Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[mvincent]

1) & 2) are not swimming, so not really relevant. They are walking, as you admit.

Being able to (albeit limitedly) utilize your ground speed in water seems relevant. It establishes a precedent. To clarify: Are you discounting the connection or just entirely missing it (it's possible I didn't convey my logic process intuitively, so I could elaborate if needed).

4) No they cannot. Flying is not considered "normal movement" for underwater.

Walking is (from the 3.0 FAQ: '“Normal movement” in water is swimming or walking along the bottom.'). If your ground speed can be used underwater, many of the arguments against using fly speed are invalidated.

5) Obscuring mist is not hindering terrain.

I meant that in the sense that it hampers your movement. It's moot anyway.

 

[Artoomis]

I say no. Flying is flying though the air. It's not some magical thrust that moves you around, it's flight.

Airplanes can fly underwater. Did you know that?

Well, they could if the thrust would work, but obviously water in the air intake is not good for engines.

Many (most?) actual creatures that fly cannot fly underwater because they are simply too bouyant, not because their flight capabilities would not work in some reduced fashion.

Since there are no detailed rules for this, I'd be tempted to reduce one manueverability class along with 1/2 movement.

 

[Dracorat]

In this case, the RAW simply does not address wether one can "fly" underwater as if it were the same as:

Sure it does. Flying has been established as "movement through air". Air != water.

"Hampered Movement
Difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement. When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move."

Thjere is nothing that says underwater flight could not fall into this category. There is also nothing that says it does.

Actually, it is addressed. Underwater != flight, see above.

In this case, the RAW just is sompletely unsatisfactory and one must extend it in tehway you want.

RAW is completely satisfactory.

Either no flying underwater at all, or use the "Hamopered Movement" rules. Either way is RAW.

So let's leave "pure RAW" aside and talk about how you'd do it in your campaign, because that's what really counts, isn't it?

No flying underwater is RAW and would be how I handle it. You want to move underwater, swim.

 

[Dracorat]

Being able to (albeit limitedly) utilize your ground speed in water seems relevant. It establishes a precedent. To clarify: Are you discounting the connection or just entirely missing it (it's possible I didn't convey my logic process intuitively, so I could elaborate if needed).

You made the point fine, however, it is based in incorrect assumptions. Walking underwater != flying. It counts as hindered movement and it requires you to be in contact with the "land" that is underwater.

Walking is (from the 3.0 FAQ: '“Normal movement” in water is swimming or walking along the bottom.').

Yep.

If your ground speed can be used underwater, many of the arguments against using fly speed are invalidated.

No they aren't. See above, flying is "movement through air."

I meant that in the sense that it hampers your movement. It's moot anyway.
"Hampered Movement
Difficult terrain, obstacles, or poor visibility can hamper movement.
When movement is hampered, each square moved into usually counts as two
squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover
in a move."

When walking on the land that exists underwater, these rules apply.

 

[Dracorat]

Airplanes can fly underwater. Did you know that?

In order to accomplish this, provided you circumvented the electronics issues, the plane would have to fully invert itself. That aside, it is not "flight" as it is not "movement through air" it is "aquatic locomotion" at best.

Many (most?) actual creatures that fly cannot fly underwater because they are simply too bouyant, not because their flight capabilities would not work in some reduced fashion.

Please provide a cite.

Since there are no detailed rules for this, I'd be tempted to reduce one manueverability class along with 1/2 movement.

Yes there are. Flying is "movement through air".

 

[mvincent]

No they aren't.

They may not have been your arguments, but there existed ones which were nullified.

While I see, acknowledge and respect your viewpoint (which is indeed legitmate), you do not appear to desire to understand anyone else's.

 

[Dracorat]

Actually I started by asking if this was a RAW debate or we were accepting your answers as House Rules.

It was stated the debate is RAW and so those are the responses. Any other viewpoint is either house rule or needs RAW backup.

Outside of RAW I understand the other viewpoints, however, will not ascribe to them, especially when I have been asked to argue RAW.

 

[mvincent]

Actually I started by asking if this was a RAW debate or we were accepting your answers as House Rules.

It was stated the debate is RAW and so those are the responses. Any other viewpoint is either house rule or needs RAW backup.

Outside of RAW I understand the other viewpoints, however, will not ascribe to them, especially when I have been asked to argue RAW.

Fair enough. You mentioned earlier "it is not "flight" as it is not "movement through air" it is "aquatic locomotion" at best."

I think that is suitable. I don't think full flight movement would be allowed underwater, but many (including the Sage) seem to think it would still be of use. Since this is outside the rules, yes, house rules would be needed to resolve it.

As for freedom of movement and flying... I'm curious to hear other opinions.

 

[geosapient]

1) & 2) are not swimming, so not really relevant. They are walking, as you admit.

3) Wings are moving through air in your example.

4) No they cannot. Flying is not considered "normal movement" for underwater.

5) Obscuring mist is not hindering terrain. Additionally, not being able to see will cause you to have to fly at half speed.

Swinging your sword wouldn't be considered normal movement for underwater.

 

[KarinsDad]

It is simply not addressed.

Prove it.


What part of the rules quote that he made did not specifically address all of the points?

1) Fly = moving through air.
2) Swim = moving through water.

Without a rules quote to the contrary, we have a movement mode rule that flying is moving through the air and swimming is moving through water.


Are you next going to claim that the Fly spell gives you a Burrowing Speed as well?

How about a Climbing Speed?

The rules really are crystal clear on movement modes. The Fly spell only gives a Fly Speed, not a Climb Speed, not a normal Speed, not a Burrowing Speed, not a Swimming Speed.


Do you need another rule? How about:

Tactical Aerial Movement
Once movement becomes three-dimensional and involves turning in midair and maintaining a minimum velocity to stay aloft, it gets more complicated. Most flying creatures have to slow down at least a little to make a turn, and many are limited to fairly wide turns and must maintain a minimum forward speed.

Note that the word is Aerial, not Underwater.

Or how about:

SWIM (STR; ARMOR CHECK PENALTY)
Check: Make a Swim check once per round while you are in the water. Success means you may swim at up to one-half your speed (as a full-round action) or at one-quarter your speed (as a move action).

Note: Your Speed. Not your Flying Speed.


So, before you yet again ignore the movement rules and claim it is not addressed, be so kind as to bring in some rules quotes with you to support your (quite frankly) suspect POV.