can you really not fly / burrow / etc with Haste?


Rules Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Haste lets you stride or strike with the extra action, but flying is a different action that is not striding, yeah? so is haste just useless if you're flying?


It seems so.


Still worth a free throwaway attack even if you're in the air but otherwise, yes. I feel like it would be reasonable to posit a heightened version of Haste which grants you open use of movement actions. I don't know if I'd put it on the base just because it effectively opens the entire host of 3-action abilities to fliers, which is not nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is correct. You also cannot step with anything other than a land speed. The movement rules are quite strict.


I wouldn't want Haste to give that ability, mainly because it'd be painful for a monstrous spellcaster to burrow, cast, burrow. With swim or fly being similarly lame in certain situations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think by the rule yes.

I modified it to work for my games, but I prefer a higher magic game.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Huh? Interesting.

I suppose Catilliano's reasoning is a likely reason why it doesn't support alternate movement modes.


Correct, and fly requires you to spend an action each round to keep aloft or you fall.

It is a solid balance choice imo and gives a meaningful balance reason to choose to be landlocked.


Castilliano wrote:
I wouldn't want Haste to give that ability, mainly because it'd be painful for a monstrous spellcaster to burrow, cast, burrow. With swim or fly being similarly lame in certain situations.

Spells are typically two actions. So this example is typically about ranged strikes. Its not much different to sniping around the corner of a building in a similar fashion.

Readied actions are a thing. Its not a big deal.

One side effect is that monsters that don't have a land speed can't step at all. No one can step while swimming or flying.

But to answer the original question. It is sort of possible with a particular spell - Air Walk. It is a much better effect that Fly, because you can Step can Stride in the air - even with Haste - and you don't have to waste actions flying.


Gortle wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
I wouldn't want Haste to give that ability, mainly because it'd be painful for a monstrous spellcaster to burrow, cast, burrow. With swim or fly being similarly lame in certain situations.

Spells are typically two actions. So this example is typically about ranged strikes. Its not much different to sniping around the corner of a building in a similar fashion.

Readied actions are a thing. Its not a big deal.

One side effect is that monsters that don't have a land speed can't step at all. No one can step while swimming or flying.

But to answer the original question. It is sort of possible with a particular spell - Air Walk. It is a much better effect that Fly, because you can Step can Stride in the air - even with Haste - and you don't have to waste actions flying.

I'm not sure your point re: spells being two actions because a Hasted creature would have four: 1 to move in, 2 to cast, 1 to move out.

What's dissimilar about an enemy archer behind a pillar is one can usually run down an archer (or Hasted spellcaster walking), perhaps with flight or teleportation at higher levels. Burrow is a much harder barrier to overcome (and tough enough to deal with when fighting cunning enemies).

If an enemy reduces the party to Readied Actions, that's a huge advantage (and kind of the point of limiting Haste to Stride IMO). Odds are the burrower would pop up at different spots each time so that'd also require PCs switch to ranged options while the spellcasters would have few if any 1-action spells available to Ready. And it'd be dull unless there were some puzzle solution worked into the encounter the party could solve to bypass that burrowing defense. (I suppose retreating and waiting for the duration to expire would qualify as such an answer, but if an encounter depends on waiting, it's by definition lost its dynamism.)

Yes, Air Walk + Haste + barriers is strong, yet I'd expect a party facing enemies who could afford to cast that would also be able to deal with the obstacle. And there'd be more PC options in such a case, like casters would often be able to move & cast.


Castilliano wrote:
I'm not sure your point re: spells being two actions because a Hasted creature would have four: 1 to move in, 2 to cast, 1 to move out

Yeah fair enough. I'm really just pointing out that this problem is not really related to Haste. It exists as is. A ranged character can do it fine from level 1. Enabling two actions spells is a minor bonus.


One thing that surprised me about the new Warp Step cantrip is that or does work with those other forms of movement (Burrow, Climb, Fly, or Swim).


Gisher wrote:
One thing that surprised me about the new Warp Step cantrip is that or does work with those other forms of movement (Burrow, Climb, Fly, or Swim).

Yes it does, but is the wording on the status bonus to speed clear enough to override the general rule Whenever a rule mentions your Speed without specifying a type, it’s referring to your land Speed

I don't think it is. However I'd allow WarpSpeed to work anyway as the mention of alternative movement types would be very narrow without it.


I agree with castillano.

Just think about the monk lvl 1

Stride forward
Flurry
Stride back

Making the enemies waste actions.

Talking about spell casters, think about a monster ( 1d4 recharge ability alternated with spells, to say one) with flying speed and haste that would work with flying speed, would over complicate things, unnecessarily.

But same goes for players.

In addition to this, though not haste related, I started to realize that it's kinda un balancing having players benefitting from new stuff ( books) and monster still be tied to old mechanics ( bestiary 1, for example).

Just to say the game has to be well rounded between players tweaking their characters and enemies.


HumbleGamer wrote:
I started to realize that it's kinda un balancing having players benefitting from new stuff ( books) and monster still be tied to old mechanics ( bestiary 1, for example).

I don't really see this. I mean if you just don't want the mental overhead of the extra stuff then thats reasonable. The vast majority of it is well balanced.


Gortle wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
I started to realize that it's kinda un balancing having players benefitting from new stuff ( books) and monster still be tied to old mechanics ( bestiary 1, for example).
I mean if you just don't want the mental overhead of the extra stuff then thats reasonable. The vast majority of it is well balanced.

Definitely not that.

To simply put, though it is not a prerogative of this 2e, of course, the more the books come out ( new spells, mechanics, abilities ), the more the old enemies feel underrated and can be exploited more than with just core stuff.

It's just normal that when you create content not knowing what would be added in the future, the more the time passes, the worse for the core stuff.

It can't be any other way.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Gortle wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
I started to realize that it's kinda un balancing having players benefitting from new stuff ( books) and monster still be tied to old mechanics ( bestiary 1, for example).
I mean if you just don't want the mental overhead of the extra stuff then thats reasonable. The vast majority of it is well balanced.

It's just normal that when you create content not knowing what would be added in the future, the more the time passes, the worse for the core stuff.

It can't be any other way.

This absolute statement strikes me as questionable--as much as it would be the opposite problem, Paizo could from here on out publish nothing but underpowered character options, or options which only repackage things already available in core. It would be hard to imagine how a glut of underpowered options could inherently and inevitably make the core options deprecate in value, so I suspect your statement is a lot more conditional on published options being good or overpowered than you suggest.

Furthermore, the bulk of a monster's strength seems to come from its raw numbers, which cannot be said to be shackled to old mechanics because these numbers are the roadmap for determining the scale of content. There are a few monsters whose power largely depends upon their spell selection, but since these monsters are notionally spellcasters themselves (innate spells only rarely define a monster's power curve I would say), there should be no conflict with a GM deciding to switch up some of the monster's spells if they decide that new content suits that monster's theme more satisfactorily.


I get your point, but ai was referring to core monsters against either core characters and new characters ( new feats, classes, mechanics, items, skills) from a monster point of view.

Not from a character point of view.
We have stuff like double slice fighter and flurry/precision ranger ( to mention a couple) that still are king.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps I am confused, because I, too, was talking about the comparison between a core monster and a new class? Monsters don't use player abiltiies, so new feats don't affect the monster, new classes are only relevant as far as they are stronger or weaker to old. Monsters can use skills in the same way as everyone else except as applies to skill feats (in which case, no feats again). I am talking about old monsters vs. new characters and I'm not seeing any reason to believe that old monsters are inherently getting left behind as new character options are released given they never had character options to begin with, so the only visible angle of comparison is whether the new options are inherently stronger than old options to decide if monsters are actually being unfairly left behind.

A core rulebook troll's lot in life doesn't really change if she is trying to smash a wizard, a fighter, or a psychic. If they didn't bring fire she wins, if they did, it's a matter of her brute smashy force vs. their ability not to get smashed long enough. It doesn't really matter a whole lot if their fire comes from a wizard's or psychic's produce flame.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / can you really not fly / burrow / etc with Haste? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.