Longstrider and Fly


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aratorin wrote:
What I'm saying is that position 2 isn't a valid position, as it makes boosts to Land Speed and boosts to all Speeds the same thing, which they clearly aren't.

I generally think that position 3 is correct, but I don't think it's necessarily invalid for someone to try to argue that both speed means speed but also hold the position that any given modifier should only effect a character once. I don't think that's correct as written, but I don't think it's an unreasonable position for someone to take either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aratorin wrote:
it makes boosts to Land Speed and boosts to all Speeds the same thing, which they clearly aren't.

Only in situations where a non-land speed is derived from your land speed. If I fed a Quicksilver Mutagen to my Hawk animal companion, its land speed becomes 15, but its fly speed is still 60.


Nefreet wrote:

I was open to the idea of being wrong when I first responded in this thread, but after this discussion I'm totally with Zapp in this camp.

If a GM told me I couldn't fly faster (using Fly) under the effect of Longstrider, I'd literally pull out my Core Rulebook, show them the text of the two abilities, and ask them to support why not. I don't see the phrase "derived speeds" anywhere in the Core Rulebook, and I would need some substantial evidence to support such a restriction.

Combining multiple effects is a thing. There are multitudes of examples of different combinations stacking. Unless someone can concretely show that this is prevented, the text of the two abilities wins out. As a "permissive rules" game system, that's how Pathfinder works.

Combining multiple effects is a thing. After all, a given stat can be affected by up to 3 bonuses, all of different types.

What is not a thing, is allowing a bonus that effects a specific stat to effect another. You wouldn't argue that an ability that increases your attack with a specific martial weapon could increase your attack with All martial weapons, right?

CRB PG. 463 "Movement" wrote:

Creatures in Pathfinder soar through the clouds, scale

sheer cliffs, and tunnel underfoot. Most creatures have
a Speed, which is how fast they can move across the
ground. Some abilities give you different ways to move,
such as through the air or underground.
Each of these special movement types has its own
Speed value.

Each special speed, no matter how you get it, has it's own value. This makes them their own individual stats. All I am saying, is that you should never allow an effect that specifically alters One of those speeds, land speed most of the time, to effect more than one of them.

Also, you are correct, there is no reference to derived speeds in the CRB. But that is exactly what 19 different abilities and effects from the CRB do. They derive a new speed using your land speed. The question that the OP posed is ultimately, how do you resolve this situation. Know how many abilities grant you a specific special speed, barring Polymorph effects that turns you directly into another creature? There are eight. None of which I have ever seen used in play. 19 cases where Longstrider suddenly becomes a Buff whatever speed spell, vs. 8 cases where it doesn't effect a new speed at all.

I tend to agree with Zapp actually. RAW, Longstrider would in fact effect any speed derived from Land Speed, at least that is the most "obvious" outcome. My argument is simply that this is obviously a "too good to be true" situation, one of the most obvious we have had a discussion about on the forums. As aratorin points out, it makes Longstrider a de facto "Buff all speeds" spell, in the bulk of situations where characters would have non-land speeds. This is problematic, and should be adjusted.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you determine that's too problematic for your homegame, please feel free to adjust it.

Some GMs may feel a d12 is too much damage for a Greatsword, and they are free to make it d10.

But determining what's problematic for Pathfinder should be left to the Designers.


Nefreet wrote:

If you determine that's too problematic for your homegame, please feel free to adjust it.

Some GMs may feel a d12 is too much damage for a Greatsword, and they are free to make it d10.

But determining what's problematic for Pathfinder should be left to the Designers.

Sure, and I have done nothing but advocate that each GM considers that when running those rules. But when a GM looks for clarification on a rule in this forum, they should have a range of options in a case where the RAW is either unclear or questionable in its application like in this case.

Until we have a designer pop in and let us know what the intention is here, we have to fall back on each other for guidance. Simply stating that, "Longstrider should Obviously apply to fly/swim/climb/burrow/what have you," rather than discussing the underlying mechanics and how they have an obviously problematic interaction doesn't help anyone.

If you don't feel that allowing Longstrider to provide a bonus to the bulk of speeds that a given character is likely to have at any given time is a problem then feel free to run it that way. I for one feel that this makes that spell, and others like it, far too strong. Imagine Fleet Step if Longstrider is too tame for you.

Then we have the ambiguity that comes from Longstrider being a bonus specifically to your Land Speed. RAW, this means that any speeds based on your Land Speed are still eligible for Status Bonuses, as Longstrider simply can't directly target them. This allows the double stacking of same type bonuses, which is very much not allowed by the rules. Saying that, "Obviously you shouldn't allow that," is just as much a "homegame" rule. RAW, you can't deny that such speeds would be eligible.

A designer popping in and providing insight would be great though, I agree there.

Sczarni

beowulf99 wrote:
Simply stating that, "Longstrider should Obviously apply to fly/swim/climb/burrow/what have you,"

Who has said this?


Nefreet wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Simply stating that, "Longstrider should Obviously apply to fly/swim/climb/burrow/what have you,"
Who has said this?
Zapp wrote:

Question is not if Longstrider enhances the fly speed, and it doesn't, but if the fly speed recevied fromt the Fly spell is:

30ft. - as the base land speed, even if I have already casted Longstrider
40ft. - as the enhanced land speed I have at the moment I cast Fly thanks to Longstrider

And

You only have one "Speed". No rule discusses having to keep track of a "base" speed.

Therefore it is crystal clear Longstrider applies to Fly and that anyone saying otherwise is houseruling it.

Both posts that you marked as Favorite I may add. Also:

Nefreet wrote:
Fly is based off of your Speed. Longstrider increases your Speed. Therefore, someone under the effect of Longstrider flies faster.

I mean, maybe my reading comprehension has taken a hit from quarantine and all, but that sounds like you are saying, "Longstrider should Obviously apply to fly/swim/climb/burrow/what have you," to me.

