Don't 180 on a dime, don't fly in a hurricane, don't do a steep climb, don't do a loop.
Boom, you just avoided basically every check.
No facing in this game, so that check doesn't even exist by its own merit.
Hurricanes are pretty obvious hazards and are probably one of the few cases where a check makes sense, though those often have their own rules and almost don't interact with the Acrobatics rules at all, so I don't get why this is referenced as an example other than to give GMs guidance.
My issue with the steep ascent/descent rules is that you can ascend at a 45 degree angle without a check (just like Air Walk), and for cheaper movement overall, so why should I have to make a check to be worse? Unless I'm flying out of a chimney or something, this feels extremely contrived.
How does making a loop invoke a check? Is this some flight simulator where geforces are involved? This otherwise falls under the first one, where it involves using something not even related to the rules at all.
So, other than the one instance where a check might be involved, and the rest being either irrelevant or overtly punishing for no reason, it feels more like Acrobatics checks for maneuvers is wholly unnecessary than it is necessary to facilitate good/fun gameplay.
Don't 180 on a dime, don't fly in a hurricane, don't do a steep climb, don't do a loop.
Boom, you just avoided basically every check.
No facing in this game, so that check doesn't even exist by its own merit.
Hurricanes are pretty obvious hazards and are probably one of the few cases where a check makes sense, though those often have their own rules and almost don't interact with the Acrobatics rules at all, so I don't get why this is referenced as an example other than to give GMs guidance.
My issue with the steep ascent/descent rules is that you can ascend at a 45 degree angle without a check (just like Air Walk), and for cheaper movement overall, so why should I have to make a check to be worse? Unless I'm flying out of a chimney or something, this feels extremely contrived.
How does making a loop invoke a check? Is this some flight simulator where geforces are involved? This otherwise falls under the first one, where it involves using something not even related to the rules at all.
So, other than the one instance where a check might be involved, and the rest being either irrelevant or overtly punishing for no reason, it feels more like Acrobatics checks for maneuvers is wholly unnecessary than it is necessary to facilitate good/fun gameplay.
While there's no facing, directionality exists.
You can very easily ascertain when something is moving back and forth, doing a 180degree direction change and when not.
As for vertical up and down, as you say, when there's enough space, it's easy to do so without a check, but for the more challenging vertical up/down is why there's guidelines on how to deal with.
Ultimately, it's up to the GM to weight if a movement is a difficult maneuver or not, and how difficult. And as most GM calls, it's something that has a lot of parameters to consider, enough of them to not make it a hard rule but something that needs to be judged by a living, thinking, person.
If there is no facing then how can you determine if you are doing a 180, which requires that you face one direction, then face the opposite direction? Simply moving backward then forward, or vice-versa, doesn't constitute this, so again, how do the rules call for a character doing a 180 when they are already always doing a 360 at all times? This would translate to demanding a check at all times by RAW since no facing = facing everything at all times.
Don't 180 on a dime, don't fly in a hurricane, don't do a steep climb, don't do a loop.
Boom, you just avoided basically every check.
This. Pretty easy to understand and follow. Just think of a steep climb being something like a quarter loop.
Simply moving back and forth DOES mean that you did a 180. It's that simple indeed. In fact, it's the definition of the angle of said 2 lines.
And while I, and anyone, can indeed pace back and forth, a ton of normal flying creatures cannot fly back and forth. Some can, like insects, others like eagles can't. That's the nature of flying. That requires judging by a GM.
You can only say that if you are always facing the direction that you move, and there is no rule that says this for flying or any other form of movement. Again, no facing = no direction = no "angles" in which to base off of, because this argument hinges on you always facing the direction you travel, which is irrelevant and also not even always true as you claim.
If there is no facing then how can you determine if you are doing a 180, which requires that you face one direction, then face the opposite direction? Simply moving backward then forward, or vice-versa, doesn't constitute this, so again, how do the rules call for a character doing a 180 when they are already always doing a 360 at all times? This would translate to demanding a check at all times by RAW since no facing = facing everything at all times.Your GM sees you move directly north 4 squares, then next directly south 4 squares. To me probably even going 90° east or west as well would do it, but I'm likely more restrictive than most.
This translates to momentum existing.
