now come with the disadvantage of it being supremely difficult to get a full action while flying. Some people seem to not like this rule. Now, it's ok if you don't like the rule, and it's also ok if your table doesn't follow this rule. Its somewhat less ok that apparently hundreds of SFS tables aren't following the rule, but I'm not at any of those tables, so I don't really have an opinion there.

Now, if players want to stack whatever bonuses they can get their hands on to have a full action while flying, good for them. But having a decent advantage with a corresponding disadvantage is hardly 'not a good outcome design-wise.' In fact, having an ability that has both positive and negative aspects out of the box, while the game contains several ways to mitigate those negative aspects? That's GOOD game design.


Ixal wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


It's not an unreasonable expectation - and making a character with the ability to fly with the expectation of being able to full attack while doing so, only to find out that it's almost impossible, would be feel pretty terrible for that player.

From a game design perspective, this is a problem. If it is intended that no character be able to fly while full attacking, then, frankly, the books need to do a far, far, far better job of making that clear alongside player options (see: races with a flight speed) that make flight a basic part of the character.

This just makes stacking as many ways to get Haste as possible effectively mandatory for all characters with a flight speed, which is definitely not a good outcome design-wise.

Let me turn it around and ask why it would be a reasonable expectation that you can simply hang in the air and make full attacks with all the benefits it brings?

There is a difference between rules literacy and rules mastery. If you think players can be reasonably expected to know about this expectation because they chose a race with a fly speed, we've apparently been playing at very different tables.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:

There is a difference between rules literacy and rules mastery. If you think players can be reasonably expected to know about this expectation because they chose a race with a fly speed, we've apparently been playing at very different tables.

I don't think you can get simpler than looking up what skill is used to fly with.


Nerdy Canuck wrote:


There is a difference between rules literacy and rules mastery. If you think players can be reasonably expected to know about this expectation because they chose a race with a fly speed, we've apparently been playing at very different tables.

Imo players can be expected to look up "Flying" under additional movement modes of the movement chapter when thy have a fly speed.

How much simpler can it get?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

“I picked a race with a flight speed, but I didn’t go read the flight rules, and now I’m mad!”

This is the argument you’re presenting. It doesn’t even matter what the rules actually *are* at this point, whatever the text in the book says probably wasn’t going to match whatever expectations were made, and that’s 100% the fault of the player. Or the GM, in the case of NPCs with flight.

So, yes, I absolutely expect any person who chooses an option to read the rules for said option. Every time, with every option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I would not expect a new player picking up Quig's pregen sheet to try the game to be familiar with flight rules. I do not think that using a hover drone for the pregen mechanic, intended to hand out to new players, was a good idea.

I would expect someone who made their own barathu character to read them.

As for whether anyone plays with all the restrictions of flight, the answer is either "yes" or "mostly". I have certainly played at tables that got various parts of the flight rules wrong. I have run tables where I forgot one of the restrictions and kept moving. I do make the attempt to make sure my flight-capable characters are moving in a way that they can move, and while it can slow things down a bit the first time you remember to use a restriction, it does not really slow things down once you get used to using it.

I would agree that it sometimes feels like not all of the effects of including a swift action as part of a full action were the best decision, but I cannot support the claim that flight rules are unworkable because a few specific actions can't be taken while hovering. Even with one or two of those actions, like full attack, being very common ones. Flight is still extremely useful, but not always the best movement mode, and that's not terrible.


Ixal wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


There is a difference between rules literacy and rules mastery. If you think players can be reasonably expected to know about this expectation because they chose a race with a fly speed, we've apparently been playing at very different tables.

Imo players can be expected to look up "Flying" under additional movement modes of the movement chapter when thy have a fly speed.

How much simpler can it get?

You're not just expecting that they read a block. You're expecting that they accurately mentally cross-reference multiple blocks in very different areas of the text with the combined meaning hinging upon single words.