I'd also like to address the second statement made by Zapp. As is usually, they posted 3 posts all at the same time, and I missed that one.

CRB PG. 463 "Movement Types" wrote:

Most creatures have

a Speed, which is how fast they can move across the
ground. Some abilities give you different ways to move,
such as through the air or underground.
Each of these special movement types has its own
Speed value.
Many creatures have these Speeds naturally.
The various types of movement are listed below. Since the
Stride action can be used only with your normal Speed,
moving using one of these movement types requires using
a special action, and you can’t Step while using one of
these movement types. Since Speed by itself refers to your
land Speed, rules text concerning these special movement
types specifies the movement types to which it applies.
Even though Speeds aren’t checks, they can have item,
circumstance, and status bonuses and penalties. These can’t
reduce your Speeds below 5 feet unless stated otherwise.

Since you have to track each of these speeds separately anyway, what is so hard about basing their speeds on your un-modified speed? After all, there is a Speed entry on your character sheet that I doubt you scratch out and re-write every time you gain a bonus to that speed, right? Or are you constantly erasing and rewriting your Speed on your sheet every time you have Longstrider cast on you, instead of writing in the bonus in the convenient Notes section next to the value?

And if each of those speeds have their own speed value, they should also be counted as separate for the purposes of bonuses. Hence why I stand by my statement that Longstrider should never effect non-land speeds, it is specifically a bonus to your Land Speed, due to it referencing "Speed" without a specific speed being listed.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your interpretation would be incorrect.

Does that clear things up, then?

The very subject of this thread is "Longstrider and Fly", after all.


Nefreet wrote:

Your interpretation would be incorrect.

Does that clear things up, then?

The very subject of this thread is "Longstrider and Fly", after all.

And I agree that RAW, the two would interact. I disagree that this is a good way to rule it however. The fact is that the rulebook is silent on statistics that are derived from other statistics. There is no set method for calculating them specified in the book.

I simply don't believe that allowing Longstrider to effect any speeds derived from your Land Speed, regardless of whether you allow further bonuses of the same type to that speed, is a rule that is working as intended, especially when there are no other instances where you can stack bonuses of the same type, or apply a bonus to a stat that the bonus doesn't state it effects.

Hence why this is a great example of an "Ambiguous Rule" that the developers want us to rule on from a table to table basis.

Calling me wrong without explaining why doesn't support your position at all. In fact, it only hurts your position.

Also, funny that you so heartily agree with Zapp, then state that the "subject of the thread is "Longstrider and Fly", when Zapp stated earlier:

Zapp wrote:

You really haven't understood me if you keep bringing up specific examples.

No general rule is defined by specific examples.

That's just not how it works.

If you can't point to a general rule that tells us how to specifically address this situation, and you can't since there isn't one, then all you have left are specific situations.

At this juncture I don't know why the discussion is still going on. The RAW in this instance breaks tradition with other examples of the rules in effect, by allowing players to apply bonuses to stats those bonuses shouldn't effect. Without a general rule to provide guidance, there really isn't anything for any given GM to do but make a ruling at their own table.

We should probably leave it at that.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Glad we could all come to an agreement ^_^

Liberty's Edge

Nefreet wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:
What troubles me is timing. What if Fly was cast first, then Longstrider? Would Fly get a bump? I would say no because when the Fly spell was cast the Fly Speed is set by the current Speed of the target.

I don't see a reason why it should be static:

You have a Speed of 30 feet, and cast Fly. Your Fly Speed is 30 feet. You increase your Speed by X feet. Your Fly Speed increases by X feet. Someone casts a cold spell on you, reducing your Speed by Y feet. Your Fly Speed reduces by Y feet.

Seems easy and intuitive to me.

Again we agree to disagree!! :)

Seriously, are all spells dynamic like this? This will lead to much larger discussion and disagree if spells become dynamic and change. I am under the influence of a charm person. A party member casts some type of polymorph spell on me, changing to a creature type that is no subject to charm person. So now I am no longer charmed?

A spell is cast. It takes affect. It can't change after that.

Liberty's Edge

Aratorin wrote:
Longstrider boosts your land speed only. That isn't debatable, the rules flatly state it. So, either Fly goes off of your base land speed, or it goes off of your current land speed. Either way, whatever Fly speed Fly gives you is your base Fly Speed, not a modified fly speed, and is therefore fully modifiable by whatever boosts and penalties affect fly speeds.

To me, this is people just trying to game the system. I think it is clear that when the rules for Speed were put into place, they intended all types of speed to based on Land Speed (rules even say this).

So if Land Speed is modified by status bonus, and a spell is cast that gives a Fly Speed based on the Land Speed (modified by a status bonus), another spell that would modify Fly Speed with a status bonus would not stack.

Home game GMs can allow this. But for Organized Play, we need some definitive direction. I really don't care where it falls, just need a direction.

Sczarni

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.


Nefreet wrote:

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.

I mean if you're going to be that kind of player, that's where the GM pulls out the book and points to the line "The GM Has the Final Say". That pretty much ends the argument.


Nefreet wrote:

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.

And that sounds like every player trying to take advantage of a loophole I've ever met. Just calling it like I see it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gary Bush wrote:
A party member casts some type of polymorph spell on me, changing to a creature type that is no subject to charm person. So now I am no longer charmed?

Yes, actually.

From the rules on targeting:

Quote:
If a creature starts out as a valid target but ceases to be one during a spell’s duration, the spell typically ends, but the GM might decide otherwise in certain situations.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.

I mean if you're going to be that kind of player, that's where the GM pulls out the book and points to the line "The GM Has the Final Say". That pretty much ends the argument.

It can certainly end the discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that one position is better supported than the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.

I mean if you're going to be that kind of player, that's where the GM pulls out the book and points to the line "The GM Has the Final Say". That pretty much ends the argument.
It can certainly end the discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that one position is better supported than the other.

