3
\$\begingroup\$

According to the Fly skill page:

A creature with a natural fly speed receives a bonus (or penalty) on Fly skill checks depending on its maneuverability.

Earlier, the same term is used to specifically exclude temporary magical flight:

You cannot take this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other magical manner, such as a druid’s wild shape ability).

But according to the Movement page:

Creatures with a fly speed receive a bonus (or penalty) on all Fly checks depending on their maneuverability

With no mention of it needing to be natural. So, are temporary sources of flight affected by maneuverability?

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

Maneuverability bonuses or penalties affect all fly checks, whether their origin is natural or not

An errata has been made about the concept of "natural" fly speed, which should just be ignored, as it would be a nonsense to give maneuverability bonuses in spells description, if it could not apply anyway because it is not a natural means of flight.

Moreover, maneuverability also is a tool for some abilities or environmental effects to determine how a flying creature is affected. Having no explicit maneuverability because of this rule would be an issue too. The Inverted Gravity environmental effect, for example, states :

Creatures with perfect maneuverability take no penalty and need not attempt checks to move.

You can find the details of this errata here, with an example with the Fly spell. Here is the section addressing your issue :

Despite the fact that the Fly skill mentions that bonuses and penalties from maneuverability apply to creatures with natural fly speeds, they apply for any fly speed. If they didn’t apply to creatures that gained flight artificially or through magic, then those maneuverabilities (like the listed good maneuverability for the fly spell) would have no game effect.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Bottom line up front: Yes, maneuverability affects all flight, natural, magical, or otherwise should you ever find such a thing. It’s an intrinsic part of the flight rules and lots of things depend on it, and magical sources of flight always define their maneuverability, as Rophe’s answer points out. In short, you should just ignore the word “natural” in that sentence, it shouldn’t be there. Paizo has confirmed this in an FAQ, albeit one that otherwise centered on another subject:

Despite the fact that the Fly skill mentions that bonuses and penalties from maneuverability apply to creatures with natural fly speeds, they apply for any fly speed.

The question arguably remains, why is the word “natural” there when it shouldn’t be?

The history of this rule plays a part here

This rule was not a part of of the original form of Pathfinder released for playtesting way back when. It certainly was not a part of D&D 3.5e, that Pathfinder is based on, as that system had no Fly skill, used maneuverability in completely different ways, and never used the term “natural flight” for any reason whatsoever.

Rather, this rule was added to Pathfinder after the fact as an attempt to plug perceived rules hole: namely, the fact that spellcasters could put ranks in the Fly skill before they had any ability to fly. The issue stemmed from an objection to the idea that someone could level up, and suddenly be flying perfectly well immediately (never mind that this is precisely what the “level up” abstraction means for everything else). Paizo felt this was a problem in need of fixing, and so the quick patch we still have today was applied. It seems likely that in this case, the quick-fix did not receive as much editorial oversight as it might have, and this issue was missed.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ "This rule was not a part of of the original form of Pathfinder released for playtesting way back when", "this rule was added to Pathfinder after the fact as an attempt to plug perceived rules hole" Citation needed. \$\endgroup\$ – ShadowKras May 28 at 15:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ShadowKras Source is that I was there and saw it happen. Unfortunately, finding information from that age on the Paizo forums is—I suspect quite intentionally—very difficult when it isn’t impossible. I’ll make an effort, but I don’t have much hope. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan May 28 at 15:52
0
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, magical flight works like natural flight

The concept of "natural flight" is a relic from D&D 3.5e, and the Fly skill inherited it that wording. "Natural flight" simply means non-magical flight, but all rules that affect flight speeds will affect you regardless of how you obtained it, unless said otherwise.

This wording appears originally in the Flight universal monster ability, but the same applies to it. The current version in the bestiaries (as per Bestiary 6) makes no mention of "natural flight" or it's maneuverability, simply that supernatural flight doesn't work in areas of antimagic.

You will also notice that all other magical means of flight also grant a maneuverability type, like the Wings of Flying magic item, or the Wind Walk and Beast Shape spells. Or even say that when one isn't specified, to treat as average maneuverability. So, it is commonly accepted that magical flight is also affected by maneuverability types and gets its bonuses or penalties.

There is an open FAQ request asking to clarify this, but since it got so little votes, it got ignored for a decade. On the other hand, in a completely different context, they have said that the maneuverability bonus affects all flight forms (FAQ):

Flight and Magical Flight: Can a paralyzed or stunned creature keep flying with magical flight? Does a creature with magical flight not apply bonuses or penalties to Fly checks because it doesn’t have a “natural” fly speed? Does flying make a creature immune to being flat-footed?

No, any creature that loses all actions can’t take an action to attempt a Fly check to hover in place and thus automatically falls. That includes a paralyzed, stunned, or dazed creature. Magical flight doesn’t act any differently, even for paralysis, as it isn’t a purely mental action. A creature with 0 Dexterity can’t fly, and paralysis sets a creature’s Dexterity to 0. Despite the fact that the Fly skill mentions that bonuses and penalties from maneuverability apply to creatures with natural fly speeds, they apply for any fly speed. If they didn’t apply to creatures that gained flight artificially or through magic, then those maneuverabilities (like the listed good maneuverability for the fly spell) would have no game effect. Finally, the statement “You are not considered flat-footed while flying” means that flying (unlike balancing using Acrobatics or climbing) doesn’t automatically make you flat-footed or force you to lose your Dexterity bonus to AC; it doesn’t mean that flying makes you immune to being caught flat-footed.

Also, note that, while the skill first says that you must have a natural means of flying to be able to put ranks into it, in the next phrase it explains how you can put ranks into it if you are able to gain flight by magical means, such as being able to cast a spell every day. SO, that text isn't really excluding magical flight.

Finally, the rules mentioned in the Movement page of the (unofficial) SRD are not official, those rules are picked among the rulebooks and put together in that page in an attempt to organize and make sense of the movement rules in general. The text you quoted was never printed in any of the books.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ “The concept of "natural flight" is a relic from D&D 3.5e,” uhhh, citation needed? I have searched for that phrase on d20srd.com and found nothing, and I certainly don’t remember anything in D&D 3.5e for it. The quotations in the question are certainly all-new in Pathfinder, since D&D 3.5e lacked the Fly skill altogether and maneuverability worked completely differently. Moreover, I’m about 95% certain that the “natural flight” requirement for the Fly skill was added later, late during or after the playtest, because I remember an uproar about it. Closest I know is winged flight and tripping. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan May 28 at 14:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Kryan Im thinking about this blog post on wizards website. \$\endgroup\$ – ShadowKras May 28 at 14:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ I strongly doubt that article influenced the state of Pathfinder, since it wasn’t OGL, didn’t accurately represent the OGL as far as that wording was concerned, and frankly wasn’t accorded much value or usefulness as either reference or tutorial when it came to 3.5e in the first place. I do not think it backs up your claim that this is a 3.5e legacy, which frankly I don’t think is true or can be backed up. There are plenty of good reasons to ignore the word “natural” in these rules, but 3.5e can’t be blamed for the situation. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan May 28 at 15:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @KRyan Im not blaming anyone. The term was used back in 3.5 days and Pathfinder inherited it. \$\endgroup\$ – ShadowKras May 28 at 15:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ It was not used by any part of the rules, so no, Pathfinder did not inherit it. I’m sorry, but yeah, going to have to downvote an answer that I consider otherwise very good, because I strictly downvote all sources of what I consider to be disinformation. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan May 28 at 15:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.