So then that means creatures are constantly spinning around because creatures see all around themselves and momentum exists and they can't just stop facing a direction because facing doesn't exist.
Let us keep in mind that having actual 360 facing is a monster ability called "all around vision" that makes you immune to flanking.
At any single moment, a character is indeed facing one way, it's just that it's abstract the fact that you can turn your head and look over your shoulder.
But that has nothing to do with directionality and even less to do with movement..
The fact that you can turn your head left or right and be able to see both left and right doesn't somehow translate to being able to simultaneously move both left and right. Directionality exists.
When you move 1 square east, you can't say that this is not east but that you moved simultaneously both east and west.
So, when you draw a line from one place to another, and then a second line from the new place and it overlaps with the previous line, that's the very definition of 180 degree angle.
Where you were looking while travelling this distance is absolutely irrelevant.
Poorly worded and intended ability is poorly worded and intended. Flanking is only present because you are considered over-extended and can't properly defend yourself on two opposite sides, hence its specific requirements. It has little to do with being unable to fully see your foes, because you can't flank creatures while invisible unless the creature (as well as the ally you are flanking with) can likewise see invisible creatures.
Directionality only exists on a grid. You can move in a direction regardless of facing on a grid, nothing in the rules says you must face the direction you move on the grid, so we are now implementing facing rules in a game where facing doesn't exist. Which is also why the "all-around vision" ability is complete BS in how it works. Yes, mechanically it is pretty straight forward, but the reasoning behind the mechanic does not match what the mechanic actually is (having 360 vision).
As for the moving 180. Does that mean you make the check if you 180 within the single move action. (like flying down a corridor that turns sharply and you have enough movement to turn the corner and keep going), or does it mean fly in with an action, then attack, then fly directly back out with another action?
If so, does this mean you have to track the direction you were moving on the previous turn? Like your 3rd action on round 1 you were flying south, and first 2 actions on round 2 you make 2 strikes then 3rd action on round 2 you fly north. Does this count?
As for the moving 180. Does that mean you make the check if you 180 within the single move action. (like flying down a corridor that turns sharply and you have enough movement to turn the corner and keep going), or does it mean fly in with an action, then attack, then fly directly back out with another action?
If so, does this mean you have to track the direction you were moving on the previous turn? Like your 3rd action on round 1 you were flying south, and first 2 actions on round 2 you make 2 strikes then 3rd action on round 2 you fly north. Does this count?
It is mostly based at the time you take the action.
If I spend 1 action flying forward, strike, then 1 action flying backward, then there is no check. If I do both of these things on the same action/activity, or on consecutive actions, then a check is required.
So, technically, you could cheese it with actions to burn, but spending an entire turn flying around in an attempt to avoid making checks instead of properly fighting enemies will get you a lot of glares from party members.
Regardless, this just means I am banning flight at my tables from now on. Too much headache and honestly not worth the added punishment since it already is an action tax. It's either Air Walk or bust.
As for the moving 180. Does that mean you make the check if you 180 within the single move action. (like flying down a corridor that turns sharply and you have enough movement to turn the corner and keep going), or does it mean fly in with an action, then attack, then fly directly back out with another action?
If so, does this mean you have to track the direction you were moving on the previous turn? Like your 3rd action on round 1 you were flying south, and first 2 actions on round 2 you make 2 strikes then 3rd action on round 2 you fly north. Does this count?
It is mostly based at the time you take the action.
If I spend 1 action flying forward, strike, then 1 action flying backward, then there is no check. If I do both of these things on the same action/activity, or on consecutive actions, then a check is required.
So, technically, you could cheese it with actions to burn, but spending an entire turn flying around in an attempt to avoid making checks instead of properly fighting enemies will get you a lot of glares from party members.
Regardless, this just means I am banning flight at my tables from now on. Too much headache and honestly not worth the added punishment since it already is an action tax. It's either Air Walk or bust.
100% disagree.
At minimum I'd put a full round limit to going back and forth to not have a check in my tables for the creatures this applies.
It just doesn't apply to every kind of flight.
The thing is that there is a clear break between the creature moving and not moving if an action is taken between the flying actions. During that time, the creature is stationary, meaning they stopped moving to perform an action. This isn't like a Fly-by Attack activity, where it is all condensed into one activity.
It has to be per action. You full stop at the end of each movement.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can only say that if you are always facing the direction that you move, and there is no rule that says this for flying or any other form of movement. Again, no facing = no direction = no "angles" in which to base off of, because this argument hinges on you always facing the direction you travel, which is irrelevant and also not even always true as you claim.Simply moving back and forth DOES mean that you did a 180. It's that simple indeed. In fact, it's the definition of the angle of said 2 lines.
And while I, and anyone, can indeed pace back and forth, a ton of normal flying creatures cannot fly back and forth. Some can, like insects, others like eagles can't. That's the nature of flying. That requires judging by a GM.
I honestly don't understand this argument. Your path marks the angle of the turn -- facing has nothing to do with anything. If you move 3 squares north then 2 squares south, that is a 180 even if you were facing the sky the entire time.
As for the moving 180. Does that mean you make the check if you 180 within the single move action. (like flying down a corridor that turns sharply and you have enough movement to turn the corner and keep going), or does it mean fly in with an action, then attack, then fly directly back out with another action?
If so, does this mean you have to track the direction you were moving on the previous turn? Like your 3rd action on round 1 you were flying south, and first 2 actions on round 2 you make 2 strikes then 3rd action on round 2 you fly north. Does this count?
In past editions of Pathfinder and D&D, it was officially clarified that it had to be within the same action.
As no such clarification exists for 2nd Edition, insofar as I'm aware, take what you will from that.
As for the moving 180. Does that mean you make the check if you 180 within the single move action. (like flying down a corridor that turns sharply and you have enough movement to turn the corner and keep going), or does it mean fly in with an action, then attack, then fly directly back out with another action?
If so, does this mean you have to track the direction you were moving on the previous turn? Like your 3rd action on round 1 you were flying south, and first 2 actions on round 2 you make 2 strikes then 3rd action on round 2 you fly north. Does this count?
In past editions of Pathfinder and D&D, it was officially clarified that it had to be within the same action.
As no such clarification exists for 2nd Edition, insofar as I'm aware, take what you will from that.
Well, there are the rules that actions that move through squares (such as striding) are cumulative for the purposes of determining movement costs and such, so it's not completely unclear, especially since the checks are dependent on you taking Fly actions.
I honestly don't understand this argument. Your path marks the angle of the turn -- facing has nothing to do with anything. If you move 3 squares north then 2 squares south, that is a 180 even if you were facing the sky the entire time.You can only say that if you are always facing the direction that you move, and there is no rule that says this for flying or any other form of movement. Again, no facing = no direction = no "angles" in which to base off of, because this argument hinges on you always facing the direction you travel, which is irrelevant and also not even always true as you claim.Simply moving back and forth DOES mean that you did a 180. It's that simple indeed. In fact, it's the definition of the angle of said 2 lines.
And while I, and anyone, can indeed pace back and forth, a ton of normal flying creatures cannot fly back and forth. Some can, like insects, others like eagles can't. That's the nature of flying. That requires judging by a GM.
Because we are treating this as a geometry problem instead of a simulationist problem. A straight line on a grid is a 180, it doesn't matter if you tread back over it or not, so by this logic even flying straight requires a check.
That's not true at all. Because distance is known. If your line represents 30 feet of movement and is only 20 feet long, then you know you've back tracked.
You can only go in one direction at a time, so it's pretty easy to see when you move your token or model when you change directions.
Because we are treating this as a geometry problem instead of a simulationist problem. A straight line on a grid is a 180, it doesn't matter if you tread back over it or not, so by this logic even flying straight requires a check.I honestly don't understand this argument. Your path marks the angle of the turn -- facing has nothing to do with anything. If you move 3 squares north then 2 squares south, that is a 180 even if you were facing the sky the entire time.You can only say that if you are always facing the direction that you move, and there is no rule that says this for flying or any other form of movement. Again, no facing = no direction = no "angles" in which to base off of, because this argument hinges on you always facing the direction you travel, which is irrelevant and also not even always true as you claim.Simply moving back and forth DOES mean that you did a 180. It's that simple indeed. In fact, it's the definition of the angle of said 2 lines.
And while I, and anyone, can indeed pace back and forth, a ton of normal flying creatures cannot fly back and forth. Some can, like insects, others like eagles can't. That's the nature of flying. That requires judging by a GM.
a line has no corner, what are you even talking about?
