Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[Infiniti2000]

As I stated previously: if you remove the special planar traits (Subjective Gravity) and just keep the remaining rules, you can consistently use these expanded movement rules in the general case.

Just so we're clear now, you've modified your usage of the MotP rule to first disregard Subjective Gravity in the Elemental Plane of Water (which will have enormous effects for anyone travelling there) and then ruled that the Subjective Gravity was the basis for the improved maneuverability in the Elemental Plane of Air (the book may in fact state this, but I don't have it in front of me right now).

I believed that if I could show you one real world example of a bird flying underwater this would be sufficient to prove you wrong.

No, you need to prove the general rule that anything with a fly speed can use it underwater. That's your rule, not mine. Showing one example is insufficient to support a rule over the whole class of flying creatures. It is our side who need only show one example to prove you wrong. You can change your rule to have exceptions, but there is no such exception list and thus your rule is in error.

As I stated previously, you can deconstruct the Planar movement rules...

No, you can't deconstruct it. That's being selective on your rules and therefore inconsistent. You don't need to apply Subjective Gravity to the material plane, but if it's required for the flying-underwater rule then you can't remove it. In other words, you can't remove it and assume the remainder of the planar rules function normally elsewhere. It would be like allowing Sunder to decapitate a white dragon, just because you can do that on a hydra.

 

[Artoomis]

.... No, you can't deconstruct it. That's being selective on your rules and therefore inconsistent. You don't need to apply Subjective Gravity to the material plane, but if it's required for the flying-underwater rule then you can't remove it. In other words, you can't remove it and assume the remainder of the planar rules function normally elsewhere...

I am SO confused.

From the Manual of the Planes - Elemental Plane of Water:
"Those with fly speeds can fly at half their normal rate, and their maneuverability is reduced one grade"

Where (when?) did someone mention IMPROVING manueverability one grade underwater on the elemental plane of water?

I keep looking for it and not finding it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Where (when?) did someone mention IMPROVING manueverability one grade underwater on the elemental plane of water?

No one did. It's the rule in the plane of air that all flyers improve one category. For the same reason(s) you apply the rules from the water plane, you apply the rules from the air plane (pun intended). From what I understand, Musrum is altering how the rules from the water plane is applied such that he intends to negate allowing the plane of air rule on improved maneuverability. Interestingly, which I didn't see till just now for some reason, the plane of air rule would cancel out the loss in maneuverability for flying underwater.

I'm pretty sure I said this, but I'll repeat it. It's fine to use the flying underwater rule from the water plane as a guideline if you want to allow flying underwater on the prime material. The correlation to hampered movement helps. But, IMO it cannot be claimed as a rule or precedence or anything. It is absolutely against the rules to allow it (not that allowing it is a bad thing*).

* Allowing it without restriction is a bad thing, though, as evidenced by your rebuttals vs. sparrows and the like. You just aren't clear on what the exceptions are because there surely are no rules against it. In other words, what happens to a sparrow (e.g.) on the plane of water?

 

[Artoomis]

No one did. It's the rule in the plane of air that all flyers improve one category. For the same reason(s) you apply the rules from the water plane, you apply the rules from the air plane (pun intended). From what I understand, Musrum is altering how the rules from the water plane is applied such that he intends to negate allowing the plane of air rule on improved maneuverability. Interestingly, which I didn't see till just now for some reason, the plane of air rule would cancel out the loss in maneuverability for flying underwater.

I'm pretty sure I said this, but I'll repeat it. It's fine to use the flying underwater rule from the water plane as a guideline if you want to allow flying underwater on the prime material. The correlation to hampered movement helps. But, IMO it cannot be claimed as a rule or precedence or anything. It is absolutely against the rules to allow it (not that allowing it is a bad thing*).

* Allowing it without restriction is a bad thing, though, as evidenced by your rebuttals vs. sparrows and the like. You just aren't clear on what the exceptions are because there surely are no rules against it. In other words, what happens to a sparrow (e.g.) on the plane of water?

1. A sparrow on the plane of water drowns. Assuming some breathe water capability, it'd fly at half speed and down one manueverability class. This matches up nicely to what seabirds actually do when flying underwater (except maybe it's too fast).

2. The plane of air rules have no bearing here whatsoever. Discussion of the plane of air rules is a red herring.

3. The RAW already allows for using one mode of movement in another (less than ideal) medium - walking underwater.

4. The rules provide for a mechanic for "hampered movemenet" but do not specify how it works for air flying - for example, flying in reduced visbility or in really, really thick air.

5. The plane of water rules provide a nice mechanic that can be used for how hampered rules would work for flying underwater.

There you have. All based upon RAW.

By the RAW alone, flying should be allowed underwater, but the RAW actually does not provide the mechanics for how to apply the hampered movement rules to this situation. The plane of water (MotP) rules can be used to fill that gap. You might come up with some other rule, and that would be fine,too, because where RAW lets us down is defining the mechanics for hampered movement for flying. The MotP rule is a great place to start.

