Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[Korak]

Please reference my previous post 5 or 6 spaces up the thread for my reasoning on why "flying underwater" is a non-sensical impossibility... unless of course, a creature is moving through a gaseous pocket that happens to be somehow held underneath water.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

I believe that the lack of rules on flying underwater was specifically meant to exclude flying underwater. That is why they specify flying is in air and and swimming is in water. There are is one notable exception to this (walking in water), but an exception is just that: an exception, not the rule. The Plane of Water arguement holds no bearing on the rules in the Manterial plane, except to argue that it is reasonable (which I will touch on later).

I find the fact that you consider the word "air" to exclude any gas that is not a specific mixture of air, nitrogen, and oxygen to be confusing. Air is not a defined game term, and your own signature states that the rules are not scientifically precise documents. I think that ruling that different types of gas qualify as air is completely reasonable. However, ruling that air is the same as water does not seem reasonable.

Even if you are to assume that the "in the air" description of flight does not prohibit flying underwater, the strongest arguement that you really have is that it is not specifically prohibited. While this may be a valid point, I think it is important to point out that this is not the same as saying it is supported by the rules. What you are claiming is quite the opposite: that no standpoint is supported by the rules. Best case senario, you are arguing that arbitrary desicions and/or house rules are the only way to describe how underwater flying works.

As for flying underwater being "desirable and reasonable", I also have to disagree. Desirable for a powergamer, maybe, but certainly not for the GM who would have to go through the process of figuring out how the process is supposed to work. As for reasonable, I disagree as well. There are a whole slew of problems that arise from ruling that flight can occur underwater. For example...

How does relative weight and bouyancy work?

How does a Raptorans "glide" ablity work underwater?

Are other abilities that use air usable in water as well? For example, the Wind Wall spell, or an Air Elemental's Whirlwind?

Can a flying creature still choose to make a Dive attack underwater?

It seems reasonable that hovering would be easier underwater than in air, but using the Hampered movement rules makes it more difficult. How is this accounted for?

This is just a short list of the can of worms that your interpretation opens up. And all can be completely solved by simply stating that if something could fly underwater, it would have a swim speed as well (which is also the most realistic answer).

 

[Musrum]

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..."

I am completely comfortable with the notion that the rule quoted is not the begining and end of the Flight rules.

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.

Well I disagree that you have to suspend all your knowledge about how the world works. There does exist situations where things don't work as you would normally expect (e.g. water pressure on the PoW) but these are flagged and explained.

The colossal beetle is an exception to the rules regarding the efficiency of insect respiration (amoung other things), but this doesn't mean that physics of the game world is null and void. I can suspend disbelief about giant bugs, whilst still expecting my kettle to boil on the campfire.

In any case, you don't need to use altitude to get low air pressure (low enough to not be able to sustain flight). And others here have demonstrated other scenarios where the rule fails.

 

[Musrum]

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.

This I can agree with! Although I also acknowledge that this is not the most ideal medium for exchange, and both parties or a third party can easily mistake the "tone of voice".

A guess this is winding down now, and we are simply restating positions. But it has been interesting to see other people's take on the rule, and also the discussion of the meta-rules for implementing RAW.

Thanks, and apology not accepted (not required).

 

[KarinsDad]

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

Fly Speeds are something that creatures have. Not objects. If you could post an example of your mythical Fly Speed object (note: an object with a movement mode of Fly Speed, not an object merely being propelled at a given rate of speed), it would help your POV.

In the meantime, your question here is irrelvant since objects with Fly Speeds do not exist in the game.

Even Telekinesis does not impart a Fly Speed to an object it moves.

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

Where does it state that they cannot? And even if it did, that would be an explicit change to the standard rule.

On the other hand, you do not have an explicit rule change for your POV.


So far, you appear to be grasping at some pretty thin straws here with questions like these since you know exactly what the movement mode rules are for Flying.

 

[mvincent]

Just because the rules do not state that a Flight Speed cannot be used underwater is not a rule that it can.

I did not say it was in my quote that you somehow believe you are countering

You guys are going around in circles

After your misinterpretation of a post which I believed to be both clear and re-stated several times, and your repeated punching of a strawman instead of addressing the more difficult issues, we are possibly just trying to follow you.

 

[Musrum]

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

I am happy to use 1/2 fly speed underwater and call it "swimming" if that helps...

Not so much different from using 1/4 land speed and calling it "swimming". The only difference is bird use the same bio-mechanical means for propulsion instead of a vastly different means that a typical humaniod uses when swimming.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Fly Speeds are something that creatures have. Not objects. If you could post an example of your mythical Fly Speed object (note: an object with a movement mode of Fly Speed, not an object merely being propelled at a given rate of speed), it would help your POV.

Broom of Flying?

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

I did not say it was in my quote that you somehow believe you are countering

After your misinterpretation of a post which I believed to be both clear and re-stated several times, and your repeated punching of a strawman instead of addressing the more difficult issues, we are possibly just trying to follow you.

You appear to be the only one having difficulty.


Let me rephrase:

Just because a rule does not exist that Flying cannot be done in water does not mean it can. The only medium in the flying rules is air. Hence, it is a limit.

That pretty much answers your point:

1) The core rules do not specifically disallow using fly speed underwater

This is a false statement. The Fly Movement Mode rules only allow a Fly Speed to be used in air.

 

[Musrum]

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.

Well here we just have to agree to disagree. The rules include the concept of negative buoyancy (walking underwater) and positive buoyancy (a spell) and I know for a fact that neutral buoyancy exists in the real world. It also exists in the rule set as an interpolation.

So if you disallow a character with neutral buoyancy then that is the end of it I guess.

We could try one last time:

I have BBEG Bob who is an Elder Water Elemental living on the Plane of Water.
Since Bob is composed of water, he has neutral buoyancy.
Bob is under the effects of a permanent Fly spell that allows movement as a purely mental function.
Bob has activated an artifact that has paralyzed every creature on the PoW (even those normally immune).

Bob can Fly (but not swim) around on the PoW.
Bob (and every other Water Elemental) cannot use Subjective Gravity to move as they have neutral buoyancy.

Now the rule that allows Bob to Fly underwater is either:
a) An expansion on the general case for underwater movement; or
b) Assumed to be still some sort of "special" effect of the PoW.