So how would you rule when there's double-buffing/penalizing when an effect changes both (land) speed & fly speed?

How about swim fins? I'm not making those up, they reduce your land speed, but doesn't it feel too wonky to have them reduce your fly speed?

What about effects applied after casting Fly?
Or when foot damage affects speed?
Again, I'm reading it like you are so far, but when more variables get added, the clarity wanes.

Horizon Hunters

Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.

I mean if you're going to be that kind of player, that's where the GM pulls out the book and points to the line "The GM Has the Final Say". That pretty much ends the argument.
It can certainly end the discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that one position is better supported than the other.

So how would you rule when there's double-buffing/penalizing when an effect changes both (land) speed & fly speed?

How about swim fins? I'm not making those up, they reduce your land speed, but doesn't it feel too wonky to have them reduce your fly speed?

What about effects applied after casting Fly?
Or when foot damage affects speed?
Again, I'm reading it like you are so far, but when more variables get added, the clarity wanes.

I am not seeing what's confusing about those scenarios. Fly spell is very clear that it does one thing or another. If something like swim find has a negative item bonus to speed just factor that in once as you would do any other bonus or penalty.

Any weird interaction with special affects simultaneously buffing and nerfing a speed used in another speeds calculation could happen but would be a weird scenario I think a GM could probably reasonably navigate. I don't think longstrider + fly is a scenario I'd consider weird and unusual however.

Rule lawyers can be annoying but I understand what you mean.If I was in a game going as close to RAW as possible (PFS) I'd be very surprised if a GM informed me he was not allowing Longstrider and Fly rules to work together.


Goldryno wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.

I mean if you're going to be that kind of player, that's where the GM pulls out the book and points to the line "The GM Has the Final Say". That pretty much ends the argument.
It can certainly end the discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that one position is better supported than the other.

So how would you rule when there's double-buffing/penalizing when an effect changes both (land) speed & fly speed?

How about swim fins? I'm not making those up, they reduce your land speed, but doesn't it feel too wonky to have them reduce your fly speed?

What about effects applied after casting Fly?
Or when foot damage affects speed?
Again, I'm reading it like you are so far, but when more variables get added, the clarity wanes.

I am not seeing what's confusing about those scenarios. Fly spell is very clear that it does one thing or another. If something like swim find has a negative item bonus to speed just factor that in once as you would do any other bonus or penalty.

Any weird interaction with special affects simultaneously buffing and nerfing a speed used in another speeds calculation could happen but would be a weird scenario I think a GM could probably reasonably navigate. I don't think longstrider + fly is a scenario I'd consider weird and unusual however.

Rule lawyers can be annoying but I understand what you mean.If I was in a game going as close to RAW as possible (PFS) I'd be very surprised if a GM informed me he was not allowing Longstrider and Fly rules to work together.

To each their own. But I will say that this has the unintentional side effect of making Longstrider, and really any Land speed only speed buff a de facto buff to every speed that a player character is likely to have. And if that isn't too good to be true, then I don't know what is.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
I will say that this has the unintentional side effect of making Longstrider, and really any Land speed only speed buff a de facto buff to every speed that a player character is likely to have.

Again, nobody in this thread has ever once argued for this. Please stop bringing it up.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Striding is not flying.

Sczarni

Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.

I mean if you're going to be that kind of player, that's where the GM pulls out the book and points to the line "The GM Has the Final Say". That pretty much ends the argument.
It can certainly end the discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that one position is better supported than the other.

So how would you rule when there's double-buffing/penalizing when an effect changes both (land) speed & fly speed?

How about swim fins? I'm not making those up, they reduce your land speed, but doesn't it feel too wonky to have them reduce your fly speed?

What about effects applied after casting Fly?
Or when foot damage affects speed?
Again, I'm reading it like you are so far, but when more variables get added, the clarity wanes.

All very good questions that each deserve their own threads, as they are off-topic from this thread's question.


Nefreet wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
I will say that this has the unintentional side effect of making Longstrider, and really any Land speed only speed buff a de facto buff to every speed that a player character is likely to have.
Again, nobody in this thread has ever once argued for this. Please stop bringing it up.

That's awkward, as that is all you have been saying. Unless you are saying that the rules forum is not the place to discuss the rules and their interactions, intended or not, and whether they apply to a specific question asked by a forum member. Or alternatives when the rules are ambiguous or have "problematic repercussions."

Because I would think it would be.

Sczarni

No. Absolutely not.

What you've been doing is trying to twist what we're saying into something we're not, despite our best efforts to be absolutely clear that we're discussing ONLY Longstrider+Fly.

I'm not sure if it's a language barrier, or intentional, but please stop putting words into other people's mouths. It's a personal pet peeve of mine, and I really won't tolerate it. If I have to start flagging your posts, I will.

Horizon Hunters

beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

For Organized Play, what you can do (and what I plan to do in case it ever comes up) is pull out the Core Rulebook and point to the spells Longstrider and Fly.

That should honestly solve your problem right there.

If whoever you're discussing this with mentions "base speed", "derived speed", or some other such made-up terminology presented in this thread, simply ask the other person where in the Core Rulebook those terms can be found.

I guarantee you one position is going to have much more support than the other.

I mean if you're going to be that kind of player, that's where the GM pulls out the book and points to the line "The GM Has the Final Say". That pretty much ends the argument.
It can certainly end the discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that one position is better supported than the other.

So how would you rule when there's double-buffing/penalizing when an effect changes both (land) speed & fly speed?

How about swim fins? I'm not making those up, they reduce your land speed, but doesn't it feel too wonky to have them reduce your fly speed?

What about effects applied after casting Fly?
Or when foot damage affects speed?
Again, I'm reading it like you are so far, but when more variables get added, the clarity wanes.

