Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Musrum" data-source="post: 3126850" data-attributes="member: 12269">No. I have shown via thought experiment that Subjective Gravity is not required for the Plane of Water movement rules.&nbsp; This removes the one &quot;special&quot; thing in the rules about the Plane of Water that could support your assertion that the rules do not apply to the material plane.&nbsp; So all you have left is either the idea that the water in the plane of water is made of some funky stuff (an idea made from whole cloth), or your own meta-rule of not being allowed to use expanded rules in general cases.It certainly does not state this.&nbsp; I just made it up.&nbsp; If it doesn't make sense to you, then that's OK too.&nbsp; Just state that you cannot apply the rules of movement on the Plane of Air to the Material Plane as you are unable to deconstruct Subjective Gravity out of the rules.Keep in mind, I am not deconstructing rules, I am deconstructing text to find the two independant, internaly consistent rules.&nbsp; I am doing this because if the flying-underwater movement rules depended on Subjective Gravity that you would certainly be correct in not allowing it on any Plane that did not have Subjective Gravity.Which brings a qestion to mind.&nbsp; Would you allow flying-underwater on the Plane of Earth in a large underground lake?It is not required.I don't see how your example is applicable.&nbsp; I have been very careful to get things to a state where I'm comparing Apples with Apples.&nbsp; Water on the PoW with Water on the PMP.I have already aknowledged that there are some good reasons why we don't see much flying underwater:1) Breathing. (Fixable in the game - but excludes most birds without access to this magic.)2) Boyancy. (DMG already has rules for bouancy, you would need to adapt these to give your bird a neutral, or slightly negative, boyancy.)3) Behaviour. (Train animal.)In the real world there are examples of birds who have overcome these issues in the interest of filling their bellies.&nbsp; Unfortuantly you invalidate these examples by stating they have a swim speed.&nbsp; So the point of the exercise is lost.Your assertion that you only need one example to prove the rule wrong intrigues me.&nbsp; Does that mean I can prove the DMG walking-underwater rule wrong with a Llama (named Kevin) that collapes in fear and drowns intead of walking along the seabed?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Musrum, post: 3126850, member: 12269"] No. I have shown via thought experiment that Subjective Gravity [I]is not required[/I] for the Plane of Water movement rules. This removes the one "special" thing in the rules about the Plane of Water that could support your assertion that the rules do not apply to the material plane. So all you have left is either the idea that the water in the plane of water is made of some funky stuff (an idea made from whole cloth), or your own meta-rule of not being allowed to use expanded rules in general cases.It certainly does not state this. I just made it up. If it doesn't make sense to you, then that's OK too. Just state that you cannot apply the rules of movement on the Plane of Air to the Material Plane as you are unable to deconstruct Subjective Gravity out of the rules.Keep in mind, I am not deconstructing rules, I am deconstructing text to find the two independant, internaly consistent rules. I am doing this because if the flying-underwater movement rules depended on Subjective Gravity that you would certainly be correct in not allowing it on any Plane that did not have Subjective Gravity. Which brings a qestion to mind. Would you allow flying-underwater on the Plane of Earth in a large underground lake?It is [B]not[/B] required.I don't see how your example is applicable. I have been very careful to get things to a state where I'm comparing Apples with Apples. Water on the PoW with Water on the PMP.I have already aknowledged that there are some good reasons why we don't see much flying underwater: 1) Breathing. (Fixable in the game - but excludes most birds without access to this magic.) 2) Boyancy. (DMG already has rules for bouancy, you would need to adapt these to give your bird a neutral, or slightly negative, boyancy.) 3) Behaviour. (Train animal.) In the real world there are examples of birds who have overcome these issues in the interest of filling their bellies. Unfortuantly you invalidate these examples by stating they have a swim speed. So the point of the exercise is lost. Your assertion that you only need one example to prove the rule wrong intrigues me. Does that mean I can prove the DMG walking-underwater rule wrong with a Llama (named Kevin) that collapes in fear and drowns intead of walking along the seabed? [/QUOTE]

Verification