Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[ControlFreak]

Do Winged Boots or any other flying item or the flying spell have any effect underwater?

CF

 

[Artoomis]

The consensus here is split, as I recall from the last time this was asked.

For what it's worth, I say yes, magical flying works, normal flying does not.

Reason?

Magical flying has nothing to do with aerodynamics or anything of the sort - it's just plain magic.

While certain birds "fly" underwater, normal creatures made for flying in the air can't fly underwater.

 

[green slime]

I second artoomis...

 

[Cloudgatherer]

Echo artoomis as well. I'll add that I still use the "water movement" rules for flying underwater: movement is still halved.

 

[IceBear]

After the last debate on here on this, I sent an email to the Sage. I no longer have his reply to post here, but he said that he didn't see anything wrong with allowing the fly spell to work underwater. It used to in 2nd Edition, and it suggests it does in Manual of the Planes. Those facts, plus the Sage's comment is enough for me.

So, yes, I agree with Artoomis as well.

PS Please don't like KD read this thread, I gave up on these forums for awhile after that debate with him on this topic.

IceBear

 

[ControlFreak]

Ok, Winged Boots work underwater ... no problem ...

Now what about currents? Swiftly flowing river ... PC is underwater wearing the boots ... swim roll is useless since he couldn't make it with a 20 (skill -17 because of weight) ... how do I figure that out?

CF

 

[Artoomis]

Here is it what I suggest:

1. Fly is at 1/2 speed for underwater movement. )I like this suggestion - it seems very reasonable)

2. Strong currents reduce the speed (or increase it) if it is head on (or up your rear).

3. For currents in any direction, I suggest simply causing the speed and direction of the current to be part of the move.

In other words, if the desired move is north, and the current is moving west at a move rate of 20'/round, then the character is moved 20' west on their turn, and then can move as they like with the 45' of move from fly. Of course, they are moving forward and to the side at the same time, so some flexibility in when (during the move) that you apply the 20' westward move would be appropriate. In fact, it might be better to move the character 5' west, then allow them to counter that id they wish, then another 5' west, etc.

As long as the move rate of the current is less than their own move rate, no swim check would be required (I just made that up, but it sounds good, doesn't it?). After all, they are not "swimming" when under the influence of magical flying.

By the way - if I've done my math right, 12 knots = 120' per each 6 second round, and 12 knots is a pretty darn swift current. Even a magically flying (underwater at 1/2 move) creature would lose headway - since they would max out at 90' per round. A more "normal" fast current would be 5 or 6 knots - about 60' per round. Even a 1 knot current is 20' per round!

Have fun!!

For even more fun - characters in really deep water, not near the bottom and out of sight of land, have no idea how fast the current is - everything is moving along at the same speed. This is only an issue if they are trying to go from point A to point B - then the current will sweep them along and they won't even know it - they'll think they are going straight when they are not.

 

[dcollins]

Yep, there was a huge argument last time this topic came up. I'm on the side that does not like allowing it, because it lets fly (3rd level) make freedom of movement (4th level) basically not useful.

You'll note that in order to make sense of the "yes" side of the argument, Artoomis, above, had to distinguish between "natural" flight and "magical" flight -- or else creatures like dragons with flight, and slower swim speeds, suddenly don't make sense. But, this distinction does not actually appear in the core rules, nor is it defined for any monster with flight.

 

[Artoomis]

Yep, there was a huge argument last time this topic came up. I'm on the side that does not like allowing it, because it lets fly (3rd level) make freedom of movement (4th level) basically not useful.

You'll note that in order to make sense of the "yes" side of the argument, Artoomis, above, had to distinguish between "natural" flight and "magical" flight -- or else creatures like dragons with flight, and slower swim speeds, suddenly don't make sense. But, this distinction does not actually appear in the core rules, nor is it defined for any monster with flight.

Freedom of movement is still quite useful.

1. You can move normally - that is, at full normal speed, or, if flying, at full flying speed.
2. You can attack normally - allowing the spell "fly" to work underwater does not remove any attack penalties.
3. It works on ANY magical effect that impedes movement - underwater movement is not its prime purpose.

If ALL you want is underwater movement, though, I'd allow a spell caster to research a new spell "Underwater Free Movement" (or some clver name, perhaps) that only affected underwater movement. Probably only second level - maybe even first.

By the way - I'd allow underwater flight for any creature that has an ability similar to the "fly" spell. Like, for example, a beholder (well, maybe - unless you view it's flight to be tied to a "gas" type effect - then it can't go underwater because it relies on being lighter-than-air, and thus floats on the surface) It just takes a little common sense for what you allow.

Frankly, though, creatures who don't normally go in the water have many reasons to stay out of the water, so I wouldn't expect that to be much of an issue.

 

[IceBear]

Got to agree with Artoomis again. Also, I know that the Sage's word doesn't mean much anymore on this forum, but he also said that he would allow it.

As Artoomis stated, just because you are magically propelled through the water by the power of the fly spell doesn't mean you are unhindered by being underwater.

When it comes to what kind of monsters could "fly" through the water, I'd have to make a judgement call based on the monster. If the beholder is magically flying (I don't have my MM handy to check) then I'd allow it to "fly" through the water, but if it's based on gas, then no I wouldn't.

Anyway, I *really* don't want this thread to turn into the debate that the last one did. Mainly because my group is composed of a lot of long time 2E players, we end up falling back on those rules for judgement calls whenever there is a grey area in 3E. Since there were detailed underwater rules for 2E and they allowed the fly spell to work underwater, I will continue to do the same in 3E until some offical word states otherwise (and since the Manual of the Planes stated that flying was allowed underwater and the Sage told me he would allow it, that's offical enough for me).

IceBear