Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Abraxas" data-source="post: 1246233" data-attributes="member: 1266">Doesn't matter - fantasy is fantasy.&nbsp;&nbsp;There are numerous creatures in the 3.5E that fly without wings.&nbsp; They all could be models of creatures that fly both in and out of water.&nbsp; You have to decide that (in your campaign) no magical means of flight works underwater for this not to be true.&nbsp; So from a fantasy world perspective where creatures can move about without any visible means they ability to move through water as easily as air most likely does come to mind.&nbsp;Phrases like &quot;flew across the water&quot; and &quot;flies through the sea&quot; have been around a lot longer than comic books - so the idea of flying through water is not a 20th/21st century one.&nbsp; The dictionary also defines the word fly as &quot;To move with great speed; rush or dart&quot;&nbsp; which could easily describe movement underwater.&nbsp;If underwater movement is strictly prohibited by the spell you have to define how much of the flyer has to be immersed before his mode of movement changes from flying to swimming.&nbsp; It would be a pretty pathetic spell developer that didn't consider what would happen if he fell overboard&nbsp; during a sea voyage and his fly spell couldn't pull him out of the briny deep <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp;We should look at the game designer who created the spell.&nbsp; Go back to the 1st edition DMG where fly is specifically stated as woking underwater (although at half speed).&nbsp;Except for the MoP pg 77.&nbsp; In the MoP it states that creatures on the elemental plane of water with a fly speed didn't have to swim but could move at half their normal rate with their maneuverability reduced by one grade.&nbsp; The fly spell creator could have very well seen flying creatures there and used them for the model of his fly spell.&nbsp;Flight underwater is not a 20th century concept - nor is it a houserule.In all editions of D&amp;D when the effects of being underwater on spells are discussed only those spells that are affected have any commentary at all.&nbsp; Why are invisibility and fire spells talked about? - Because those spells are affected when used underwater.&nbsp; If a spell isn't stated to operate differently underwater then the spell doesn't operate differently underwater.&nbsp;Another aside - The Aquatic terrain text appears to be pulled directly from Skip Williams article &quot;Water, Water Everywhere, D&amp;D Underwater Combat Rules&quot; in Dragon 291 and condensed.&nbsp; In the dragon article Skip stated &quot;Most spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities work normally underwater.&quot;&nbsp; He then goes on to explain the fire descriptor spell exceptions - it appears these were all lumped under magical attacks in the DMG.Because the Fly spell does not alter the earth and does not let you pass through solids.Yes, because the fly spell has to do nothing to the water for you to move through the water.&nbsp; The only question should be how effectively can you move through the water.&nbsp; Sure, a DM can adjudicate that flying underwater isn't allowed. But, the text does not prohibit it. (And the authors intent actually supports flying underwater).&nbsp;I agree we disagree but this is all a hijack anyways.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Abraxas, post: 1246233, member: 1266"] Doesn't matter - fantasy is fantasy. There are numerous creatures in the 3.5E that fly without wings. They all could be models of creatures that fly both in and out of water. You have to decide that (in your campaign) no magical means of flight works underwater for this not to be true. So from a fantasy world perspective where creatures can move about without any visible means they ability to move through water as easily as air most likely does come to mind. Phrases like "flew across the water" and "flies through the sea" have been around a lot longer than comic books - so the idea of flying through water is not a 20th/21st century one. The dictionary also defines the word fly as "To move with great speed; rush or dart" which could easily describe movement underwater. If underwater movement is strictly prohibited by the spell you have to define how much of the flyer has to be immersed before his mode of movement changes from flying to swimming. It would be a pretty pathetic spell developer that didn't consider what would happen if he fell overboard during a sea voyage and his fly spell couldn't pull him out of the briny deep :) We should look at the game designer who created the spell. Go back to the 1st edition DMG where fly is specifically stated as woking underwater (although at half speed). Except for the MoP pg 77. In the MoP it states that creatures on the elemental plane of water with a fly speed didn't have to swim but could move at half their normal rate with their maneuverability reduced by one grade. The fly spell creator could have very well seen flying creatures there and used them for the model of his fly spell. Flight underwater is not a 20th century concept - nor is it a houserule. In all editions of D&D when the effects of being underwater on spells are discussed only those spells that are affected have any commentary at all. Why are invisibility and fire spells talked about? - Because those spells are affected when used underwater. If a spell isn't stated to operate differently underwater then the spell doesn't operate differently underwater. Another aside - The Aquatic terrain text appears to be pulled directly from Skip Williams article "Water, Water Everywhere, D&D Underwater Combat Rules" in Dragon 291 and condensed. In the dragon article Skip stated "Most spells, spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities work normally underwater." He then goes on to explain the fire descriptor spell exceptions - it appears these were all lumped under magical attacks in the DMG. Because the Fly spell does not alter the earth and does not let you pass through solids. Yes, because the fly spell has to do nothing to the water for you to move through the water. The only question should be how effectively can you move through the water. Sure, a DM can adjudicate that flying underwater isn't allowed. But, the text does not prohibit it. (And the authors intent actually supports flying underwater). I agree we disagree but this is all a hijack anyways. [/QUOTE]

Verification