Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[Musrum]

It's not an error. It's reading the rule as written. It's the movement mode rule concerning flying.

Where is your movement mode rule to support your POV?

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

So you are also contending that an object with a Fly speed can't move through air?
Are you stating that a bird with a Fly speed can move through the air at 30,000 feet?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So you are also contending that an object with a Fly speed can't move through air?

I suspect it's more that the rules for a flying non-construct object won't be found in the Monster Manual, in a section headed with "Creatures may have modes of movement other than walking and running..."

Are you stating that a bird with a Fly speed can move through the air at 30,000 feet?

You're making assumptions about the physics of a campaign world. Do we know whether air gets thinner with altitude? Do we know if stars are balls of flaming gas? Do we know if gravity varies with distance?

Remember, colossal beetles exist and function just fine... even in an antimagic field. Physics don't live here.

-Hyp.

 

[Musrum]

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.

Well I don't see how I did this covertly. The whole thread is there for inspection, and all my edits have been to fix spelling. The change from "deconstructing rules" to "deconstructing text" was to correct the terminology so that it is clear that I am not breaking down existing rules to make two new rules, rather I am looking into the text to find two independant existing rules.

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.)

OK then:
1) You can use the flying-underwater movement rules for the PoW on the PMP because it can be demonstrated that none of the "special" planar effects have an effect on the movement rules. (pressure effects included).
2) You can not use the flying movement rule for the PoA on the PMP because either:
a) Common sense tells you that these are the result of Subjective Gravitation. Or:
b) You cannot demonstrate that Subjective Gravitation does not have an effect on the movement rules.

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).

There are rules on bouyancy, they are just not called that. The rules on walking underwater talk about adding sufficient weight to gain stable footing. This is acutally talking about getting sufficient negative bouyancy.

If was to to write up the flying out-of-bound rules I would start by splitting natural and magical flight (this is already done in the RAW when discussing Anti-magic fields).
This would allow a Fly spell to take you to the moon (assuming you have breathing, pressure, food, water, and radiation shielding fixed).

For natural flight I would go with 1/4 flight speed.
For magical flight I would use 1/2 flight speed (with exceptions eg. Wings of Flying should be considered natural flight).

 

[Dracorat]

We have turned from a debate about flying underwater into mudslinging with the occasional post of value. Really, there's quite enough mud here. We don't need more.

 

[Musrum]

We have turned from a debate about flying underwater into mudslinging with the occasional post of value. Really, there's quite enough mud here. We don't need more.

Much more and we will be swimming in it...

 

[Artoomis]

Much more and we will be swimming in it...

Ah, but can you fly in it? And, if so , at what penalties?

 

[Infiniti2000]

There are rules on bouyancy, they are just not called that. The rules on walking underwater talk about adding sufficient weight to gain stable footing. This is acutally talking about getting sufficient negative bouyancy.

Talking about weight does not lend creedence to your negating the PoW rules. There is no way for you to just 'create a character with neutral buoyancy.' So, your point #1 is in error. You can't, in fact, demonstrate anything of the sort. You can make an arbitrary decision on it, but you have no rules-based justification for that decision. Also, the idea that subjective gravity is the only reason for the PoW rule on underwater flying is begging the question. The reason for that rule is not actually given in the MotP.

As far as mudslinging, I didn't think any of it was going on, but if I did it, you (Musrum and Artoomis I presume) have my apologies. In that vein, I will read any rebuttals, but my part in this is done. I do not want to foster ill will. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

 

[Artoomis]

Talking about weight does not lend creedence to your negating the PoW rules. There is no way for you to just 'create a character with neutral buoyancy.' So, your point #1 is in error. You can't, in fact, demonstrate anything of the sort. You can make an arbitrary decision on it, but you have no rules-based justification for that decision. Also, the idea that subjective gravity is the only reason for the PoW rule on underwater flying is begging the question. The reason for that rule is not actually given in the MotP.

As far as mudslinging, I didn't think any of it was going on, but if I did it, you (Musrum and Artoomis I presume) have my apologies. In that vein, I will read any rebuttals, but my part in this is done. I do not want to foster ill will. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

I have certainly not been insulted - it's not like there were any personal insults being flung about. Comments on the way people argue their points is perfectly valid.

That said, I don't think the PoW rules are binding, but they do provide for a good start for how to handle underwater flying.

 

[Korak]

how to handle underwater flying.

What need is there to handle something that does not exist? Movement through a liquid medium is swimming.

 

[Artoomis]

What need is there to handle something that does not exist? Movement through a liquid medium is swimming.

That is the subject under discussion. Not that not all land movement is regular movement, so not all underwater movement need be "swimming."

How does "fly" work underwater?

My analysis shows that it is fairly clear that "fly" does indeed work underwater (FAQ and MotP support that view) in some fashion.

Indeed, any time WotC is asked there seems to be no doubt about flying underwater - the question is only over what the rules are for doing so.

As I see it there are several basic possibilites:

1. Use the "fly" speed in place of "land" speed and use swimming rules.

2. Use "fly" rules but with reduced effectiveness of flying (Hampered Movement) - 1/2 or 1/4 move and reduced manueverability seem to be teh ebst choices.

3. Disallow "fly" all together with underwater movement. This seems to be the least desirable and most unreasonable approach.

As far as I am concerned, the lack of specific rules for how to use fly underwater is a hole in the rules. I do not think the rules were meant to exclude this, and as written, do not exclude this.

In my view, the fact that fly "can" be used for movement through the air is most certainly not the same as fly can be used "only" for movement thorugh the air.

The latter reading has all kinds of problems, not just prohibiting underwater flight. It would prevent flying through pure oxygen, for example, because that's not "air." Or poisionous gas, or a vacuum, etc., etc.

It may or may not be appropriate to distinguish between magical and natural flight, too. There is precedent for such a distinction.