Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[Dracorat]

I find it amusing how when we don't agree with the rules, calling those who do 'rediculous' is considered acceptable.

 

[Artoomis]

<retracted>

 

[Dracorat]

Apology accepted. Don't think I'm deaf to your arguments. I simply do not agree with them.

 

[Artoomis]

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....

As it turns out:

From "http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00181/airplane-t.html"

"A principal concept in aerodynamics is the idea that air is a fluid. Like all gases, air flows and behaves in a similar manner to water and other liquids. In fact, basic aerodynamic tests are sometimes performed underwater. "

No, an airplane would not invert itself to fly underwater. If, indeed, all the other poblems could be solved - which is unlikely short of some sort of magic.

 

[Dracorat]

You quote speaks nothing about inversion, rather about using water for aerodynamic analysis which is a common method of testing airfoils.

However, that aside, it means nothing in relation to arguments about fly and being able to be used underwater.

 

[Artoomis]

You quote speaks nothing about inversion, rather about using water for aerodynamic analysis which is a common method of testing airfoils.

However, that aside, it means nothing in relation to arguments about fly and being able to be used underwater.

1. It speaks nothing about inversion becasue it is not needed - of course it would say nothing.

2. No - that's pretty much settled, I think. You can fly underwater, but at 1/2 move and the loss of one category of manuverability. Or, if youi prefer, you cannot fly underwatewr at all

The justification for allowing it is:

1. Makes sense.

2. Fits within the rules for "hampered movement"

3 . The MotP, with applicability to 3.5e, says you fly can in the plane of water (where you are underwater always. And the rules they state fit very nicely with "hampered movement" for 3. 5.

The argument against allowing any sort of flight to work at all underwater ignores the MotP as setting any precedent except for the plane of water itself.

Basically, you can allow per RAW and, if you want, deny using RAW as justification as well.

So, in the end, so can have RAW behind you either way, as is often the case.

 

[Dracorat]

Yep.

 

[Infiniti2000]

And there it is. Knockout punch!

So, is it still a knockout punch when it directly contradicts the quote you posted? A loss of maneuverability . . . to perfect?

 

[Artoomis]

So, is it still a knockout punch when it directly contradicts the quote you posted? A loss of maneuverability . . . to perfect?

Ah... found it (it's nicer to quote than force folks to go back and find it )

"And on pg93 of the DMG it states that swimming characters move "as if they were flying with perfect maneuverability". So it seems you can fly underwater (quite well in fact)."

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

Clear enough?

 

[Musrum]

Ah... found it (it's nicer to quote than force folks to go back and find it )

"And on pg93 of the DMG it states that swimming characters move "as if they were flying with perfect maneuverability". So it seems you can fly underwater (quite well in fact)."

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

Clear enough?

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.

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