I am not seeing what's confusing about those scenarios. Fly spell is very clear that it does one thing or another. If something like swim find has a negative item bonus to speed just factor that in once as you would do any other bonus or penalty.

Any weird interaction with special affects simultaneously buffing and nerfing a speed used in another speeds calculation could happen but would be a weird scenario I think a GM could probably reasonably navigate. I don't think longstrider + fly is a scenario I'd consider weird and unusual however.

Rule lawyers can be annoying but I understand what you

...

True, it will have an effect but that's only because of the difference in having a Swim speed you automatically perform and the option to take a check to swim based on a calculation.

It will have no effect on an automatic swim speed and will have at most a +5 foot affect on the other (with the possibility of it having no effect). Kinda on the same note with flight. If you had a flight speed from using a broom of flying no effect, but those spells that use a calculation involving a land speed I don't see the need to alter, mostly because your burning more resources and not just receiving it for free.

Both involve spending more resources or taking a bit more risk. I'm sure you're familiar with the mechanics. I just wanted to highlight some of the ways in which it wouldn't always apply a bonus to other speeds or at the very least not a guaranteed bonus.

In my mind this is far from the too good to be true category but I could see reassessing that if it ever became a problem at the table. I will not deny that the combo can be strong especially with players who make the maximum use of their mobility.


Nefreet wrote:

No. Absolutely not.

What you've been doing is trying to twist what we're saying into something we're not, despite our best efforts to be absolutely clear that we're discussing ONLY Longstrider+Fly.

I'm not sure if it's a language barrier, or intentional, but please stop putting words into other people's mouths. It's a personal pet peeve of mine, and I really won't tolerate it. If I have to start flagging your posts, I will.

So what you are saying, is that Longstrider and Fly interacting has no bearing on any other situation where Longstrider could interact with a speed that is based on your land speed?

Odd that, since each of those instances would be virtually the same.

Any ruling on one of these situations would inherently effect every other situation. That is what I am trying to say.

I apologize if you feel personally attacked by my posts, I assure you there is no language barrier. I fully understand what you are attempting to say, and I even agree that a cursory reading of the two abilities would indicate that they would interact.

My real point that I have been trying to make is that this would be the poster child for a problematic interaction between rules and create a "Too good to be true" situation, allowing the stacking of bonuses and the application of bonuses not intended for a stat to that stat. Verbal judo it however you wish, that is the end result.

I also posted about how you do indeed have to track each movement type separately, and how simple it would be to just do that:

beowulf99 wrote:

Since you have to track each of these speeds separately anyway, what is so hard about basing their speeds on your un-modified speed? After all, there is a Speed entry on your character sheet that I doubt you scratch out and re-write every time you gain a bonus to that speed, right? Or are you constantly erasing and rewriting your Speed on your sheet every time you have Longstrider cast on you, instead of writing in the bonus in the convenient Notes section next to the value?

And if each of those speeds have their own speed value, they should also be counted as separate for the purposes of bonuses. Hence why I stand by my statement that Longstrider should never effect non-land speeds, it is specifically a bonus to your Land Speed, due to it referencing "Speed" without a specific speed being listed.

If you don't agree, well then that is your opinion. Run the interaction as you see fit. I am merely commenting on how I see the situation, and how I rule it at my table.


Goldryno wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Previous Posts here.

I went through and compiled a list of most of the effects that grant a character a speed that this ruling would effect. I'll go ahead and post them in spoilers to save space.

Abilities and Effects that grant a new special speed based on your Land Speed:

Raging Athlete, 4th Level Barbarian Feat
Dragon's Rage Wings, 12th Level Dragon Instinct Barbarian Feat
Celestial Form, 18th Level Champion Feat
Various Favored Terrain Bonuses, 2nd Level Ranger Feat
Legendary Effect of Quick Climb/Quick Swim
Feet to Fins, Spell Level 3
Fly, Spell Level 4
Spider Climb, Spell Level 2
Travelers Transit, Cleric Focus Spell
Stormwind Flight, Druid Focus Spell
Wind Jump, Monk Focus Spell
Angelic Wings, Sorcerer Focus Spell
Dragon Wings, Sorcerer Focus Spell
Elemental Motion*, Sorcerer Focus Spell *Also can grant a Specific Burrow speed
Shifting Form*, Wizard Focus Spell *Grants speeds equal to half your Speed.
Potion of Swimming, Item level 6/11
Dragon Turtle Scale, Talisman item level 4
Ring of Climbing**, Item lvl 12 *Climb speed equal to half speed, specifies that penalties apply before halving, first instance of this kind of wording.
Ring of Swimming, As ring of Climbing.

List of effects and abilities that grant specific special movement speeds:
Cave Climber, 9th Level Goblin Ancestry Feat
Various PolyMorph Effects and Battle Forms, Various levels various Spell Lists. Totals to around 20 different spells, depending on how you count Wild Morph and it's various options.
Elemental Motion*, Sorcerer Focus Spell *Also can grant a derived speeds
Seatouch Elixer, item level 5
Celestial Armor, item level 13
Potion of Flying, item level 8/15
Cloak of the Bat, item level 10/17
Slippers of Spider Climb, item level 7
Winged Boots, item level 10

Note: This is not an exhaustive list, was compiled by paging through the rulebook at my leisure. This is also only the abilities and effects that provide these speeds from the Core Rule Book.

With the pretty large exception of Polymorph effects, that completely replace your movement speeds with those granted by your new form, there are only 7 abilities that grant a specific special movement speed in the CRB. There are however 19 different effects, some available as early as 2nd level that base your new speeds off of your "Land Speed". These would all be effected in the exact same way as Fly by Longstrider or any other effect that provided a bonus to "Speed".

In my experience they are also the more common methods of gaining these speeds, though that is anecdotal at best so take it with a grain of salt.

This is why I see this ruling as problematic and "too good to be true".

Horizon Hunters

beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Previous Posts here.

