Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 3634563" data-attributes="member: 31734">I and another guy swap DMing from time to time and, in his campaign, I play a rather high-level goody-two-shoes cleric (14th clr/sac.exor/contem.) and we are currently on a "water world" of sorts.  Now, even though I'm the one who is most favored by such a ruling (and he has made that ruling, in agreement with you), I dislike it.  I don't argue it in the game, of course, except initially (after the session), but I really don't like (a) the interpretation, (b) the 'feel', or (c) the playability.a. As I've noted above.b. It's just wrong IMO to allow flying underwater, period.  It's not flying, it's swimming.c. It leaves a gaping logical hole if you can fly in a very-air-like environment and yet, if you don't have flight, you still somehow possess the ability to make the environment seem very water-like.  The only way this logical flaw is resolved is if you also rule that you plummet like a rock through the water should not possess flight capability.  However, that would suck even more than the previous illogical result. I can understand your position.  With the MotP, my stance holds less water (pun intended).  I suppose a personal preference can't sway you, but I find that once you do your best to follow the RAW you will eventually have to find some logical middle-ground.  Not all questions can be resolved without any gray area and it's my opinion that personal preference is what will bring you out of the gray area until errata or another source is published.</blockquote>

Verification