Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[Artoomis]

...So, if you want to claim that there is no rule for disallowing something, therefore that something must be allowed, go for it...

That is not my claim.

My claim is that:

1. Rules do exist for movement in a meduim not natural to the mode of movement (walking underwater). This sets a precedent.

2. MotP presents a precedent that you can fly underwater, though whether the rules presented (1/2-move, loss of one category of manueverabilty) are precedent-setting is a subject for debate.

3. Hampered movement rules exists which are appropriate to use for how to modify flying to work underwater.

4. Flying underwater does not equal swimming. (That's an important point, otherwise flying rule would be unbalanced, in my opinion).

Now I like to use the MotP rules because I think they mesh very well with the Hampered Movement rules.

 

[Artoomis]

...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.

Not really. What RAW means varies according to the discussion. Sometimes it means the 3 core books ONLY. Sometimes those plus the FAQ. Sometimes including other supplemtnatl material.

Discussions vary - sometimes they are about whether something is allowed by the core rules only. Sometimes they are about whether something is allowed in D&D in general, which may include supplemental material.

Some of the biggest misundertandings and long discussions are about what the core rules says when read very, very strictly (in a way that was never intended, certainly). Those can be fun intellectually, but have little real value. I've participated in many of those and freely admit the low real value of them.

I think this discussion is (or should be) mostly more practical - is flying underwater allowed in D&D considering all rules, no just the core rules only?

 

[irdeggman]

Just to make my opinion clear.

The Primary Source Rule applies.

MoP contains rules for specific locations (i.e, the planes). To extrapolate those rules for other locations can be done but it is not RAW in any way, shape or form.
This kind of thing is usually referred to as House Rules.

The DMG has information for swimming and walking underwater. It has no allowance for "flying". It likewise has no allowance for burrowing (and yes I keep bringing that up because if people want to state that the DMG doesn't specifically prohibit flying underwater therefor you can then likewise anything not specifically prohibited should be allowed, which includes burrowing.) The DMG gives specific requirements for walking on the bottom (e.g wearing enough weight to remain submerged) whereas there are no equivalent text to address other forms of movement (like flying).

If you wish to allow flying underwater then you must also address the boyancy issue. But flying also has weight restriction in order to use that form of movment. The rules for Tactical Aerial Movement should also apply (they are in the DMG) and unfortunealty they don't make any sense when underwater. For example the infomration on minimum forward speed and being forced to land don't quite work underwater - do you go up or down?

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

 

[mvincent]

The Primary Source Rule applies.

Howso? As mentioned, neither the MotP nor the FAQ rulings actually conflicted with the primary source

MoP contains rules for specific locations (i.e, the planes). To extrapolate those rules for other locations can be done but it is not RAW in any way, shape or form.

The FAQ ruling was not specific to a plane.

 

[Artoomis]

...If you wish to allow flying underwater then you must also address the boyancy issue. But flying also has weight restriction in order to use that form of movment. The rules for Tactical Aerial Movement should also apply (they are in the DMG) and unfortunealty they don't make any sense when underwater. For example the infomration on minimum forward speed and being forced to land don't quite work underwater - do you go up or down?

True enough. Of course, I have made the point all along that flying is allowed underwater but the core rules did not provide a mechanic for how to do it.

All problems are easily dealt with if one simply uses the flying rules as written at 1/2 speed and with loss of one class of manueverability. If you want to stop and "hover" but your manueverability class won't allow it, then you simply start swimming instead of flying. Solves all those tricky issues.

Bouyancy is not really a problem any more than gravity is for flying.

You are making this harder than it is. In real life, things can fly underwater (we know this to be true). Knowing that, it is natural to assume one can fly underwater UNLESS it is prohibited, which it is not.

The rules are not all-inclusive, we know this to be true. Sometimes you just have to fill in the blanks.

 

[Musrum]

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)

No. I have shown via thought experiment that Subjective Gravity is not required for the Plane of Water movement rules. This removes the one "special" thing in the rules about the Plane of Water that could support your assertion that the rules do not apply to the material plane. So all you have left is either the idea that the water in the plane of water is made of some funky stuff (an idea made from whole cloth), or your own meta-rule of not being allowed to use expanded rules in general cases.

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).

It certainly does not state this. I just made it up. If it doesn't make sense to you, then that's OK too. Just state that you cannot apply the rules of movement on the Plane of Air to the Material Plane as you are unable to deconstruct Subjective Gravity out of the rules.

No, you can't deconstruct it. That's being selective on your rules and therefore inconsistent.

Keep in mind, I am not deconstructing rules, I am deconstructing text to find the two independant, internaly consistent rules. I am doing this because if the flying-underwater movement rules depended on Subjective Gravity that you would certainly be correct in not allowing it on any Plane that did not have Subjective Gravity.

Which brings a qestion to mind. Would you allow flying-underwater on the Plane of Earth in a large underground lake?

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.

It is not required.

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.

I don't see how your example is applicable. I have been very careful to get things to a state where I'm comparing Apples with Apples. Water on the PoW with Water on the PMP.

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.

I have already aknowledged that there are some good reasons why we don't see much flying underwater:
1) Breathing. (Fixable in the game - but excludes most birds without access to this magic.)
2) Boyancy. (DMG already has rules for bouancy, you would need to adapt these to give your bird a neutral, or slightly negative, boyancy.)
3) Behaviour. (Train animal.)

In the real world there are examples of birds who have overcome these issues in the interest of filling their bellies. Unfortuantly you invalidate these examples by stating they have a swim speed. So the point of the exercise is lost.

Your assertion that you only need one example to prove the rule wrong intrigues me. Does that mean I can prove the DMG walking-underwater rule wrong with a Llama (named Kevin) that collapes in fear and drowns intead of walking along the seabed?

 

[Musrum]

It likewise has no allowance for burrowing (and yes I keep bringing that up because if people want to state that the DMG doesn't specifically prohibit flying underwater therefor you can then likewise anything not specifically prohibited should be allowed, which includes burrowing.)

Right. And the burrowing question and all its cousins need to be sent to WotC. They allow walking-underwater and so can address all the other courner cases. We are not required to address them all, simply because we choose to tackle one.

 

[Musrum]

If you wish to allow flying underwater then you must also address the boyancy issue. But flying also has weight restriction in order to use that form of movment. The rules for Tactical Aerial Movement should also apply (they are in the DMG) and unfortunealty they don't make any sense when underwater. For example the infomration on minimum forward speed and being forced to land don't quite work underwater - do you go up or down?

I agree there is certainly scope for WotC to develope some better rules. But as it stands, I am just happy to be able to fly-underwater.

 

[Musrum]

MoP contains rules for specific locations (i.e, the planes). To extrapolate those rules for other locations can be done but it is not RAW in any way, shape or form.
This kind of thing is usually referred to as House Rules.

Why is it not RAW. Why can't you extrapolate Frostburn's rules for exposure to cold to a freezer room on the Plane of Fire?

Should each Plane of Existance have its own complete rule-set? WotC - I hope you are NOT listening...

Bob: I full-attack the astro-monkey. *Rolls* and I miss.
DM: You get another attack Bob. On the Plane of Foo you get iterative attacks every +4.

 

[irdeggman]

Howso? As mentioned, neither the MotP nor the FAQ rulings actually conflicted with the primary source

Pg 322 of the MM (Primary source rule) covers what a Fly Speed is.

And it states that:

“A creature with a fly speed can move through the air at the indicated speed if carrying no more than a light load.”

So yes they do conflict with a primary source and hence apply to the conditions specified (MoP applies the the planes).