I went through and compiled a list of most of the effects that grant a character a speed that this ruling would effect. I'll go ahead and post them in spoilers to save space.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Note: This...

I guess that's where we difer.

I don't see the frequency of the rule interaction or there being several options for combos as being inherently problematic by itself or too good to be true.


Goldryno wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Goldryno wrote:
Previous Posts here.

I went through and compiled a list of most of the effects that grant a character a speed that this ruling would effect. I'll go ahead and post them in spoilers to save space.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Note: This...

I guess that's where we difer.

I don't see the frequency of the rule interaction or there being several options for combos as being inherently problematic by itself or too good to be true.

C'est la vie. That is your determination to make. I see it as being very problematic, especially with abilities that call out an increase to a specific speed.


Nefreet wrote:

I was open to the idea of being wrong when I first responded in this thread, but after this discussion I'm totally with Zapp in this camp.

If a GM told me I couldn't fly faster (using Fly) under the effect of Longstrider, I'd literally pull out my Core Rulebook, show them the text of the two abilities, and ask them to support why not. I don't see the phrase "derived speeds" anywhere in the Core Rulebook, and I would need some substantial evidence to support such a restriction.

Combining multiple effects is a thing. There are multitudes of examples of different combinations stacking. Unless someone can concretely show that this is prevented, the text of the two abilities wins out. As a "permissive rules" game system, that's how Pathfinder works.

Having said that, I really wish you'd mention another possibility:

That the GM is right.

In other words, a GM can tell me Longstrider doesn't make me Fly faster and she would be entirely within her rights to rule that way.

This is the difference between a theoretical RAW discussion, and the practical situation at any given table.

Just saying this because you phrased it as "If a GM told me I couldn't". It is never the correct approach to combat a GM's rulings by trying to hit her with the rulebook.

---

If the GM said "The rules say you can't..." then you'd be entirely within your right to ask how.

But in this case the GM said "I say you can't..." which is a completely different thing.

Cheers :)


Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I was open to the idea of being wrong when I first responded in this thread, but after this discussion I'm totally with Zapp in this camp.

If a GM told me I couldn't fly faster (using Fly) under the effect of Longstrider, I'd literally pull out my Core Rulebook, show them the text of the two abilities, and ask them to support why not. I don't see the phrase "derived speeds" anywhere in the Core Rulebook, and I would need some substantial evidence to support such a restriction.

Combining multiple effects is a thing. There are multitudes of examples of different combinations stacking. Unless someone can concretely show that this is prevented, the text of the two abilities wins out. As a "permissive rules" game system, that's how Pathfinder works.

Ok, but that works both ways then. So then if your Land Speed is 25, and you are wearing Full Plate with 16 Strength, your Fly speed is 5.

Your starting Fly Speed is 15, as it is derived from your current Land Speed of 15, and is then reduced by 10, as Full Plate specifically reduces Fly Speed by 10.

If you don't rule it that way, you are being hypocritical and using a different interpretation for each instance, just to get yourself the best result each time.

I am aware of no such thing as Full Plate specifically reducing your Fly Speed.

You are obviously still at your reductio ad absurdum game, since you apply the same speed penalty twice, just to set up a situation where you can argue for rules that don't actually exist.

This makes it entirely unnecessary to reply to your arguments. If your land speed is 15 your fly speed obviously is 15 too.


Castilliano wrote:


Quite incendiary there, perhaps due to straw.

There are many positions here

I believe what nearly everyone wants is a ruleset that has no contradictions, that just works - something you could insert into a computer, something that doesn't require any manual intervention.

That is not what we have been given.

But that is not a persuasive argument for creating new rules out of thin air. At least when we're discussing RAW (in your home game; anything goes).


Zapp wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I was open to the idea of being wrong when I first responded in this thread, but after this discussion I'm totally with Zapp in this camp.

If a GM told me I couldn't fly faster (using Fly) under the effect of Longstrider, I'd literally pull out my Core Rulebook, show them the text of the two abilities, and ask them to support why not. I don't see the phrase "derived speeds" anywhere in the Core Rulebook, and I would need some substantial evidence to support such a restriction.

Combining multiple effects is a thing. There are multitudes of examples of different combinations stacking. Unless someone can concretely show that this is prevented, the text of the two abilities wins out. As a "permissive rules" game system, that's how Pathfinder works.

Ok, but that works both ways then. So then if your Land Speed is 25, and you are wearing Full Plate with 16 Strength, your Fly speed is 5.

Your starting Fly Speed is 15, as it is derived from your current Land Speed of 15, and is then reduced by 10, as Full Plate specifically reduces Fly Speed by 10.

If you don't rule it that way, you are being hypocritical and using a different interpretation for each instance, just to get yourself the best result each time.

I am aware of no such thing as Full Plate specifically reducing your Fly Speed.

You are obviously still at your reductio ad absurdum game, since you apply the same speed penalty twice, just to set up a situation where you can argue for rules that don't actually exist.

This makes it entirely unnecessary to reply to your arguments. If your land speed is 15 your fly speed obviously is 15 too.

Well no, it is a fair argument. If Fly uses your Speed as it's value, and that value is 15 then you would have a Fly speed of 15 right? According to your accepted interpretation that is.

Well, then why wouldn't the Plate Mail's speed penalty further apply to the "new" fly speed? Your "Fly" speed hasn't been reduced yet. It is based on your Speed, that is not the same as accepting the penalties that your Speed took.

This is just the exact opposite scenario that I rule against: Why allow bonuses and penalties to apply twice to any one statistic? The rules have a hard no stacking same typed bonuses and penalties clause after all. In your interpretation, how exactly do you define your Fly speed while wearing Plate Mail?

