Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 1245231" data-attributes="member: 2011">Are we playing a comic book super hero RPG, or are we playing a fantasy RPG?Just because we as humans can understand the concept of &quot;flying underwater&quot; does not mean that the spell supports that concept.In the fantasy world, the original designer (i.e. the guy who created the spell in the campaign world, not the real world designer of the spell) of the Fly spell would not have had any fantasy world models of a creature that flys in the air and flys in the water (unless you add those types of creatures into your campaign). Hence, from a fantasy world perspective (not a 20th/21st century lets read comic books perspective), that ability would probably never enter the spell designers mind.Until 3.5, DND 3E failed pretty much to define underwater environments. There were hints here and there (like the Freedom of Movement spell), but there were very few rules.However, nowhere in the 3.5 DMG Aquatic Terrain section or in the Fly spell description or in the Flight description of the Monster Manual does it talk about flying under water. It does talk about invisibility under water. It does talk about fire spells underwater. Since the concept of &quot;flying underwater&quot; is a 20th century concept and not a medieval fantasy concept and it is not mentioned in the rules whereas swimming IS mentioned, do you really think that it is allowed as a core rule? Or, is it a house rule?Can you fly underneath the ground? No. Why not? Because the Fly spell does not mention it and there is already a Burrowing movement ability in the rules.Can you fly underneath the water? No. Why not? Because the Fly spell does not mention it and there is already a Swimming movement ability in the rules.Sure, a DM can adjudicate that it is allowed. But, the text does not support it. The text supports swimming.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 1245231, member: 2011"] Are we playing a comic book super hero RPG, or are we playing a fantasy RPG? Just because we as humans can understand the concept of "flying underwater" does not mean that the spell supports that concept. In the fantasy world, the original designer (i.e. the guy who created the spell in the campaign world, not the real world designer of the spell) of the Fly spell would not have had any fantasy world models of a creature that flys in the air and flys in the water (unless you add those types of creatures into your campaign). Hence, from a fantasy world perspective (not a 20th/21st century lets read comic books perspective), that ability would probably never enter the spell designers mind. Until 3.5, DND 3E failed pretty much to define underwater environments. There were hints here and there (like the Freedom of Movement spell), but there were very few rules. However, nowhere in the 3.5 DMG Aquatic Terrain section or in the Fly spell description or in the Flight description of the Monster Manual does it talk about flying under water. It does talk about invisibility under water. It does talk about fire spells underwater. Since the concept of "flying underwater" is a 20th century concept and not a medieval fantasy concept and it is not mentioned in the rules whereas swimming IS mentioned, do you really think that it is allowed as a core rule? Or, is it a house rule? Can you fly underneath the ground? No. Why not? Because the Fly spell does not mention it and there is already a Burrowing movement ability in the rules. Can you fly underneath the water? No. Why not? Because the Fly spell does not mention it and there is already a Swimming movement ability in the rules. Sure, a DM can adjudicate that it is allowed. But, the text does not support it. The text supports swimming. [/QUOTE]

Verification