Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[Artoomis]

Every once in a while a weird rule gets added for some out in left field area of interest in some out in left field book which basically ignores how the core rules are written. When it comes to the rules, a good rule of thumb is to use the primary source rule. The source rules already have rules for this: flying is in the air, swimming is underwater.


MotP's an old 3E book which discusses the other planes, not the material plane. The rules are for those other planes. This illustrates absolutely zip.

In fact, if you check the SRD on the D20 site, the section on the Planes does not have this rule at all.

Can you give me a reason why one could not view flying underwater as "hampered movement?" (a core rule)

"Difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement. When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move. "

Granted, the hampered movement rules do not mention flight, but the same prinicpal applies and nothing.

The MotP is a 3.0e book, true, but no update has invalidated that approach to flight and underwater movement.

It seems to me that you can fly underwater as "hampered movement" at 1/2 speed - with the loss of one manueverability class making sense within the intent of the "hampered movement" rule and in line with the MotP precedent.

It should also be clear that this is NOT the same as swimming.

Finally, the rules do not address flight underwater (you cannot fly unrestricted underwater for sure, though). The "hampered movement" rules only talk in detail about land movement, leaving open such interesting topics as underwater flight, or swimming through reeds (hampered movement, right?). Such things need a DMs adjudication as the rules leave it open.

To be very, very clear.

1. Flying is through the air (or other gas medium).

2. Flying underwater is, therfore, at a minimum NOT a normal means of locomotion underwater.

3. It seem to me that if one can physically fly somehow, that water only provides resistence to make it harder than normal - ultimately, from an aerodynamic point of view, air and water both act as fluids.

4. "Hampered Movement" rules seem to be a nice fit for how to handle underwater flight, but they are detailed only for land movement, leaving it up to the DM to figure out how to apply them for underwater flight or other non-land-based situations. MotP gives a really good way to do this.

P.S. At a local pizza place (of all things) I just saw a video of some sea birds actually flying underwater. Wild! I could see their feathered wings moving in the same way as when flying through the air. Very interesting stuff. IN D&D terms, they would definitely have been moving slower than normally and with reduced manueverability - though 1/4 speed might be more "realistic" that 1/2 after watching those birds. Given the tremendously larger amount of resistence in water than air, 1/4 speed sounds good to me - but it's probably easier to just use 1/2.

P.P.S. Despite having a reduced manueverability, anyone can "hover" underwater because they can simply stop flying and choose to "swim" instead, with perfect maneuverability. I personally would restrict changing modes of movement to each move - so you could, for example, fly for one move and swim for the second move in a round (or vice versa, of course).

 

[Artoomis]

This is a comparison sentence. Swimming with perfect maneuverability as if flying.

It is discussing maneuverability of swimming. It does not indicate that someone can fly underwater. Musrum was invalidly claiming that it does indicate this.

I am not sure he was. Certainly after quoting MotP he was saying (I think):

1. You can EITHER fly or swim when underwater.

2. When swimming, you get perfect manueverability.

3. When flying, you go 1/2 speed with reduced manueverability.

All very consistent.

 

[mvincent]

If the Fly spell actually stated this and it was not just another example of the FAQ introducing yet another new rule, we would not be having the discussion.

Correct. And if the issue wasn't subject to some interpretation to begin with, then there wouldn't have been a need for a FAQ answer.

The FAQ expands the rules all the time (but then, so to most supplements). If you view an issue as not subject to interpretation in the first place, then don't use the FAQ for that particular issue (i.e. I certainly have no vested interest in how you play your game). The FAQ answers are mostly for those of us that do view an issue as subject to interpretation.

 

[Artoomis]

...If you are playing in an RPGA game (or otherwise try to follow the FAQ for consistency of player expectations) then the 3.0 FAQ clarification might be your primary choice (I'm not aware of any change in 3.5 that would invalidate it). It says:
"Can a creature fly underwater? I’ve never heard of a
normal bird flying underwater. What are the rules
regarding this? If it’s possible, what is the penalty to
movement and maneuverability?
Flying creatures must swim when they enter the water, just
as other creatures do. A fly spell lets you swim at your normal
flying speed, but with the same maneuverability as other
swimmers (perfect maneuverability). Incorporeal creatures also
can fly/swim in this manner (they move through water just as
easily as they move through other substances). Note that
gaseous creatures cannot enter water."...

Wow - what a bad ruling to extend to 3.5 - this does not mesh well with the hampered movement rules of 3.5.

 

[mvincent]

Wow - what a bad ruling to extend to 3.5 - this does not mesh well with the hampered movement rules of 3.5.

Are hampered movement rules new to 3.5? I'm certainly interested in changes that might invalidate the 3.0 FAQ ruling. As mentioned, my own solution is that the water still hampers movement. I still prefer to incorporate the intent of the ruling though (as precedent).

Speaking of precedent: how was this handled in AD&D?

 

[Artoomis]

Are hampered movement rules new to 3.5? I'm certainly interested in changes that might invalidate the 3.0 FAQ ruling. As mentioned, my own solution is that the water still hampers movement. I still prefer to incorporate the intent of the ruling though (as precedent).

Speaking of precedent: how was this handled in AD&D?

It looks like hampered movement was in 3.0, too (I took a look at the 3.0 SRD). Another mark against this FAQ entry.

It was poorly done, as far as I am concerned.

 

[mvincent]

It looks like hampered movement was in 3.0, too (I took a look at the 3.0 SRD). Another mark against this FAQ entry.

It was poorly done, as far as I am concerned.

The same has been said before of the core rules. The MotP Elemental Plane of Water solution (no pun intended) also has problems. The main point is that they all convey an official stance that can be used to develop expectations for those that believe the issue is otherwise ambigious.

I have my own answer which I think fits the intent of all of these things, but I'm curious to know more on precedent. If I get a chance, I'll search the old Dragon magazines for AD&D rules on underwater movement. Does anyone have access to some old underwater supplements?

Of the new stuff, I've already checked:
1) Stormwrack (says nothing)
2) Mongoose's-classic play-Book of the Sea (has buoyancy rules and says fly provides neutral buoyancy, but nothing more)

 

[Infiniti2000]

Can you give me a reason why one could not view flying underwater as "hampered movement?" (a core rule)

Because it's swimming.

The MotP is a 3.0e book, true, but no update has invalidated that approach to flight and underwater movement.

You left out the "...in the elemental plane of water."

It should also be clear that this is NOT the same as swimming.

I agree with that. You're trying to use a movement mode in a way that doesn't apply. It's no different than applying flying while burrowing. Or walking while flying. It's an invalid approach.

MotP gives a really good way to do this.

It's reasonable if you want to allow it, sure. I just don't agree it can be allowed in general, not without allowing the other rules or being selective. In other words, it's a fine suggestion but it's not a rule.

P.S. At a local pizza place (of all things) I just saw a video of some sea birds actually flying underwater. Wild! I could see their feathered wings moving in the same way as when flying through the air. Very interesting stuff. IN D&D terms, they would definitely have been moving slower than normally and with reduced manueverability - though 1/4 speed might be more "realistic" that 1/2 after watching those birds. Given the tremendously larger amount of resistence in water than air, 1/4 speed sounds good to me - but it's probably easier to just use 1/2.

Statwise, I see this being handled the same way as the penguin, by granting those birds a swim speed. I don't/can't see it as "flight" because that opens up every creature out there who has a Fly speed, without restriction.

 

[mvincent]

You're trying to use a movement mode in a way that doesn't apply. It's no different than applying flying while burrowing. Or walking while flying. It's an invalid approach.

As noted earlier, precedent suggest that you can use alternate movement modes in any environment that might support it: i.e. you can use your ground movement mode while in water or the air. The airwalk spell does not actually give someone a flying speed.

 

[KarinsDad]

As noted earlier, precedent suggest that you can use alternate movement modes in any environment that might support it: i.e. you can use your ground movement mode while in water or the air. The airwalk spell does not actually give someone a flying speed.

Could you quote at rule that states that one can walk underwater?


Airwalk gives someone a walking speed in air. It explicitly does that as part of the effect.

The Fly spell does not explicitly give someone a swimming speed. I have no problem with a Underwater Fly spell that gave both types of Speed, but Fly does not do it.