Underwater Flying [2006 Thread]

[KarinsDad]

forbid[/I] flying from being used underwater, so that any supplement that presented new rules for doing so would not be invalidated.

You still appear to not be getting it. The false premise was that the core rules did not explicitly forbid flying from being used underwater.

In reality, the rules explicitly forbid flying underwater by not putting underwater on the allowed list of environments where a fly speed works.

It is not an explicit exclusion (like you appear to be wanting), it is an explicit lack of inclusion. It is still explicit. Doing it your way would require that they list all environments that are excluded every time for every movement mode. What a waste of space!


Any supplement that presented new rules for doing so would still be a change to core rules because the core rules are still explicit here.


So, your point is invalid. It proves nothing other than the fact that you are not getting it that there are indeed explicit limiting rules here and that your conclusion concerning supplemental material is based off an initial faulty and invalid premise.

 

[mvincent]

The false premise was that the core rules did not explicitly forbid flying from being used underwater.

Anyone else want to try to explain this one to KarinsDad? I've tried to explain it to him now nearly a dozen times, but he seems to be going in circles, and I've had similar difficulties (specifically with him) in other threads. The premise is that the core rules do not actually disallow the possibility of a future supplement giving valid rules for using flight underwater.

 

[irdeggman]

Anyone else want to try to explain this one to KarinsDad? I've tried to explain it to him now nearly a dozen times, but he seems to be going in circles, and I've had similar difficulties (specifically with him) in other threads. The premise is that the core rules do not actually disallow the possibility of a future supplement giving valid rules for using flight underwater.

I understand what you are saying.

But see my post #208 above.

Since you (and Artoomis) seem to be looking at the rules differently then others are it is difficult (actually impossible) to come to an understanding.

All of this back and forth almost bickering only serves to emphasis my point.

 

[mvincent]

I understand what you are saying.

I was fairly certain that both Dracorat and Infinity2k understood, but my problem was with Karinsdad. As mentioned, I have had this problem specifically with him before.

 

[Artoomis]

...All of this back and forth almost bickering only serves to emphasis my point.

And one of mine, too, which is that there can be more than one right answer.

In the end, it is a DM decision.

 

[irdeggman]

I was fairly certain that both Dracorat and Infinity2k understood, but my problem was with Karinsdad. As mentioned, I have had this problem specifically with him before.

I have had problems with him too.

But from what I can tell his arguements aren't about seeing you point only that he doesn't agree with the premise on rules.

He has a habit of stating his opinions in a way that comes off as extremely adverserial and abrasive. It often takes a lot of effort to separate the "content" from the "tone".

I agree with him in the fact that I don't agree with the your (and Artoomis') premise on rules, but I understand what you are trying to say. And I almost never agree with KD - we have had several heated exchanged in the past.

 

[KarinsDad]

I was fairly certain that both Dracorat and Infinity2k understood, but my problem was with Karinsdad. As mentioned, I have had this problem specifically with him before.

The problem is on your end.

If I do not agree with you, or do not focus on what you consider important in a debate, or even totally dismiss what you are saying, it does not mean I do not understand it. Nor does you claiming a dozen times that I do not understand you mean that I do not understand you.

Your language is clear enough.

Your basis for your assumption is what I find lacking.


You claim that a supplement that comes out and states that flying underwater is allowed would not be a change to the core rules (since there is no explicit rules language that flying cannot be done underwater).

I claim that a supplement that comes out and states that flying underwater is allowed would be a change to the core rules (since there is explicit rules language that flying cannot be done underwater due to the fact that it can only be done in air).

We have a difference of opinion on that.

So, a supplement can come out and have such a rule, it can be used by DMs, and it would still disagree with core RAW. It would still be a valid WotC rule, but it would not agree with core RAW. They would be changing the rule. IMO.

It wouldn't disagree with core RAW and would not be changing the rule for you, it would be adding to the rules.


Did you have another point you were trying to make?

Or are you yet again going to claim that I do not understand you because I do not agree with you?

 

[KarinsDad]

And I almost never agree with KD - we have had several heated exchanged in the past.

In the large scheme of things, I suspect we agree more on rules than we disagree. It is merely the occasional heated disagreements that stick in ones mind.

Don't you agree?

 

[Musrum]

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

Me too! I find even the old Newtonian ruleset does a much better job than anything WotC has published...

 

[Musrum]

Here are 3 pseuocode versions for:
Can you Fly in a certain Medium according to the core 3.5 ruleset.
The first is how I understand it:

FUNCTION Flying1(Medium) RETURN BOOLEAN

SELECT Medium
  CASE Air
    RETURN TRUE
  CASE ELSE
    RETURN NULL
END SELECT

END Flying1

Here is another version:

FUNCTION Flying2(Medium) RETURN BOOLEAN

SELECT Medium
  CASE Air
    RETURN TRUE
  CASE ELSE
    RETURN FALSE
END SELECT

END Flying2

And this is what you get when you state that other Mediums are explicately excluded:

FUNCTION Flying3(Medium) RETURN BOOLEAN

SELECT Medium
  CASE Air
    RETURN TRUE
  CASE Water
    RETURN FALSE
  CASE Dirt
    RETURN FALSE
  CASE Vacuum
    RETURN FALSE
  .
  .
  CASE ZombiePuree
    RETURN FALSE
END SELECT

END Flying3