Adding Underwater Mobility to Free Movement

[Random-Helper323]

The Legolas example, from what I know, is legit just because of the shoes he wears. Something we as humans also have access to

Even though the books act like it's his shoes, I'm sure I recall he also walks on top of blades of grass, which should be impossible.

 

[Detective_Blizzard]

This would grant everyone who has ever walked in harsh snow or mud this ability, and the proposal would grant it to everyone that can swim or move in water. We probably have less than 100 characters that wouldn't get the ability based on that.

Hence the reason the post is setting guidelines on what the traverse through definition should be. There are countless applications for it with examples like becoming a torpedo in water through a supernatural level of skill or speed being considered controversial simply because it is swimming, despite the fact that its difficult terrain thats very commonly used as an advantage in various media.

At no point am I arguing that we should allow every character that can just swim or move through something should count. But this is a thing for many characters that have no real classification for it and free movement was the closest given the "traversal through difficult terrain". If the plan is to exclude it to only running then the arguments for water traversal stay the exact same except as its own ability since there's literally nothing else for it.

This isnt acrobatics, it isn't underground mobility, it isnt free movement, it isn't water breathing since that's not a guarantee for either end since someone can breathe but be dead weight or be incapable but cross oceans in seconds.

 

[Tllmbrg]

It might not have to be supernatural. Anything that can walk on water, which a few animals can, would probably qualify. Just not everything that can walk in mud and/or swim/walk underwater.

Uh, the ability is about walking unhindered through mud, most people can't move in mud at the same level of efficiency as regular surfaces.

 

[Detective_Blizzard]

...... Wait, making the ability running only just straight up nullifies it and makes it useless. Those applications are straight up taken by Acrobatics, which exclusively uses the variation that needs you to keep running, and Surface Scaling, which is the version for doing so without moving.

On the acrobatics page,

• Surface Running: By stepping on any solid (or even liquid) surface and continuing to move, the user is capable of moving on walls, ceilings, and other irregular surfaces. Unlike Surface Scaling, a user needs to keep their speed in order to keep moving across the surface, falling back once they lose momentum.

The other means of traversal is legit the only thing that lets Free Movement be different, by removing this aspect then the ability becomes redundant. So yeah the current two options are "Add water to it to diversify" or "Remove any option that isnt running or walking and make it a repeat of two other abilities"

 

[Random-Helper323]

Uh, the ability is about walking unhindered through mud, most people can't move in mud at the same level of efficiency as regular surfaces.

Adding Underwater Mobility to Free Movement

Howdy folks, got permission from Bambu for this one. Honestly, the title says it all and it's a rather basic concept, characters being able to move underwater unimpeded is a rather common ability/concept and we don't have a classification for it rn. So this CRT just aims to add the ability as...

vsbattles.com

 

[Tllmbrg]

Adding Underwater Mobility to Free Movement

Howdy folks, got permission from Bambu for this one. Honestly, the title says it all and it's a rather basic concept, characters being able to move underwater unimpeded is a rather common ability/concept and we don't have a classification for it rn. So this CRT just aims to add the ability as...

vsbattles.com

One of the examples is also "Snow Walking: The ability to easily pass through a thick layer of snow" so like.
Anyways sure, changing the wording is probably fine.

 

[Detective_Blizzard]

Honestly, given what I just said about Acrobatics and Surface Scaling, it might be more beneficial for the rewording to focus more on multiple ways to traverse through terrain rather than the one already taken up by those two

 

[Random-Helper323]

One of the examples is also "Snow Walking: The ability to easily pass through a thick layer of snow" so like.
Anyways sure, changing the wording is probably fine.

As I said, the rest of the page is about walking or running on surfaces that shouldn't be possible to stand on, with the other applications, the description, the image and the examples all being this. We can interpret the Snow Walking part itself three ways.

Option 1: Standing on top of snow one would normally sink in.

Option 2: Getting through a giant wall of snow through whatever means, even though this isn't really snow walking so much as getting through it.

Option 3: Anyone that can travel easily in snow. This would include almost anything at athletic level or higher.

The rest of the page is about walking on water and clouds and lists this as part of the same thing, so Option 1 definitely seems to be the correct one. But yes, the mere fact that the wording can be interpreted in three vastly different ways to the point we need to interpret it based on what's said around it tells us it needs to be looked at.

 

[Antvasima]

@Promestein

As I said, the rest of the page is about walking or running on surfaces that shouldn't be possible to stand on, with the other applications, the description, the image and the examples all being this. We can interpret the Snow Walking part itself three ways.

Option 1: Standing on top of snow one would normally sink in.

Option 2: Getting through a giant wall of snow through whatever means, even though this isn't really snow walking so much as getting through it.

Option 3: Anyone that can travel easily in snow. This would include almost anything at athletic level or higher.

The rest of the page is about walking on water and clouds and lists this as part of the same thing, so Option 1 definitely seems to be the correct one. But yes, the mere fact that the wording can be interpreted in three vastly different ways to the point we need to interpret it based on what's said around it tells us it needs to be looked at.

Agreed.