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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Infiniti2000" data-source="post: 3127658" data-attributes="member: 31734">It's not that you're refining your argument or even changing it.  It's that you're attempting to do it covertly.   And, when I mention it, you say you aren't doing it.  You were talking about deconstructing rules and then when I go with that, you suddenly act like you were talking about deconstructing text, not rules (which quite honestly makes zero sense to me).  This undermines my argument, but not in a good way because it suddenly makes my argument predicated upon a lie, which you fostered.That's a moving target.  It's not a natural evolution of a discussion.  I'm willing to try again, but you need to restate your reasoning as to why you want to include the rules on water from the plane of water and not the rules on air from the plane of air.  (That is the error in your thought experiment.)It is neither good nor bad, but I'm quite willing to change my mind on points during and after a discussion.  I have done it before, even here on these forums, so don't think I'm being stubborn here for no reason.  I just don't think your position is supported by the RAW, nor do I agree it makes sense (from a real-world perspective--sparrows cannot fly underwater), nor do I even agree with the rule you came up with even if I were to agree that one can fly underwater*.* If I were to allow it, just so you know, I would make it 1/4 speed or the base land speed, whichever is less.  For creatures without a base land speed, they cannot 'fly' underwater at all and without help will sink.  There are no rules on buoyancy, but I'd be willing to ad hoc something like that for certain creatures (mainly birds which are known to have hollow bones and thus have a great amount of buoyancy).</blockquote>

Verification