That's actually a pretty high bar.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Ixal wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


There is a difference between rules literacy and rules mastery. If you think players can be reasonably expected to know about this expectation because they chose a race with a fly speed, we've apparently been playing at very different tables.

Imo players can be expected to look up "Flying" under additional movement modes of the movement chapter when thy have a fly speed.

How much simpler can it get?

You're not just expecting that they read a block. You're expecting that they accurately mentally cross-reference multiple blocks in very different areas of the text with the combined meaning hinging upon single words.

That's actually a pretty high bar.

On the ground:

PC: I move and take a full attack action.
GM: You can't do both without haste.
PC: Ok, I don't move, just the full attack action.

Flying:

PC: I move and take a full attack action.
GM: You can't do both without haste.
PC: Ok, I don't move, just the full attack action.
GM: But if you don't move, you'll fall. Look up the flight rules.
PC: Ok. I move and make a standard action attack.

What part of this is unfair or unreasonable?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's pretty reasonable(IMO) to expect a player that has a flight speed to go and look at what rules govern flight.

They might miss the part about how full actions use up move, standard and swift actions. Especially if they came from Pathfinder. I think that's the main problem though, is people coming form Pathfinder that have specific expectations about how things should work, and not verify how they work.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yes... I do think that things like the Quick Release Sheathe and Quick Draw (when not using thrown weapons) not helping with 1st round full attacks or trick attacks are a much bigger culprit there than flying, though. The utility of flight isn't contingent on hovering full actions the way that the utility of those options depends on understanding exactly what a swift action does or doesn't interfere with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


You're not just expecting that they read a block. You're expecting that they accurately mentally cross-reference multiple blocks in very different areas of the text with the combined meaning hinging upon single words.

That's actually a pretty high bar.

...what?

It's too hard to look at your sheet, see a flight speed, and go read the flight rules? And while you're there, it's double hard to say 'swift action, eh? I wonder what using my swift action means for my action economy is this new game. I better check on that.'

Seriously, if a person says "Well, I want to play this game, but learning rules is too hard," then that person should probably stay away from tabletop RPGs.


Xenocrat wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Ixal wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


There is a difference between rules literacy and rules mastery. If you think players can be reasonably expected to know about this expectation because they chose a race with a fly speed, we've apparently been playing at very different tables.

Imo players can be expected to look up "Flying" under additional movement modes of the movement chapter when thy have a fly speed.

How much simpler can it get?

You're not just expecting that they read a block. You're expecting that they accurately mentally cross-reference multiple blocks in very different areas of the text with the combined meaning hinging upon single words.

That's actually a pretty high bar.

On the ground:

PC: I move and take a full attack action.
GM: You can't do both without haste.
PC: Ok, I don't move, just the full attack action.

Flying:

PC: I move and take a full attack action.
GM: You can't do both without haste.
PC: Ok, I don't move, just the full attack action.
GM: But if you don't move, you'll fall. Look up the flight rules.
PC: Ok. I move and make a standard action attack.

What part of this is unfair or unreasonable?

But what would actually happen is that a player who is already flying just says "I make a full attack". As I'm sure you already realize.

Pantshandshake wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


You're not just expecting that they read a block. You're expecting that they accurately mentally cross-reference multiple blocks in very different areas of the text with the combined meaning hinging upon single words.

That's actually a pretty high bar.

...what?

It's too hard to look at your sheet, see a flight speed, and go read the flight rules? And while you're there, it's double hard to say 'swift action, eh? I wonder what using my swift action means for my action economy is this new game. I better check on that.'

Seriously, if a person says "Well, I want to play this game, but learning rules is too hard," then that person should probably stay away from tabletop RPGs.

Considering that most players don't even know the term "action economy"...


Garretmander wrote:

Sure... except that when making a character with a fly speed, or say, buying a jetpack, I would expect a player to crack open the rule book and look into how flying works.

Considering every flight capable race I'm seeing has an average mobility, and that jet packs, force packs, and the flight spell only grant average mobility, I don't think anyone should be going into such a character expecting to fly and full attack. Even if they're still stuck on using a swift action = no full actions.

