Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[mvincent]

Unless there is something in the RAW that states you cannot combine movement modes over the course of a move.

I believe there is (can find it later if desired... likely in the RotG).

 

[Infiniti2000]

Well, when flying underwater you are NOT swimming. And you CANNOT fly underwater with "Perfect" manueverability - a disadvantage to flying underwater.

No, Musrum gave that quote as evidence that you can fly underwater and the quote itself is explicit that you are swimming. It says, quite plainly, "swimming characters." So, your entire statement here is in direct conflict.

Yup. But then if you need to do something that requires perfect manuverability you simply start swimming: make a DC 10 (usually) swim check; gain perfect manuverability; and move at 1/4 Speed.

At 1/4 what speed?

 

[Infiniti2000]

The justification for allowing it is:

1. Makes sense.

It makes no sense at all. The day you find a sparrow "flying" underwater is the day it makes sense. That will be never.

2. Fits within the rules for "hampered movement"

It fits within none of the rules. There are no rules at all for using Fly speed underwater.

The quote from the MotP is extremely suspect. The rising/sinking aspect of the plane makes the 'flying' almost irrelevant. But, if it works for you, go for it. Also, if you apply this rule to swimming, then you need to apply the same rule from the elemental plane of air, right? After all, if those planes have generic rules applicable to the prime material (and they must, or else this rule is invalid for this discussion), then you should use them. Although I'm sure you'll consider this a Straw Man, I think it's a legitimate argument concluding that the quote from the MotP does not fit.

 

[Musrum]

No, Musrum gave that quote as evidence that you can fly underwater and the quote itself is explicit that you are swimming. It says, quite plainly, "swimming characters." So, your entire statement here is in direct conflict.
At 1/4 what speed?

It doesn't matter. You would only ever want to do this to perform a maneuver you can't with your current Fly maneuverability. Perfect maneuverabilty has no movement costs for any of the available maneuvers.

 

[Musrum]

It makes no sense at all. The day you find a sparrow "flying" underwater is the day it makes sense. That will be never.

Strawman. Kingfishers and Penguines fly underwater. And, even more relevent: Superman does. Fix the issues of breathing underwater and boyancy and Flying in a thicker fluid is easy.

It fits within none of the rules. There are no rules at all for using Fly speed underwater.

Except:

The quote from the MotP is extremely suspect. The rising/sinking aspect of the plane makes the 'flying' almost irrelevant. But, if it works for you, go for it. Also, if you apply this rule to swimming, then you need to apply the same rule from the elemental plane of air, right? After all, if those planes have generic rules applicable to the prime material (and they must, or else this rule is invalid for this discussion), then you should use them. Although I'm sure you'll consider this a Straw Man, I think it's a legitimate argument concluding that the quote from the MotP does not fit.

Your argument boils down to: Subjective Gravity is what makes Flying an available movement option on the Elemental Plane of Water.
However this is not the case. I can create a character with a Fly Speed and neutral boyancy and still be able to fly underwater at 1/2 speed on the Elemental Plane of Water. Gravity is irrelevent, therefore the "special" planar effects are also irrelevant. Now, can you demostrate that the water on the Elemental Plane of Water has some unique physical properties that allow Flying underwater? If not, then this rule, which represents WotC taking a much more focused look at underwater movement, also applies in the general case.

 

[MarkB]

It makes no sense at all. The day you find a sparrow "flying" underwater is the day it makes sense. That will be never.

A number of types of sea bird are able to dive a couple of dozen feet to chase down fish, and use their wings to manouever effectively in pursuit of their prey while they're down there. Only the need to breathe drives them back to the surface.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Strawman. Kingfishers and Penguines fly underwater.

Not a straw man at all. In fact, Penguins do not have Fly speed at all. They have "Speed 10ft, Swim 40ft". Kingfishers, if statted up, probably would also have a swim speed, or you could just create some rules for momentum build-up when diving.

I repeat, it's not a straw man. It's just a good analogy to which you have no defense. You are selectively choose creatures that you think fly underwater while ignoring the huge number that have a Fly speed and which you know cannot 'fly' underwater. You cannot just dismiss it. This example also has a real impact. A raven could easily be a wizard's familiar. Do you really advocate the idea that the raven can swim at 20ft with poor maneuverability (no chance of failure) while the wizard possibly flounders (e.g. low strength and poor swim)?

Have you ever seen a bird caught in the rapids? Neither have I, but I'm positive that the bird's thought (assuming they think) is not gonna be "I better dive underwater where I have a much better chance to fly."

And, even more relevent: Superman does.

Surely, you jest? More relevant? Don't use Superman as any kind of supportive argument.

Your argument boils down to: Subjective Gravity is what makes Flying an available movement option on the Elemental Plane of Water.
However this is not the case. I can create a character with a Fly Speed and neutral boyancy and still be able to fly underwater at 1/2 speed on the Elemental Plane of Water. Gravity is irrelevent, therefore the "special" planar effects are also irrelevant.