Or are you saying that your "Fly" speed that you are granted by fly is not eligible for any bonuses or penalties?


beowulf99 wrote:
I tend to agree with Zapp actually. RAW, Longstrider would in fact effect any speed derived from Land Speed, at least that is the most "obvious" outcome. My argument is simply that this is obviously a "too good to be true" situation, one of the most obvious we have had a discussion about on the forums. As aratorin points out, it makes Longstrider a de facto "Buff all speeds" spell, in the bulk of situations where characters would have non-land speeds. This is problematic, and should be adjusted.

Thank you.

Yes, me arguing "this is the RAW" and "this is good" would be two entirely separate things.

I'm only arguing Longstrider affects Fly, not that this is necessarily a good thing.

I am arguing that the way Longstrider affects Fly makes for a simpler ruleset, not making that better, but... simpler. It explains why Paizo went that way.

If you (not just you Beowulf, but "y'all") feel this problematic, and should be adjusted, then you should definitely institute a house rule to your game.

Do beware, however, that writing that rule isn't as straight-forward as it seems. After all, that's likely why Paizo didn't do it.

(If you have friendly players that only need to learn your "RAI", you obviously don't need to be a rules laywer. But if you want to phrase your house rule in an ironclad way, and generally transform this entire "speed malarkey" into something a computer would understand, I predict a much more involved and complex houserule than you might first anticipate)

Good luck with your game


Squiggit wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
What I'm saying is that position 2 isn't a valid position, as it makes boosts to Land Speed and boosts to all Speeds the same thing, which they clearly aren't.
I generally think that position 3 is correct, but I don't think it's necessarily invalid for someone to try to argue that both speed means speed but also hold the position that any given modifier should only effect a character once. I don't think that's correct as written, but I don't think it's an unreasonable position for someone to take either.

I say "beware taking positions" :-)

The truth is, there isn't any one set of clear instructions that resolve all cases.

Human common sense and logic must be applied to Paizo's rules here.

You need to interpret the rules as simple and as straight-forwardly as possible, avoiding logical fallacies that easily lead you into thinking extraneous rules exist or were intended, in order to arrive at the RAW.

This situation is obviously not ideal.


beowulf99 wrote:
Well, then why wouldn't the Plate Mail's speed penalty further apply to the "new" fly speed?

Because that's clearly absurd?

There's no way the devs intend bonuses and penalties to apply recursively.

---

As I have said repeatedly, the rules presently aren't sufficient to feed to a computer. A computer would indeed apply the speed penalty twice (given one hypothetical implementation).

None of this makes for a logical argument to invent new rules.

Yes, it's sloppy. No, it can't be used to argue "Fly knows which speed bonuses and penalties to avoid", or, formally, "keep separate track of your base Speed and your effective Speed including bonuses and penalties".

Not saying you do this, of course, since you're instead using it to argue for a ruling at your home table, which is entirely understandable.

---

The simple fact is:

Fly does not specify "bonuses and penalties to your Land Speed don't apply".

That means, by RAW, that they do apply.


Zapp wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Well, then why wouldn't the Plate Mail's speed penalty further apply to the "new" fly speed?

Because that's clearly absurd?

There's no way the devs intend bonuses and penalties to apply recursively.

---

As I have said repeatedly, the rules presently aren't sufficient to feed to a computer. A computer would indeed apply the speed penalty twice (given one hypothetical implementation).

None of this makes for a logical argument to invent new rules.

Yes, it's sloppy. No, it can't be used to argue "Fly knows which speed bonuses and penalties to avoid", or, formally, "keep separate track of your base Speed and your effective Speed including bonuses and penalties".

Not saying you do this, of course, since you're instead using it to argue for a ruling at your home table, which is entirely understandable.

---

The simple fact is:

Fly does not specify "bonuses and penalties to your Land Speed don't apply".

That means, by RAW, that they do apply.

I think I get where you are coming from, but saying that fly doesn't specify "bonuses and penalties to your Land Speed don't apply," is probably the weakest argument I've seen.

If a bonus isn't supposed to only apply to what it is a bonus to, what is the point to having specific bonuses? Would you argue that an item bonus to perception applies to your stealth if you use stealth for initiative? Would you argue that a status bonus to initiative would apply to your Perception to seek?

Bonuses are specific. They tell you exactly what they apply to, and apply to nothing that they don't tell you they apply to. A bonus to your Fly speed would only apply to your Fly speed. A bonus to your Land speed applies only to your Land speed. A bonus to All of your speeds applies to all of your speeds.

I'm not sure where you got, "Fly does not specify 'bonuses and penalties to your Land Speed don't apply,'" as I can't find any section of the rules that supports this. I can't be the only person who simply can't agree with that statement.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

If the GM said "The rules say you can't..." then you'd be entirely within your right to ask how.

But in this case the GM said "I say you can't..." which is a completely different thing.

Totally aware. I even addressed that in one of my earlier replies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Castilliano wrote:


Quite incendiary there, perhaps due to straw.

There are many positions here

I believe what nearly everyone wants is a ruleset that has no contradictions, that just works - something you could insert into a computer, something that doesn't require any manual intervention.

That is not what we have been given.

But that is not a persuasive argument for creating new rules out of thin air. At least when we're discussing RAW (in your home game; anything goes).

Nope. I do not want.

I believe the human element necessary for good rules adjudication as befits the story & group's play style. Plus, shenanigans both good and bad will push the outer limits.
A game system that tried to encapsulate all of that, the whole scope of options available, would be burdensome. Yet it'd still fail due to the open nature of tabletop RPGs. Only in a closed system (like chess or Diablo) could you truly eliminate all possible contradictions, which would defeat the purpose of playing tabletop vs. video games.