Anyone with a haste effect or a hurry is going to be able to move and full attack (haste circuits are almost ubiquitous at higher levels)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nerdy Canuck wrote:
Ixal wrote:
Nerdy Canuck wrote:


There is a difference between rules literacy and rules mastery. If you think players can be reasonably expected to know about this expectation because they chose a race with a fly speed, we've apparently been playing at very different tables.

Imo players can be expected to look up "Flying" under additional movement modes of the movement chapter when thy have a fly speed.

How much simpler can it get?

You're not just expecting that they read a block. You're expecting that they accurately mentally cross-reference multiple blocks in very different areas of the text with the combined meaning hinging upon single words.

That's actually a pretty high bar.

Agreed.

Don't forget, part of choosing a character is understanding ALL of them so you can make the right choice. That's a lot of rules to know before rolling your first character.

My table has 6 people who are all intelligent, mature, experienced gamers. Despite that, none of us managed to initially cross-reference the idea of no full attacks in the air before we created characters.

Maybe we glossed past that stuff because we had Pathfinder experience and didn't catch the difference there.

Or maybe we just suck.

Maybe we suck so bad that we're actually atypical and everybody else simply reads the rulebook cover to cover, remembers it all, makes mental cross-checks to figure out all the rules interactions, and reads a few thousand forum posts to fill in any gaps, all before they make a character.

We didn't do that, or maybe we just didn't do it as well as everybody else, and we discovered things like this later in the game after we'd played for a few levels.


DM_Blake wrote:


Maybe we glossed past that stuff because we had Pathfinder experience and didn't catch the difference there.

That was my groups problem.

We got so used to PF rules from years of playing, that taking a swift action to hover didn't raise any alarms in our heads. So you can't swift action while flying, most of the classes don't have swift action abilities. Doesn't come up too much, just watch for certain other abilities.

Until you learn that full actions require the use of your swift.

That was really the big change that we needed to learn and pay attention to.


In Pathfinder, being able to fly meant that most encounters couldn't hurt you. You were out of reach. Sure, there are flying encounters in the Bestiaries, of course, but there are more non-flying encounters. So a flying wizard is out of melee dangers, puts up a windwall or entropy shield or protection from arrows, etc., and now archers can't do much. He's very hard to kill.

Of course, I did that to the players as often as they did it to me.

Maybe I can call that balance, but balancing "heavily advantaged" vs. "other heavily advantaged in a different encounter" isn't really balance.

In Starfinder, EVERYBODY has ranged attacks and I haven't see too much that negates them. So being able to fly can defeat a few Alien Archive enemies but, unlike Pathfinder, these are a minority of encounters.

I don't see how a system that worked for a decade in Pathfinder that gave advantage in most encounters needs to be changed to a silly "attack and fall" mechanic to prevent advantage in a minority of Starfinder encounters.

I won't defend the system just because I like it, or just because I play it, or just because the developers wrote it.

I needs to make sense for me to defend it.

The Starfinder "fight-and-fall or land-and-fight" mechanic is silly. Under these rules, a manticore cannot even fire a barrage of tail spikes. Or a million other examples.

It doesn't solve a real problem. It just creates new ones.

Not a good mechanic.

I do like this game and we've played it since release and continue to play it. But I can't defend this rule.

I'd like to see it changed. Even if that is only to add feats to make hovering and full attacking become possible for things that should obviously be able to do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty weird to equate not being able to make full attacks in the air to not being able to fight from the air.

(And as always, all flight options are trash and this problem goes away once you have access for Force Soles Mk 2.)


Fascinating discussion... and a huge headache. It doesn't seem that there's much disagreement at this point on what RAW actually IS. Just grumping about what it should be.

I'm just gonna houserule that full attacks don't burn your swift and sidestep the whole mess.

51 to 100 of 146 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Starfinder / Rules Questions / Full Attack while Flying? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.