Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 3125775" data-attributes="member: 31734">No one did.  It's the rule in the plane of air that all flyers improve one category.  For the same reason(s) you apply the rules from the water plane, you apply the rules from the air plane (pun intended).  From what I understand, Musrum is altering how the rules from the water plane is applied such that he intends to negate allowing the plane of air rule on improved maneuverability.  Interestingly, which I didn't see till just now for some reason, the plane of air rule would cancel out the loss in maneuverability for flying underwater.I'm pretty sure I said this, but I'll repeat it.  It's fine to use the flying underwater rule from the water plane as a guideline if you want to allow flying underwater on the prime material.  The correlation to hampered movement helps.  But, IMO it cannot be claimed as a rule or precedence or anything.  It is absolutely against the rules to allow it (not that allowing it is a bad thing*).* Allowing it without restriction is a bad thing, though, as evidenced by your rebuttals vs. sparrows and the like.  You just aren't clear on what the exceptions are because there surely are no rules against it.  In other words, what happens to a sparrow (e.g.) on the plane of water?</blockquote>