Is the Ethereal Empty?

[Milo v3]

That's not quite true. Psyren's point (and frankly I agree with it) was that your premise was flawed to begin with. Personally, I think it came from your inference about the zero gravity rules when it came to the word "merely" which doesn't necessarily imply that creatures become unable to move. That is, admittedly, not an unreasonable reading, until you consider the ramifications: creatures native to a plane with no ability to function in their home environment.

It doesn't suggest that they gain a new mode of movement or that the land speed is sufficient to travel without requiring the surface it requires in every other instance, so not being able to move when you have no a method of movement is the only real option. The ramifications are why I made this thread, wondering if there was something to stop the RAW from conflicting with the obvious intentions of the ethereal plane, and thankfully there is in the Ethereal Jaunt spell, a victim of having rules all over the place that repeatedly occurs in 3.5e and PF.

I'm not really sure how the premise is flawed beyond being ignorant of the material in manual of planes and ethereal jaunt. The premise was "creatures Should be able to walk around on the ethereal plane, but I cannot see how they do so."

[Aegis013]

I'll try my best to explain what I think is the flaw in your prrmise. Of course, this is merely my opinion, thus, you may feel free to discount it without concern for my feelings.

Your premise is that movement in PF and 3.5 requires all of the same conditions as real life in every circumstance (magic being a sufficient explanation for itself but not for planes, an inherently similarly fantastical concept). This would be sensible from a 100% simulationist view point, but PF and 3.5 are both not quite that style of game.

A surface being required to use your land speed in every circumstance ever doesn't seem to be called out in the movement rules, or anywhere else I can find, so I think that assumption is part of the issue with your premise. Since we have falling rules for the prime material, we know a character without specific method of overcoming gravity/falling rules can't do so, but turning off gravity would only affect falling rules, not movement rules, unless otherwise called out by the rules themselves. This is a place where a 100% simulationist mindset would say movement should also be affected, but since the game stops making sense at that point, it makes more sense to approach this interaction in a more gamey/narrativist mindset. Which would say, if gravity is off, only gravity/falling is impacted, thus this doesn't affect friction/traction/movement ability unless specifically called out to do so. If this would be unpalatable due to desire for a stronger simulationist leaning, a house rule would be justifiable.

Now, I know by your reading, you inferred that the text suggested such a thing, but merely floating in space can reasonably be interpreted as simply floating through space, using the creature's most prominent movement mode to determine its speed of travelling through space. From a narrativist perspective, this makes a lot more sense, thus is probably the more reasonable base assumption on which to construct a premise.

[Milo v3]

I'll try my best to explain what I think is the flaw in your prrmise. Of course, this is merely my opinion, thus, you may feel free to discount it without concern for my feelings.

Your premise is that movement in PF and 3.5 requires all of the same conditions as real life in every circumstance (magic being a sufficient explanation for itself but not for planes, an inherently similarly fantastical concept). This would be sensible from a 100% simulationist view point, but PF and 3.5 are both not quite that style of game.

A surface being required to use your land speed in every circumstance ever doesn't seem to be called out in the movement rules, or anywhere else I can find, so I think that assumption is part of the issue with your premise. Since we have falling rules for the prime material, we know a character without specific method of overcoming gravity/falling rules can't do so, but turning off gravity would only affect falling rules, not movement rules, unless otherwise called out by the rules themselves. This is a place where a 100% simulationist mindset would say movement should also be affected, but since the game stops making sense at that point, it makes more sense to approach this interaction in a more gamey/narrativist mindset. Which would say, if gravity is off, only gravity/falling is impacted, thus this doesn't affect friction/traction/movement ability unless specifically called out to do so. If this would be unpalatable due to desire for a stronger simulationist leaning, a house rule would be justifiable.

Now, I know by your reading, you inferred that the text suggested such a thing, but merely floating in space can reasonably be interpreted as simply floating through space, using the creature's most prominent movement mode to determine its speed of travelling through space. From a narrativist perspective, this makes a lot more sense, thus is probably the more reasonable base assumption on which to construct a premise.

Floating has two definitions: 1) The being boyant not falling type of floating. 2) The hovering magic type of floating.

