Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[mvincent]

It was not that I wasn't getting it.

It was that you had 3 points in that post, the first of which was false. That made your conclusion suspect if it is based on a faulty premise. I was focusing on that one faulty premise.

My premise was that a (theoretical) supplement could present rules on using flying underwater without actually contradicting the core rules and thus being invalid. You seemed to corroborate this premise in your earlier post. You say you are getting it, but I do not yet see an indication of that.

 

[Dracorat]

Yes it does. Flight is movement through air. The only reason can is in the sentence is so it is not said "well if they have a fly speed then they cant walk". They have the option of taking any movement mode that is listed when the movement mode is valid.

Swimming is its only section and called out for movement through water.

 

[Dracorat]

Hell, even Merriam Webster agrees:

Main Entry: 1flight
Pronunciation: 'flIt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English flyht; akin to Middle Dutch vlucht flight, Old English flEogan to fly
1 a : an act or instance of passing through the air by the use of wings <the flight of a bee> b : the ability to fly <flight is natural to birds>
2 a : a passing through the air or through space outside the earth's atmosphere <flight of an arrow> <flight of a rocket to the moon> b : the distance covered in such a flight c : swift movement
3 a : a trip made by or in an airplane or spacecraft b : a scheduled airplane trip
4 : a group of similar beings or objects flying through the air together
5 : a brilliant, imaginative, or unrestrained exercise or display <a flight of fancy>
6 a : a continuous series of stairs from one landing or floor to another b : a series (as of terraces or conveyors) resembling a flight of stairs
7 : a unit of the United States Air Force below a squadron

 

[KarinsDad]

I am.

You CAN fly in air. You cannot fly ONLY in air (that's not what the rule says). That's the rules.

Everything else is rules interpretation and judgement calls.

Actually, Fly Speed Movement Mode rules only allow flying in air because that is the only environment which is specified for that movement mode. You can pretend that this does not mean "only", but it does. So, no flying in the vacuum of space. No flying in water. No flying in dirt.

You'll notice that Incorporeal creatures can "fly" through other mediums. They move in any direction they wish through any environment they wish. But, this is because this is explicitly specified for them under the Incorporeal rules. Other creatures do not have this advantage unless there is a specific rule otherwise.

 

[KarinsDad]

My premise was that a (theoretical) supplement could present rules on using flying underwater without actually contradicting the core rules and thus being invalid. You seemed to corroborate this premise in your earlier post. You say you are getting it, but I do not yet see an indication of that.

I agree with you. A supplement could add a new rule.

My only point was that your first point in your list was based on a false premise. You then got bent out of shape because I was not focusing on your supplement point. Your supplement point is fine, but it is not core and not relevant to a rules discussion, hence, I did not focus on it.

A supplement could come out that allows Fighters to cast exactly like Wizards, but until it does, Fighters cannot do that. A supplement could come out that states that skies are green in all DND worlds, but until it does, there is no such rule. A suupplement could come out that allows all flying creatures to fly through water, but until it does, there is no such rule.

I personally do not consider the FAQ to be a supplement. Others do.

 

[Dracorat]

For the record, I never use rules for movement on other planes of existance as rules for movement on this plane of existance.

 

[mvincent]

I agree with you. A supplement could add a new rule.

Exactly, but typically such a new rule would be invalidated if it somehow accidentally (and explicitly) contradicted the core rules.

My only point was that your first point in your list was based on a false premise.

You still appear to not be getting it. The premise was that the core rules did not explicitly forbid flying from being used underwater, so that any supplement that presented new rules for doing so would not be invalidated.

Regardless, the point is moot if you already allow for the possibility of a supplement (legitimately) providing such rules (which you said you do).

 

[Dracorat]

I fail to see how leaving the rule out of underwater movement rules can be *not* seen as being intentional. If flight were supposed to be there, it would be.

 

[irdeggman]

I fail to see how leaving the rule out of underwater movement rules can be *not* seen as being intentional. If flight were supposed to be there, it would be.

See post #208 above.

I beleive that sums things up pretty accurately.

It is a matter of how the rules are viewed.

 

[Dracorat]

Yep, but my comment still stands.

It is my opinion (of course) that you have to be pretty arrogant to add rules where there are none under the pretext of "I can slide it in here since it didn't specifically say I couldn't slide it in here."

Not to be confused with "this is a houserule I have decided to use" or "I am extrapolating rules from other sources" which are of a different vein and are more valid of a standpoint to take in such a debate.

But to actually attempt to insert entire blocks of rules and claim that the rules were written with blind disregard is quite... wow.

Put plainly: mvincent I may not agree with but has the right approach to his method. He admits readily where the rules do and do not support his position and attempts to use them as they stand. He does not attack them simply if they do not agree with how he *wants* them to read, which is the right point of view to take.

But once you cross the line of attempting to subjugate RAW by insertting your own definitions, twisting words to mean what they do not and then asserting your twisted reality is RAW, you cross the line from reasonable to benighted.

That doesn't mean you can't envision something working a specific way, but it does mean that rules have probably accounted for it. By specifically addressing it in the areas it applies to. Any other area is superfluous and not supported at all by RAW, in any shape or form.