I have no idea what you mean by neutral buoyancy. How do the rules in the MotP allow for that?

The plane of water allows a person to choose which way is up or down. Presumably they do this on their turn as some sort of action. Regardless, that person can change it whenever they want. There are no other rules mentioned that I would think apply.

Now, can you demostrate that the water on the Elemental Plane of Water has some unique physical properties that allow Flying underwater? If not, then this rule, which represents WotC taking a much more focused look at underwater movement, also applies in the general case.

Easily done. I'm letting you do it. The fact that you are not adopting the rules on Air Movement from the elemental plane of air means that you should not also adopt the rules on Water Movement from the elemental plane of water. If you decide on one, but not the other then you are being inconsistent and have no basis for your choice.

You need to use both or neither to be consistent. Don't you agree?

 

[Musrum]

Not a straw man at all. In fact, Penguins do not have Fly speed at all. They have "Speed 10ft, Swim 40ft". Kingfishers, if statted up, probably would also have a swim speed, or you could just create some rules for momentum build-up when diving.

I repeat, it's not a straw man. It's just a good analogy to which you have no defense.

Well yes. I have no defence when I give an example of an avian that moves through water and you state that they "would also have a swim speed". How can you not be wrong?

You are selectively choose creatures that you think fly underwater while ignoring the huge number that have a Fly speed and which you know cannot 'fly' underwater. You cannot just dismiss it.

Well I can. This is not a vote. For the purpose of a real-world analogy I only need to find one example of a creature flying underwater to refute your claim that it can't be done. Of course, you will just wave your hand and give that creature a Swim Speed anyway, so I guess there is no point.

This example also has a real impact. A raven could easily be a wizard's familiar. Do you really advocate the idea that the raven can swim at 20ft with poor maneuverability (no chance of failure) while the wizard possibly flounders (e.g. low strength and poor swim)?

The raven would have such a high positive boyancy that:
1) He couldn't stay sumberged long enough to fly/swim
2) He wouldn't need too.

That would get it to the surface, then you would need to rule if it can take flight from that position. Something not covered in the rules...

Have you ever seen a bird caught in the rapids? Neither have I, but I'm positive that the bird's thought (assuming they think) is not gonna be "I better dive underwater where I have a much better chance to fly."

That's a bit of a reach. You can't use Fly speed underwater because of ... common avian behaviour patterns?

Surely, you jest? More relevant? Don't use Superman as any kind of supportive argument.

Why not? Superman is certainly more relevent to the original question (magical flying boots) than the evolution, biomechanics and psychology of real-world avians.

I have no idea what you mean by neutral buoyancy. How do the rules in the MotP allow for that?

Neutral bouyancy is simply displacing exactly your mass in water, so that you neither float or sink. Anyone with a selection of lead weights can achieve this by droping weights until they stop sinking. Once you have neutral bouyancy, gravity (even funky extra-planar subjective gravity) is irrelevent.

The plane of water allows a person to choose which way is up or down. Presumably they do this on their turn as some sort of action. Regardless, that person can change it whenever they want. There are no other rules mentioned that I would think apply.

And it is not relevent.

Easily done. I'm letting you do it. The fact that you are not adopting the rules on Air Movement from the elemental plane of air means that you should not also adopt the rules on Water Movement from the elemental plane of water. If you decide on one, but not the other then you are being inconsistent and have no basis for your choice.

I'm not sure, but other that Subjective gravity I don't think there is anything special about movement in the Plane of Air. It is perfectly consistent to remove the special planar traits from both rule sections and apply the rules that remain.

You need to use both or neither to be consistent. Don't you agree?

As you can see I *can* be consistent by removing the "special" rules and just using the remaing rule-set. However I'm not sure I *need* to be consistent. That is holding me to a higher standard than the Rules themselves.

 

[irdeggman]

Well yes. I have no defence when I give an example of an avian that moves through water and you state that they "would also have a swim speed". How can you not be wrong?

I think you missed his point.

He was listing a stated creature (the penguin) from Frostburn (pg 166).

It does list its movement as "Speed 10 ft, swim 40 ft".

So extrapolating that comparison to another one which you had put for as part of the pair of examples is perfectly legitimate.

Therefor in D&D terms a penguin does not "fly" underwater.

 

[Musrum]

I think you missed his point.

I think the whole point has been missed. I gave the Kingfisher and Penguin as a real-world counter example to his: "It makes no sense at all. The day you find a sparrow "flying" underwater is the day it makes sense. That will be never."

He didn't ask me to include references to the DnD stat block.

You can argue the semantics of if the Kingfisher and Penguin are actually flying, but they will still be there tomorrow, flapping their wings underwater...

.
.
.

And the MotP will still tell us we can fly underwater at half speed!