-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Pathfinder 1E Flight and Attacks of Oportunity
- Thread starter Starfox
- Start date
Traveon Wyvernspur
First Post
This is a three-dimensional game and the same rules apply for reach and threat when on the ground and in the air. Provoking an AOO would happen in flight the same as it would on the ground, you just have to think of it in those terms.
Here's a thread discussion from the Paizo forums about it too.
Here's a thread discussion from the Paizo forums about it too.
Starfox
Hero
Ok, thanks. Seems there is no such rule.
As if otfen is with things I half-remember, I do like the idea of no AoOs when flying. May make that a house rule for simplicity. It aslo balances fliers a bit against walkers, tough it is a bit unfair against non-casters.
And I mean fliers don't get AoOs provoked by movement - other AoOs would still work normally.
As if otfen is with things I half-remember, I do like the idea of no AoOs when flying. May make that a house rule for simplicity. It aslo balances fliers a bit against walkers, tough it is a bit unfair against non-casters.
And I mean fliers don't get AoOs provoked by movement - other AoOs would still work normally.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
That is a horrible houserule.
1. Casters are far more likely to be flying than non-casters, due to having far more options for it.
2. Flight is already FREAKING AMAZING!
3. Most people would say that it is the MARTIAL classes, if anyone, who should be best at tactical mobility, avoidinf AoOs, etc... (I realize this is patently untrue in Pathfailure, but that's because it's the caster love-love edition, no need to exacerbate the problem)
--> 3. a. The casters can already teleport and such already anyway
Ergo, by the above, your houserule idea sucks. If I were your player, and you broke out that idea to me, I'd actually get upset at you for it.
Mod Note: See my post below ~Umbran
1. Casters are far more likely to be flying than non-casters, due to having far more options for it.
2. Flight is already FREAKING AMAZING!
3. Most people would say that it is the MARTIAL classes, if anyone, who should be best at tactical mobility, avoidinf AoOs, etc... (I realize this is patently untrue in Pathfailure, but that's because it's the caster love-love edition, no need to exacerbate the problem)
--> 3. a. The casters can already teleport and such already anyway
Ergo, by the above, your houserule idea sucks. If I were your player, and you broke out that idea to me, I'd actually get upset at you for it.
Mod Note: See my post below ~Umbran
Last edited by a moderator:
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
IIRC, flight is also much more limited in usage and duration in 4E. Even so... "yet another reason to hate 4E."
KerlanRayne
Explorer
I think it's a little unclear what you mean. Are you talking about fliers not provoking attacks of opportunity or not being able to make attacks of opportunity? There's a big difference.
I could see not letting fliers make attacks of opportunity unless they are hovering.
I could see not letting fliers make attacks of opportunity unless they are hovering.
Starfox
Hero
The rule was fliers GET no AOs in 4E. The provoke normally from those on the ground. And that's what I am contemplating - makes an areal battlefield much more fluid, and helps the ground-hoggers. But I'd probably apply it to movement-provoked AoOs tough.
Something similar could apply when swimming also.
Something similar could apply when swimming also.
I did some research on this while I was writing this, and after reading Paizo's board, the rules for flight and swimming, and reading the 3.5 legacy rules, I found nothing that said that they did not provoke AoE. So, by RAW, they do provoke AoE.
Now, I do have a caveat here, though. The Fly-by Attack, as per RAW, also provokes AoE. I believe that is was intend to work like the spring attack feat, which does not. I believe that for fly-by attacks to work as intended, they should not provoke AoE.
I left that out of the PDF though, because I wanted DMs to make that call on their own.
Now, I do have a caveat here, though. The Fly-by Attack, as per RAW, also provokes AoE. I believe that is was intend to work like the spring attack feat, which does not. I believe that for fly-by attacks to work as intended, they should not provoke AoE.
I left that out of the PDF though, because I wanted DMs to make that call on their own.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Ok, fliers not getting to make AoOs is much better than what I thought you meant. I don't see the need to houserule, but don't really care.
rkarnes,
Fly-by Attack is nothing like Spring Attack. For one, it has none of those godaawful pre-reqs. And 2, it lets you combine it with ANY standard action. Spring Attack is attack action only. Oh, and 3...Flyby doesn't have that annoying restriction about how far away from the target you have to start and how much you must move, etc... The not provoking thing is the only edge poor Spring Attack has. Of course, I'd like to see Spring Attack be buffed to allow any standard action and not have any movement restrictions other than "move up to your speed"...
rkarnes,
Fly-by Attack is nothing like Spring Attack. For one, it has none of those godaawful pre-reqs. And 2, it lets you combine it with ANY standard action. Spring Attack is attack action only. Oh, and 3...Flyby doesn't have that annoying restriction about how far away from the target you have to start and how much you must move, etc... The not provoking thing is the only edge poor Spring Attack has. Of course, I'd like to see Spring Attack be buffed to allow any standard action and not have any movement restrictions other than "move up to your speed"...
Similar Threads