2 lines, each one made by a movement form the 180 degree angle.
as for when it is maneuver, movement in a round is cumulicative, as even yourself pointed out.
so if in this cumulicative movement within the round, you do a 180, you have to roll the check.
plus, since this is a simulation, and not real time, there's a reason you have to "fly at least once or you fall" in a round, it's not like you're flying, and then you are hovering. It's you're flying and doing those actions all together in said round. It has to be split, because that's how the system work, but what "you have to spend an action...
2 lines forming a 180 is no different than 1 line forming a 180, meaning flying straight forward requires as much of a check as flying straight backwards halfway through the action, by the logic of "You're performing a 180 because you are making a 180 degree angle due to your movement." It's especially true if we decide to RP that, you faced one direction from the previous round after downing an enemy, then did a complete 180 during your movement the following round, since apparently facing matters when we want it to matter for the mechanics.
Uh, no. Starting the flight, you fly 30 feet straight forward. You Strike an enemy. This Strike stops your initial fly action, as you can't Fly and Strike simultaneously (barring Fly-By Attack or similar abilities). You then fly 30 feet straight backwards. This restarts an unrelated flight, as well as resets any movement calculations you did earlier in the round.
The "fly at least once in a round" part isn't what I have issue with; this is the action tax of flight, which makes it already suboptimal to begin with, but at least it is simple and realistic. The issue is that now you have a chance of not even doing anything, or worse, falling to your death, every time you fly, on top of wasting actions for it. It's literally injury to constant insult. Imagine rolling a 1, taking a bunch of fall damage, and dying because the combat required that you go up against a flying enemy, where using projectile weapons was futile.
That's not true at all. Because distance is known. If your line represents 30 feet of movement and is only 20 feet long, then you know you've back tracked.
You can only go in one direction at a time, so it's pretty easy to see when you move your token or model when you change directions.
It could still represent 30 feet of movement with zero back-tracking because of Difficult Terrain rules, as you might have to ascend 20 feet as well to reach your enemy, which is quite likely if flying is involved. And just as well, if the line is "too short" for standard ascension, a check is still required for that, too, since it could be too "steep" to ascend normally. Either way, this is a loaded assumption.
Ban Fly spell and all other forms of flight. Return to Air Walk. Easiest and best mechanic ever for 3D combat. No action tax. No stupid checks. No risk of character death. Just cast and go.
2 lines forming a 180 is no different than 1 line forming a 180, meaning flying straight forward requires as much of a check as flying straight backwards halfway through the action, by the logic of "You're performing a 180 because you are making a 180 degree angle due to your movement." It's especially true if we decide to RP that, you faced one direction from the previous round after downing an enemy, then did a complete 180 during your movement the following round, since apparently facing matters when we want it to matter for the mechanics.That's not how lines, or corners, work...
1 line, has no corners. Flying one direction, you never have to turn.
Two lines, flying one direction, and then switching to another direction, that is how you form a corner.
That's the very basics of how directions work.
I can't believe I have to point out how a single line, from point A to point B has no corners, multiple times at that...
What's next? That a triangle is not 3 lines and 3 corners but 7 lines and pi corners?
Again, if you are saying you have to "turn" to perform the back and forth movement, then it makes no sense because there is no facing in this game, ergo there is no "turning" to be had. You can always face the same direction and never turn. And having played board games where facing mattered, and had rules to adjudicate said facing, the idea that this game has any form of selective facing is absolutely absurd.
For there to be corners, you have to have space in between the lines, as miniscule as it is. Overlapping lines don't make corners, therefore they share the same degree of angle as the original line, so it doesn't track as an argument.
A triangle has a minimum of 3 connected lines, creating 3 angles as a result. They could have more lines overlapping, but at least they don't automatically create 180 degree angles just for overlapping themselves.
Ban Fly spell and all other forms of flight.I would note that banning that terribly restrictive ruling on Maneuvers is much easier. Like I and I think all GMs I've met personally already do. Well, not that we ban it, it's just nobody at all had a thought to rule flying this way. We'd just continue what we already do.
Pretty much what I already do, it's an action tax, that is enough of a cost.
But people believe you can stack walls on top of themselves and make a corner that way, when it is really just a taller wall.