18
\$\begingroup\$

Expeditious Retreat says

This spell increases your base land speed by 30 feet. (This adjustment is treated as an enhancement bonus.) There is no effect on other modes of movement, such as burrow, climb, fly, or swim.

The fell flight invocation states that the fly speed is your land speed.

FELL FLIGHT Lesser; 3rd When you use this invocation, the powers of darkness bear you aloft as you sprout a streaming, winglike cape of shadows. You can fl y at a speed equal to your land speed with good maneuverability for 24 hours.

Does Expeditious Retreat affect the warlocks fell flight invocation? Would the order matter, for example, should the land speed be increased first and then fell flight be invoked?

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Similar question here \$\endgroup\$
    – Hey I Can Chan
    Commented Jan 22, 2014 at 16:07

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
5
\$\begingroup\$

I would say no. First of all, expeditious retreat specifies it doesn't affect flying, and secondly, it only lasts 1 minute/level while the invocation lasts all the time. But, it wouldn't be out of line to rule that it does work.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It's true that it specifically says that it doesn't affect flying, but the fly speed of Fell Flight is equal to the character's land speed, thus short-circuiting the definition. \$\endgroup\$
    – Erik Burigo
    Commented Dec 23, 2010 at 18:47
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @ErikBurigo -- It really depends on how you interpret "There is no effect on other modes of movement, such as burrow, climb, fly, or swim." You could interpret it as a clarification (i.e. "If the creature has an explicit fly speed it's not increased"), or as a restriction on the spell (i.e. "This spell only works when the creature is on land, and not flying, burrowing, and so on"). Both are valid with DM consent, but the former is definitely the safer interpretation. \$\endgroup\$
    – AceCalhoon
    Commented Dec 23, 2010 at 19:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @AceCalhoon: True. I was going by default on the former; the latter didn't come to my mind. Ah! That's the reason because I love the 4th edition formal wording :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Erik Burigo
    Commented Dec 23, 2010 at 19:10
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, in the end it is a DM discretion call and isn't 100% clear, which is why I say it's OK to say they stack, but I think the preponderance of evidence on the intent is that they don't and that's how I'd rule. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Commented Dec 23, 2010 at 19:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ From a metagame perspective, Fly already grants a 60' speed, so it shouldn't stack with another spell that grants a speed increase. Since the land speed is used as a basis for warlock flight (normally only 30'), it wouldn't be unbalancing to let Expeditious Retreat have an impact, bringing the warlock's flight up to the same speed as the Fly spell. As far as the restrictions go, it's definiteley ambiguous, and up to DM disrection. \$\endgroup\$
    – RMorrisey
    Commented Dec 25, 2010 at 22:32
7
\$\begingroup\$

Yes. This is clarified in the official D&D 3.5 FAQ.

A warlock using fell flight (CAr 134) gains a fly speed equal to his land speed. If an effect later increases (or decreases) the warlock’s land speed, does his fly speed change as well?

Yes. For example, a human warlock under the effect of fell flight who activates boots of speed could fly at a speed of 60 feet (rather than his normal land speed of 30 feet) for as long as the boots’ effect lasted. If that same warlock were in a later encounter affected by a slow spell, both his land speed and fly speed would drop to 15 feet (half the normal 30 feet). If he then picked up a heavy chest (bringing his encumbrance to heavy), he’d walk or fly at a speed of 10 feet (half the normal 20 feet).

Changes to a warlock's land speed affect his fly speed using fell flight, and the order in which the effects take place does not matter.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Unfortunately the 3.5 FAQ is a less useful source than we could hope for rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/60044/… \$\endgroup\$
    – Ceribia
    Commented Jun 28, 2016 at 16:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Ceribia Yes, the FAQ isn't perfect. But 3.5 is no longer officially supported. Like it or not all we have are the books, the errata, and the last FAQ. That's the rules-as-written. Period. No amount of wishing or complaining is going to change that. You can ignore the official rulings. You can speculate and guess at the designer's true intent until the cows come home. You can make your own house-rules that you no doubt feel are superior. But as far as WotC is concerned, the answer to the OP's question is exactly what I posted. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dyndrilliac
    Commented Jun 29, 2016 at 2:27
1
\$\begingroup\$

Absolutely, yes.

This spell increases your base land speed by 30 feet. (This adjustment is treated as an enhancement bonus.) There is no effect on other modes of movement, such as burrow, climb, fly, or swim.

This just means that it doesn't provide an additional bonus to other methods of movement.

Your fly speed is 0(or so we can assume), and your land speed is 60.

When you use this invocation, the powers of darkness bear you aloft as you sprout a streaming, wing-like cape of shadows. You can fly at a speed equal to your land speed with good maneuverability for 24 hours.

Now, you use this invocation. Your land speed is 60 feet, so you gain a fly speed of 60 feet. Expeditious Retreat is granting no bonus to your fly speed; it is granting a bonus to your base land speed, and your land speed is used to determine your fly speed.

If Expeditious Retreat DID affect other movement modes, you would have a fly speed of 90 feet with this invocation(to help put things into perspective).

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

If you go just by the literal wording, then yeah it does. If you go by what might be the intent, maybe not. Since it modifies your land speed, and fell flight is always equal to your land speed, then I see no reason it shouldn't. If fell flight simply gave you a flat 30 ft flight speed (modified for size), then I'd say no.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .