Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[Infiniti2000]

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.

I disagree that precedent has been set, but let's assume that's true. Now, what makes you think that water is an environment that supports flight? I know, I know, Superman. I guess Smallville got that part wrong then, right? 'Cause he can't fly yet and he moved awfully fast underwater.

 

[mvincent]

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

irdeggman gave it earlier:
"Pg 92 of the DMG (Table 3-22) says that you when you have Firm Footing you have half your movement (basically it costs twice as much movment points per square as normal) and the note 3 states:
'Creatures have firm footing when walking along the bottom, braced against a ship’s hull, or the like. A creature can only walk along the bottom if it wears or carries enough gear to weigh itself down—at least 16 pounds for Medium creatures, twice that for each size category larger than Medium, and half that for each size category smaller than Medium.'"

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.

If you followed the comparison, Fly would not actually need to give you a "swim" speed, but merely mention that you can fly underwater. I believe you missed the point though.

 

[mvincent]

Now, what makes you think that water is an environment that supports flight?

I didn't until I read this thread and discovered the MotP and FAQ quotes.

I think the better question is: if water supports walking movement, why wouldn't it support flight? (i.e. burden of proof seems more on the con side to me)

 

[Artoomis]

... 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.... 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.

First, you can indeed fly underground, nothing prevents it (not while "burrowing" of course, as that is a seperate mode of movement, just as you can fly underwater but not while "swimming"). Of course your movement rate for flying while in the ground would be zero by any reasonable interpretation of "hampered movement." Not even a 5-foot step.

You can also walk in the air, if you have some means of staying aloft without flying and having some means for walking to give you actual locomotion (Airwalk spell, anyone?).

You can walk underwater, too (but not while swimming), if something gives you enough purchase with your feet to do so (that's flat-out RAW).

To me the issues are simple:

1. You cannot fly while swimming (two different modes of movement).

2. If one wishes to fly underwater (NOT swimming), then what is needed is to decide how the "Hampered movement" rules should apply to this situation.

Since the rules on "Hampered Movement" do not address this, you are on your own to decide. The MotP presents one way you could do this. It is not necessarily the only possible method. The MotP method fits in nicely with the way Hampered Movement works, which is why I really like it.

Anyway, I think you can rule (RAW) that flying underwater is allowed but is Hampered Movement. There is no RAW for how to apply that Hampered Movement - in other words, no RAW for how much flying is affected by being underwater.

 

[mvincent]

There is no RAW for how to apply that Hampered Movement - in other words, no RAW for how much flying is affected by being underwater.

I think the MotP provided good guidelines for that (halved movement), but their ruling also seems to allow for winged movement underwater (something neither I nor the 3.0 FAQ agree with). Plus, their take on manueverability doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the better question is: if water supports walking movement, why wouldn't it support flight? (i.e. burden of proof seems more on the con side to me)

First, thanks for posting the walking underwater rule.


Second, if rule A exists and we are discussing non-existent rule B, the burden of proof is on the side that rule B does not exist since rule A does? Huh?

If you want proof, the rule has to be there.

 

[mvincent]

If you want proof, the rule has to be there.

It seems to be (in the FAQ and MotP)

 

[Artoomis]

I think the MotP provided good guidelines for that (halved movement), but their ruling also seems to allow for winged movement underwater (something neither I nor the 3.0 FAQ agree with). Plus, their take on manueverability doesn't seem to make sense.

The manueverability portion of that FAQ answer was seriously "out there" in never land.

Winged movement underwater is perfectly fine. Heck - I just saw it myself yesterday - convinced me, I can tell you that. Actual, feathered, winged flight underwater. It was really something to see.

I earlier proposed seperating out magic flight from non-magic flight, but I've since change my mind. No need to bother. When it's possible in the real world I see no reason to restrict it from the fanatsy world.

 

[Artoomis]

First, thanks for posting the walking underwater rule.


Second, if rule A exists and we are discussing non-existent rule B, the burden of proof is on the side that rule B does not exist since rule A does? Huh?

If you want proof, the rule has to be there.

Not really, no. Not when Rule a implies Rule B. In that case the burden of proof shifts.

In this case it has already been shown that one can walk underwater (providing one can get proper purchase for your feet).

This implies one can use one mode of travel in another medium if it is otherwise possible. This means the burden of proof has shifted to you to show why flying underwater is not somewhat like walking underwater - possible, but certainly NOT the same a swimming.

 

[irdeggman]

Not really, no. Not when Rule a implies Rule B. In that case the burden of proof shifts.

In this case it has already been shown that one can walk underwater (providing one can get proper purchase for your feet).

This implies one can use one mode of travel in another medium if it is otherwise possible. This means the burden of proof has shifted to you to show why flying underwater is not somewhat like walking underwater - possible, but certainly NOT the same a swimming.

Be careful with this one it will lead to the following non-magical means of movement application:

Burrowing underwater.

Burrowing through air.

Climbing underwater (not on a ladder).

Climbing through air.

Walking in air.

The logic is exactly the same - applying movement in other mediums.