So no, I do not want a game so thorough or minimal as to eliminate all contradictions. The GM-element is actually one major reason I prefer PF2 to PF1. Paizo openly acknowledges in the rulebook where a GM has a better view of the situation and should make the decision. Veteran GMs already knew this so it's nice to have that in print. By RAW, RAW is no longer king.
So if I think a wound to the foot or wearing swim fins shouldn't slow down flight because the foot impediment wouldn't apply, that's okay. And if Joe GM says he finds it more balanced to have flight innately linked to one's ability to move (because magic!), then that's okay too.
Meanwhile we might both agree on Longstrider working while a third person disagrees for their own reasons.
As long as there are reasons, some logic, and the table's consistent about application, that's all I ask. I believe Paizo's been slow to FAQ except on glaring errors because they don't want to be "that guy/gal" who thinks they know your situations better than you do, no matter how many variables you add. And likely Paizo has some internal disagreements themselves. And that's okay too.


Zapp wrote:
Castilliano wrote:


Quite incendiary there, perhaps due to straw.

There are many positions here

I believe what nearly everyone wants is a ruleset that has no contradictions, that just works - something you could insert into a computer, something that doesn't require any manual intervention.

That is not what we have been given.

But that is not a persuasive argument for creating new rules out of thin air. At least when we're discussing RAW (in your home game; anything goes).

Unless that RAW interpretation is problematic, or seems too good to be true, or breaks other conventions that the system abides by. Like non-stacking same typed bonuses, or bonuses applying to statistics that they shouldn't.

This is a RAW discussion. It is a discussion that is worth having, as it will serve to help the average GM searching the forum with making up their mind about an obviously ambiguous situation, rather than blindly following the RAW.

Funny that you bring up over and over again that the rules system can't be fed into a computer or be video game like, then disregard out of hand the discussion as to why this rules interaction should be looked at and weighed before being ruled on tableside.

It's almost like your preferred outcome would be to run the rules as though you were a computer.

I never once stated that my suggestion was RAW. I have made arguments against going blindly with the RAW reading of the rules, due to that interpretation breaking game conventions established in the system and creating exploitable loop holes.

However it has been met as though I stated in no uncertain terms that my way of doing things is the "one correct way". This is certainly not the case. I have only made suggestions, and arguments against a strict RAW reading of this interaction. Things that are perfectly acceptable within the bounds of discussing the rules and their interactions.


Zapp wrote:
Aratorin wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

I was open to the idea of being wrong when I first responded in this thread, but after this discussion I'm totally with Zapp in this camp.

If a GM told me I couldn't fly faster (using Fly) under the effect of Longstrider, I'd literally pull out my Core Rulebook, show them the text of the two abilities, and ask them to support why not. I don't see the phrase "derived speeds" anywhere in the Core Rulebook, and I would need some substantial evidence to support such a restriction.

Combining multiple effects is a thing. There are multitudes of examples of different combinations stacking. Unless someone can concretely show that this is prevented, the text of the two abilities wins out. As a "permissive rules" game system, that's how Pathfinder works.

Ok, but that works both ways then. So then if your Land Speed is 25, and you are wearing Full Plate with 16 Strength, your Fly speed is 5.

Your starting Fly Speed is 15, as it is derived from your current Land Speed of 15, and is then reduced by 10, as Full Plate specifically reduces Fly Speed by 10.

If you don't rule it that way, you are being hypocritical and using a different interpretation for each instance, just to get yourself the best result each time.

I am aware of no such thing as Full Plate specifically reducing your Fly Speed.

Then let me make you aware. For the second time.

CRB 274 wrote:

Speed Penalty

While wearing a suit of armor, you take the penalty listed in this entry to your Speed, as well as to any other movement types you have, such as a climb Speed or swim Speed, to a minimum Speed of 5 feet. If you meet the armor’s Strength threshold (see below), you reduce the penalty by 5 feet.
Zapp wrote:

You are obviously still at your reductio ad absurdum game, since you apply the same speed penalty twice, just to set up a situation where you can argue for rules that don't actually exist.

This makes it entirely unnecessary to reply to your arguments. If your land speed is 15 your fly speed obviously is 15 too.

We get it, you've seen a few episodes of the Big Bang Theory. If you don't have any actual valid response that's fine, but don't hide behind cliches and personal attacks.

I quoted twice in 1 post from mobile, by the way.

Horizon Hunters

Just a note about some of the specifics here. Don't forget the text to Fly is an "or" statement.

"The target can soar through the air, gaining a fly Speed equal to its Speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater."

Even with a -10 penalty you'd be at a 10 fly speed minimum.

A loss of mobility is a trade off from using heavy armor.


Goldryno wrote:

Just a note about some of the specifics here. Don't forget the text to Fly is an "or" statement.

"The target can soar through the air, gaining a fly Speed equal to its Speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater."

Even with a -10 penalty you'd be at a 10 fly speed minimum.

A loss of mobility is a trade off from using heavy armor.

Fair point.


Goldryno wrote:

Just a note about some of the specifics here. Don't forget the text to Fly is an "or" statement.

"The target can soar through the air, gaining a fly Speed equal to its Speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater."

Even with a -10 penalty you'd be at a 10 fly speed minimum.

A loss of mobility is a trade off from using heavy armor.

Hate to add to an off topic discussion, but even then you would end up with a fly speed of 10, as the penalty from plate mail would apply to the 20 just as much as it would apply to the 15 land speed based number.

Horizon Hunters

beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:

Just a note about some of the specifics here. Don't forget the text to Fly is an "or" statement.

"The target can soar through the air, gaining a fly Speed equal to its Speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater."

Even with a -10 penalty you'd be at a 10 fly speed minimum.

A loss of mobility is a trade off from using heavy armor.

Hate to add to an off topic discussion, but even then you would end up with a fly speed of 10, as the penalty from plate mail would apply to the 20 just as much as it would apply to the 15 land speed based number.

That's exactly what I said.

At any rate another point of view of why what you have labeled as Scenario #2 isn't that crazy. As a GM you have 3 rulings you can possibly make.