Now one could also, per RAW, maintain that you cannot fly underwater at all, but that seems to be both over-literal to one rule and ignores (at least) the precedent of walking underwater as well as comparisons to a number of real-world creatures that fly both above and below the water.

Obvious exception includes gas creatures or others that basically cannot be submerged.

Of course, to be complete, I'll restate that flying underwater does NOT equal swimming.

 

[Infiniti2000]

1. A sparrow on the plane of water drowns. Assuming some breathe water capability, it'd fly at half speed and down one manueverability class. This matches up nicely to what seabirds actually do when flying underwater (except maybe it's too fast).

At least you're being consistent. I think based on the responses, Musrum disagrees with you here. Also, keep in mind that under your interpretation the same sparrow can fly underwater on the prime material plane (same rule, remember).

2. The plane of air rules have no bearing here whatsoever. Discussion of the plane of air rules is a red herring.

I reject your attempt at dismissing the point. Calling it a red herring does not make it one, despite that fact that herring can fly in your world.

The MotP rule is a great place to start.

Sure, but it is not RAW. Not without significant problems at least. Basically, if you reference it as an actual rule, you need to clarify why you are ignoring other planar rules.

 

[Artoomis]

At least you're being consistent. I think based on the responses, Musrum disagrees with you here. Also, keep in mind that under your interpretation the same sparrow can fly underwater on the prime material plane (same rule, remember).

Aboslutely - a sparrow can fly underwater. It's unlikely one ever would because it most likely doesn;t know how to hold it's breath.

I reject your attempt at dismissing the point. Calling it a red herring does not make it one, despite that fact that herring can fly in your world.

No herring cannot fly - it has no fly speed. It could swim in the air if the air were siufficiently thick to support it, though. Of course, hampered movement rules [bi]might[/b] apply.

Sure, but it is not RAW. Not without significant problems at least. Basically, if you reference it as an actual rule, you need to clarify why you are ignoring other planar rules.

I am not using the MotP rule as "pure RAW." It just a RAW-based good way to handle flying underwater, given that the rules do not otherwise prohibit it but also provide no guidelines for how to apply hampered movement rules for underwater flight. ("Is there anywhere in the entire D&D rule set that specifcally talk about flying underwater - maybe that would apply. Oh, look - there are some rules for the elemental plane of water from MotP, perhaps they would work well.")

There is no reason to look at any other planar rules unless one wants to get an idea of how swimming might work in the air, for example, if such a rule existed for the plane of air (it does not, as far as I know).

Arguing about how the plane of air rules affect things is the classic "red herring" - an off-topic side argument that distracts from the main point, but is related to the main point or some other point enough that folks get wrapped up in this side argument.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Arguing about how the plane of air rules affect things is the classic "red herring" - an off-topic side argument that distracts from the main point, but is related to the main point or some other point enough that folks get wrapped up in this side argument.

It apparently is a red herring to you, after your clarification. Musrum, and possibly others, however, view the MotP rule as RAW, not as simply a guideline for creating a new rule. With that in mind, my comments about the plane of air are not herrings, red or otherwise.

So, if you want to claim that there is no rule for disallowing something, therefore that something must be allowed, go for it. You and I have a fundamental disjunction on how rules work, but c'est la vie. As an example, there's no rule in Monopoly that says I can't beat you over the head with the board and steal your money, but I guarantee you I would be disqualified from any tournament should I try it.

 

[mvincent]

I'm curious if the below points are contested:
1) The core rules do not specifically disallow using fly speed underwater
2) The MotP and FAQ (and most any other supplement) have license to expand on the rules as long as they do not directly contradict the core rules.
3) The term "Rules as Written" can apply to a supplement

 

[irdeggman]

I'm curious if the below points are contested:
1) The core rules do not specifically disallow using fly speed underwater

True, but they also don't specifically disallow other things (like walking on air or swimming through the ground).

2) The MotP and FAQ (and most any other supplement) have license to expand on the rules as long as they do not directly contradict the core rules.

The FAQ is WotC means of clarifying rules. It has also evolved into a means of inserting errata (whether or not it should do so is debatable, it does though).

Other WotC books (like MotP) follow the primary source rule. That places the core 3 above other sources except for specific applications like for an adventure or setting.

3) The term "Rules as Written" can apply to a supplement

RAW can be supplements.

But the general usage on these boards has been that RAW only applies to the core 3 books (or the SRD, which includes a little bit more like exp Psionics and epic information). That has been the general usage on these boards. Other WotC sources are "official" but not core RAW.

 

[mvincent]

True, but...

I might be unclear as to your response. You do not seem to actually contest any of my points (nor the implication of those points), but I'm unsure if you understood the point of my points (i.e. that the FAQ and MotP can be viewed as containing legitimate rules in regard to this issue, and so could semantically be called RAW).