Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Musrum" data-source="post: 3123450" data-attributes="member: 12269">Well yes.  I have no defence when I give an example of an avian that moves through water and you state that they "would also have a swim speed".  How can you not be wrong?Well I can.  This is not a vote.  For the purpose of a real-world analogy I only need to find one example of a creature flying underwater to refute your claim that it can't be done.  Of course, you will just wave your hand and give that creature a Swim Speed anyway, so I guess there is no point.The raven would have such a high positive boyancy that:1) He couldn't stay sumberged long enough to fly/swim2) He wouldn't need too.That would get it to the surface, then you would need to rule if it can take flight from that position.  Something not covered in the rules...That's a bit of a reach.  You can't use Fly speed underwater because of ... common avian behaviour patterns?Why not?  Superman is certainly more relevent to the original question (magical flying boots) than the evolution, biomechanics and psychology of real-world avians.Neutral bouyancy is simply displacing exactly your mass in water, so that you neither float or sink. Anyone with a selection of lead weights can achieve this by droping weights until they stop sinking.  Once you have neutral bouyancy, gravity (even funky extra-planar subjective gravity) is irrelevent.And it is not relevent.I'm not sure, but other that Subjective gravity I don't think there is anything special about movement in the Plane of Air.  It is perfectly consistent to remove the special planar traits from both rule sections and apply the rules that remain.As you can see I *can* be consistent by removing the "special" rules and just using the remaing rule-set.  However I'm not sure I *need* to be consistent.  That is holding me to a higher standard than the Rules themselves.</blockquote>

Verification