#1 Create a new sweeping rule that distinguishes between normal speeds and derived speeds and dictates which spells can be used along with which, this is a distinction not made in the CRB, one that would come up many times throughout the rules,and would make some feats and spells not do what they appear to say they do. A rather rigid ruling which gets rid of a lot in order to avoid a possible error.

#2 make a ruling that a status bonus is meant to be treated as a status bonus even though the spell entry doesn't spell out every scenario. I would even argue seeming to go along with the intention of the spells effect and rewarding players in a limited capacity for clever use. This reading I think really is the most "human" ruling and I think is the most common or easy to explain ruling and makes understanding spells simpler.

#3 Taking the vagueness of the rules and trying to push the limits. Taking a computer like reading and allowing multiple status bonuses that ultimately apply to fly speed to stack. The logic can be found to support this but only here do you run into too good to be true problems. That same logic that allows this is rigid and seem to disregard what I feel is the most likely intention, which would be to let status bonuses apply but not stack (as per normal). This may be the most mechanical way to rule this.

I can understand the line of thought behind all 3. Obviously my opinion is biased towards which is best. To state my opinion a different way: I don't think the abusable logic of 3 is a good reason to choose 1 over 2.


Goldryno wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:
Goldryno wrote:

Just a note about some of the specifics here. Don't forget the text to Fly is an "or" statement.

"The target can soar through the air, gaining a fly Speed equal to its Speed or 20 feet, whichever is greater."

Even with a -10 penalty you'd be at a 10 fly speed minimum.

A loss of mobility is a trade off from using heavy armor.

Hate to add to an off topic discussion, but even then you would end up with a fly speed of 10, as the penalty from plate mail would apply to the 20 just as much as it would apply to the 15 land speed based number.

That's exactly what I said.

At any rate another point of view of why what you have labeled as Scenario #2 isn't that crazy. As a GM you have 3 rulings you can possibly make.

#1 Create a new sweeping rule that distinguishes between normal speeds and derived speeds and dictates which spells can be used along with which, this is a distinction not made in the CRB, one that would come up many times throughout the rules,and would make some feats and spells not do what they appear to say they do. A rather rigid ruling which gets rid of a lot in order to avoid a possible error.

#2 make a ruling that a status bonus is meant to be treated as a status bonus even though the spell entry doesn't spell out every scenario. I would even argue seeming to go along with the intention of the spells effect and rewarding players in a limited capacity for clever use. This reading I think really is the most "human" ruling and I think is the most common or easy to explain ruling and makes understanding spells simpler.

#3 Taking the vagueness of the rules and trying to push the limits. Taking a computer like reading and allowing multiple status bonuses that ultimately apply to fly speed to stack. The logic can be found to support this but only here do you run into too good to be true problems. That same logic that allows this is rigid and seem to disregard what I feel is the most likely intention, which would be to...

Funny enough, for your ruling number 1, there is actually a single instance in the CRB that requires you to track a "base" speed, though it does say "normal" rather than "base". Feet to Fins. It's actually where I got the nomenclature from. And saying that it would require, "New sweeping rules," is disingenuous at best.

All it would require is that you didn't scratch out the "Speed" entry on your character sheet when you gain a bonus to land speed. Write in any new speeds in the "Movement Notes", and base any that are based on Land Speed on what is written in "Speed". If you get a bonus to Land Speed, write the new total into "Movement Notes" since you are probably already doing so, and use that when you stride (Unless you are saying that you scratch out the Speed entry on your sheet every time you get a bonus, pretty silly if you do). Simple and practically fool proof, less "steps" than option 2 or 3 in most cases, and side steps every problem I have outlined so far.

It's great that you feel so free about the whole issue. I don't. I see it as a clear loop hole, one that bypasses fundamental design principles of the game. That shouldn't be allowed, and only weakens the game by existing.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Status bonuses don't stack. You take only the highest one. That's somewhere in the CRB, I don't have a page reference. So your #3 is not going to work. #1 in effect says "make a house rule". That leaves #2. The question here is whether a Status Bonus to Speed affects the Fly Speed. Also, whether changes to the Land Speed while the creature has a (non-natural) Fly Speed affect the Fly Speed. It seems to me that the simplest interpretation is that when you gain a Fly Speed that is based on your Land Speed, the Fly Speed is equal to your Land Speed at the moment you gain the Fly Speed. A later change to your Land Speed does not affect your Fly Speed (unless some rule specifically says it does). Other interpretations are certainly possible, but Occam's Razor suggests going with this one.

Horizon Hunters

It is a single instance in one spell which is fine but (in my opinion) shouldn't be the basis for every other spell.

While option 2 simply requires you observed that your speed is already being affected by a status bonus and apply the rules as normal. You could just as easily put +10 status bonus to speed in the notes as a temporary buff and just track your speeds as normal in the speed space.

Bypassing fundamental design principles? I would say on the other side you could be seen as throwing out design principles. I really don't see that as the simpler option but as you said earlier to each their own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Goldryno wrote:

It is a single instance in one spell which is fine but (in my opinion) shouldn't be the basis for every other spell.

While option 2 simply requires you observed that your speed is already being affected by a status bonus and apply the rules as normal. You could just as easily put +10 status bonus to speed in the notes as a temporary buff and just track your speeds as normal in the speed space.

Bypassing fundamental design principles? I would say on the other side you could be seen as throwing out design principles. I really don't see that as the simpler option but as you said earlier to each their own.

But that's the problem. Your Fly speed wouldn't have a status bonus, because Longstrider does not give a bonus to your Fly speed in any situation.

If you decide to base your Fly speed off of your total Land speed, including the bonus from Longstrider, then your base Fly speed simply is whatever that total adds up to. It doesn't have a status bonus, because Longstrider explicitly doesn't modify Fly speeds. This is why using the modified Land speed as the base is inherently abusable. It bypasses the stacking limits by laundering them through another spell.

This kind of thinking is how 3.5 ended up with PunPun.

51 to 100 of 159 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Longstrider and Fly All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.