Now you are suggesting that "because it's a game" that it goes with 2. But considering that D&D has things like saying that things like physics work unless the game says they don't and the fact the game Tries to be simulation despite how... well inefficient and ridiculous that is commonly, isn't it much more likely that they are using the same definition for floating in zero gravity as what happens when people float in zero gravity, rather than in zero gravity people get a superpower that we don't even follow for the single zero gravity plane (since on the ethereal they don't get to walk at their move speed in the end)....? Isn't it much more likely that the zero gravity rules use the first defintion as it is trying to be general zero gravity rules, but the ethereal is special so that creatures can walk through in the special way it describes in the Ethereal Jaunt spell. If 1) is true, then ethereal jaunt gives information that makes the ethereal have a special rule. If 2) is true, then the ethereal jaunt spell conflicts with your interpretation since it doesn't follow what the no gravity rule says in it having a different speed to your interpretation.

As for "A surface being required to use your land speed in every circumstance ever doesn't seem to be called out in the movement rules, or anywhere else I can find, so I think that assumption is part of the issue with your premise." I'm amazed that it would be required. Since if it isn't required then people should be able to walk on nothing on the material plane and then just fall at the end of their turn.

It's a game that doesn't list some obvious things like "what action is it to breath or blink" or "land speed require land to move across".

[Aegis013]

I did my best to explain my thoughts on the matter, but like I said, it's just my opinion. It's no more valid than your own.

I just think it's more sensible to adjust assumptions such that the result is sensible, which result we think is more sensible is just a harmless difference of opinion. The ethereal plane is an inherently magical place, saying "it's magic" is just as good an explanation for moving on that plane as for the Wizard's ability to cast spells in my opinion.

[Telok]

Your premise is that movement in PF and 3.5 requires all of the same conditions as real life in every circumstance (magic being a sufficient explanation for itself but not for planes, an inherently similarly fantastical concept). This would be sensible from a 100% simulationist view point, but PF and 3.5 are both not quite that style of game.

A surface being required to use your land speed in every circumstance ever doesn't seem to be called out in the movement rules, or anywhere else I can find, so I think that assumption is part of the issue with your premise.

This of course somewhat implies that you can use a fly speed underwater, a swim speed in orbit around a planet, and a burrow speed to move through the Plane of Air. It also directly implies that you can use your walking speed in any situation that doesn't occur on the Earth-like prime material and doesn't explicitly state that you are unable to walk.

If a spell in the Player's Handbook didn't explicitly define a general movement rule for the entire plane then there would be no definite statement about how movement was accomplished there (I, like many people, don't have a copy of MoP). Thus, if you don't know that a spell defines a general planar trait and you look at the explanations of the planes and their traits, then there appears to be no RAW method for anything to move on that plane. This is where the confusion and dissention come from.

With the rule about movement tucked away in a different book, in an unrelated section, people have to start making assumptions. Some assume that due to 3.e's simulationist nature and the need for rules to permit something to happen that without a rule the action is impermissible. Others assume that since the needs of the narrative involve something happening, and there are creatures stated to take the action, then that action is permitted to everyone. This is the root of the dispute, ignorance about a single sentence in a different book from the book that defines part of the Ethereal plane and people's different styles of using the rules.

[ZamielVanWeber]

This is relevant to the topic but not to the discussion at hand: the Khen-zai (ethergaunts) have a civilization hidden somewhere in the ethereal. So there is solid stuff somwhere. They even managed to enslave a race who later rebelled.

[Aegis013]

This of course somewhat implies that you can use a fly speed underwater, a swim speed in orbit around a planet, and a burrow speed to move through the Plane of Air. It also directly implies that you can use your walking speed in any situation that doesn't occur on the Earth-like prime material and doesn't explicitly state that you are unable to walk.

It doesn't necessarily imply what you're saying. Each of those are unique situations and any other circumstance related to them would need to be considered. For example, I personally think you can indeed use a fly speed underwater with a sufficient Swim check. You only move one quarter speed, but you'd still be using your fly speed.

The idea is basically, you don't control exactly what the rules say, but you do control your assumptions and interpretations of the rules, so pick the ones that work best for you. For me, gamey concepts that improve the flow of the game and help the world's verisimilitude are acceptable. For you, maybe not, and if that is the case it's OK, it's not up to me to say what kind of interpretation is the most fun for you.

With the rule about movement tucked away in a different book, in an unrelated section, people have to start making assumptions. Some assume that due to 3.e's simulationist nature and the need for rules to permit something to happen that without a rule the action is impermissible. Others assume that since the needs of the narrative involve something happening, and there are creatures stated to take the action, then that action is permitted to everyone. This is the root of the dispute, ignorance about a single sentence in a different book from the book that defines part of the Ethereal plane and people's different styles of using the rules.

The discussion at hand is no longer explicitly about movement on the ethereal, that has been conclusively settled. It's now more about the reasoning behind the arguments and whether or not such a rule is strictly necessary or if extrapolation should suffice and the reasoning behind each side.