Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[Infiniti2000]

No. I have shown via thought experiment that Subjective Gravity is not required for the Plane of Water movement rules.

I reject your thought experiment as being in error. We apparently disagree on it and I can't follow your double-speak on deconstructing text instead rules and so forth. At one point, you explicitly said rules and now you change it to text. I can't argue with a moving target.

 

[Musrum]

I reject your thought experiment as being in error.

That is good. Where is the error?

We apparently disagree on it

Apperantly so.

and I can't follow your double-speak on deconstructing text instead rules and so forth. At one point, you explicitly said rules and now you change it to text.

That's how arguments work. I make an argument, you give your arguments against, I refine the argument.

I can't argue with a moving target.

Rather than complain you should apreciate that your input is making my arguments better.
Do you think it is a good thing to come out of an argument, holding the exact same position you had going in?

 

[Artoomis]

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).

You quote is accurate. However nothing in that quote addresses what happens when you try to fly through something other than air.

"Air" is "A colorless, odorless, tasteless, gaseous mixture, mainly nitrogen (approximately 78 percent) and oxygen (approximately 21 percent) with lesser amounts of argon, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, neon, helium, and other gases."


Can you fly thorugh pure oxygen?
Can you fly through a poisonous gas?
What about in a vacuum (assuming you can otherwise survive)?

None of those are "air," that's for certain.

The rule is a persmissive, not restrictive rule. In other words, it tells you that with a fly speed you can move though the air. It does not say what happens in any other conditions, nor does it necessarily restrict flying from applying to other environments.

It does not tell you, for example, whether you can fly underwater at some penalty to you flying ability.

It say you CAN fly in the air. It does not say you CANNOT fly underwater, or in pure oxygen, etc.

The core rules simply do not address unusual applications of flying, such as underwater.

 

[lukelightning]

This reminds me of one of my brother's abusive superhero characters, who used his flight ability for just about everything. "I can lift 100 tons because my flight ability is so fast....I can knock people away with my flight thrust...I can move 100mph though the water because of my flight thrust...I can burrow through the ground because of my flight....I can resist getting pushed back because of my flight..."

None of this would be a problem if the game (Villains and Vigilantes) supported "alternate power array" type things, but all he had were the powers of flight and super dexterity.

 

[lukelightning]

I stand by my "flight does not move you through water" opinion. I would let you fly from the surface of the water (i.e. if you fall into some water and aren't drowning yet, you just fly up). But once you are submerged you need to swim, even if it's just to get you to the surface to fly away.

 

[Artoomis]

This reminds me of one of my brother's abusive superhero characters, who used his flight ability for just about everything. "I can lift 100 tons because my flight ability is so fast....I can knock people away with my flight thrust...I can move 100mph though the water because of my flight thrust...I can burrow through the ground because of my flight....I can resist getting pushed back because of my flight..."

None of this would be a problem if the game (Villains and Vigilantes) supported "alternate power array" type things, but all he had were the powers of flight and super dexterity.

That's kind of funny - without some form of invulnerability he may have had a few issues. Everything on that list is actually within the realm of reason - providing one takes into account what happens to the superhero when he tries these stunts.

Very short, very dramatic and cinematic life.

 

[Artoomis]

I stand by my "flight does not move you through water" opinion. I would let you fly from the surface of the water (i.e. if you fall into some water and aren't drowning yet, you just fly up). But once you are submerged you need to swim, even if it's just to get you to the surface to fly away.

Well, you get points for consistency.

 

[mvincent]

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

No, but if you genuinely believe that then I guess I am done discussing it with you.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's how arguments work. I make an argument, you give your arguments against, I refine the argument.

It's not that you're refining your argument or even changing it. It's that you're attempting to do it covertly. And, when I mention it, you say you aren't doing it. You were talking about deconstructing rules and then when I go with that, you suddenly act like you were talking about deconstructing text, not rules (which quite honestly makes zero sense to me). This undermines my argument, but not in a good way because it suddenly makes my argument predicated upon a lie, which you fostered.

That's a moving target. It's not a natural evolution of a discussion. I'm willing to try again, but you need to restate your reasoning as to why you want to include the rules on water from the plane of water and not the rules on air from the plane of air. (That is the error in your thought experiment.)

Do you think it is a good thing to come out of an argument, holding the exact same position you had going in?

It is neither good nor bad, but I'm quite willing to change my mind on points during and after a discussion. I have done it before, even here on these forums, so don't think I'm being stubborn here for no reason. I just don't think your position is supported by the RAW, nor do I agree it makes sense (from a real-world perspective--sparrows cannot fly underwater), nor do I even agree with the rule you came up with even if I were to agree that one can fly underwater*.

* If I were to allow it, just so you know, I would make it 1/4 speed or the base land speed, whichever is less. For creatures without a base land speed, they cannot 'fly' underwater at all and without help will sink. There are no rules on buoyancy, but I'd be willing to ad hoc something like that for certain creatures (mainly birds which are known to have hollow bones and thus have a great amount of buoyancy).

 

[Artoomis]

...* If I were to allow it, just so you know, I would make it 1/4 speed or the base land speed, whichever is less. For creatures without a base land speed, they cannot 'fly' underwater at all and without help will sink. There are no rules on buoyancy, but I'd be willing to ad hoc something like that for certain creatures (mainly birds which are known to have hollow bones and thus have a great amount of buoyancy).

I don't think land speed should have anything to do with it, but I agree that 1/4-speed is probably more accurate than 1/2-speed. You could very reasonably count it as "difficult terrain" plus "poor visibility" to make the speed be 1/4.