Our campaign back in the day always portrayed dwarves having an aversion to water, kind of a running joke. Thinking maybe Bruenor couldn’t swim… wasn’t he fished out of somewhere by the beard once? Need to reread my Salvatore. They are usually depicted in heavy armor. The cleric i mentioned picked dwarf because he only has str of 13 and dwarves ignore move restrictions for not meeting armor strength req. He lived, it worked out. We were doing salvage operation quest (freaking awesome adventure) and the turmoil in the chaotic finale sent him over the rail quite against his wishes. We talked about buoyancy for a minute and threatened to do math and the warlock leapt in holding an end of a rope while the paly secured the other end. Our warlock will do anything to avoid math, what a guy.
Our campaign back in the day always portrayed dwarves having an aversion to water, kind of a running joke. Thinking maybe Bruenor couldn’t swim… wasn’t he fished out of somewhere by the beard once? Need to reread my Salvatore.
You're thinking of Flint from the Dragonlance series. He was deathly afraid of water and it was Cameron that fished him out by his beard once.
Regarding the OP as a related aside. XGTE has cast off armor as an uncommon magic item that can be added to armor so it can be removed with one action.
Figure out how long he can hold his breathe, if he can hold it long enough to get out of the armour, let him swim back to the surface but lose the armour.
In other words, falling into water while wearing heavy armor should automatically be lethal to anyone with a Con score of 17 or lower? Since you can hold your breath for a number of minutes equal to 1+your con modifier and it takes five minutes to remove heavy armor.
Seems way too punishing to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
These are worlds where people can fly, go invisible, summon fire/lightning from words, have a face-to-face conversation with a god, and bring people back from the dead. There should be no issue believing someone can swim in heavy armor.
These are worlds where people can fly, go invisible, summon fire/lightning from words, have a face-to-face conversation with a god, and bring people back from the dead. There should be no issue believing someone can swim in heavy armor.
That last ability may be particularly helpful after someone is drowned by their armor.
These are worlds where people can fly, go invisible, summon fire/lightning from words, have a face-to-face conversation with a god, and bring people back from the dead. There should be no issue believing someone can swim in heavy armor.
That last ability may be particularly helpful after someone is drowned by their armor.
I think that it's a common thing for participants of 5e, after seeing the extraordinary things achieved by magic including the magic of ki and abilities accessed by primal natures, to think that extraordinary abilities must also transfer into aspects of the game that aren't given extraordinary explanations.
5e doesn't explicitly say that characters in armour can't swim but it does provide an option for cast-off armor which would be of significant relevance in situations like this.
In real-world conditions, even strong people are unable to maintain swimming while wearing a long-sleeved chain shirt or half plate and, given heavier armour, it's possible that they wouldn't be able to swim at all.
Seems to me like something they left vague intentionally so that groups wanting to keep underwater combat/scenarios streamlined can work with minimal rules, but people wanting to do more realistic takes can always add their own house rules on top of it.
Seems to me like something they left vague intentionally so that groups wanting to keep underwater combat/scenarios streamlined can work with minimal rules, but people wanting to do more realistic takes can always add their own house rules on top of it.
The problem with this is that it is easier to ignore rules than to create reasonably balanced ones.
Seems to me like something they left vague intentionally so that groups wanting to keep underwater combat/scenarios streamlined can work with minimal rules, but people wanting to do more realistic takes can always add their own house rules on top of it.
The problem with this is that it is easier to ignore rules than to create reasonably balanced ones.
As much as that's true, a DM determining DCs and deciding on (dis)advantage isn't quite houseruling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Realistically, there's two problems with swimming in armor: if it covers the limbs (and especially the hands and feet) it interferes with the normal motions of swimming, and it's a bunch of extra weight that doesn't float, so keeping your head above water in 40 lb of armor is comparable to keeping the top foot of your torso out of the water without armor. However, heavy armor simply isn't good enough in D&D to justify the penalties it should give.
Seems to me like something they left vague intentionally so that groups wanting to keep underwater combat/scenarios streamlined can work with minimal rules, but people wanting to do more realistic takes can always add their own house rules on top of it.
That and WotC seems to be taking a general stance of having a less rule-intensive game post 3.5's "we have a rule for everything" approach.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Our campaign back in the day always portrayed dwarves having an aversion to water, kind of a running joke. Thinking maybe Bruenor couldn’t swim… wasn’t he fished out of somewhere by the beard once? Need to reread my Salvatore. They are usually depicted in heavy armor. The cleric i mentioned picked dwarf because he only has str of 13 and dwarves ignore move restrictions for not meeting armor strength req. He lived, it worked out. We were doing salvage operation quest (freaking awesome adventure) and the turmoil in the chaotic finale sent him over the rail quite against his wishes. We talked about buoyancy for a minute and threatened to do math and the warlock leapt in holding an end of a rope while the paly secured the other end. Our warlock will do anything to avoid math, what a guy.
You're thinking of Flint from the Dragonlance series. He was deathly afraid of water and it was Cameron that fished him out by his beard once.
Regarding the OP as a related aside. XGTE has cast off armor as an uncommon magic item that can be added to armor so it can be removed with one action.
In other words, falling into water while wearing heavy armor should automatically be lethal to anyone with a Con score of 17 or lower? Since you can hold your breath for a number of minutes equal to 1+your con modifier and it takes five minutes to remove heavy armor.
Seems way too punishing to me.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
These are worlds where people can fly, go invisible, summon fire/lightning from words, have a face-to-face conversation with a god, and bring people back from the dead. There should be no issue believing someone can swim in heavy armor.
That last ability may be particularly helpful after someone is drowned by their armor.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think that it's a common thing for participants of 5e, after seeing the extraordinary things achieved by magic including the magic of ki and abilities accessed by primal natures, to think that extraordinary abilities must also transfer into aspects of the game that aren't given extraordinary explanations.
5e doesn't explicitly say that characters in armour can't swim but it does provide an option for cast-off armor which would be of significant relevance in situations like this.
In real-world conditions, even strong people are unable to maintain swimming while wearing a long-sleeved chain shirt or half plate and, given heavier armour, it's possible that they wouldn't be able to swim at all.
Seems to me like something they left vague intentionally so that groups wanting to keep underwater combat/scenarios streamlined can work with minimal rules, but people wanting to do more realistic takes can always add their own house rules on top of it.
The problem with this is that it is easier to ignore rules than to create reasonably balanced ones.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
As much as that's true, a DM determining DCs and deciding on (dis)advantage isn't quite houseruling.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The other thing you should always consider: "does that make for a fun game?"
I'd argue that someone falling into a lake/river/puddle and drowning because they are wearing heavy armor is not fun, even if it was realistic.
If you want to make this a situation where you amp up drama in an underwater/high seas adventure, go for it.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
Realistically, there's two problems with swimming in armor: if it covers the limbs (and especially the hands and feet) it interferes with the normal motions of swimming, and it's a bunch of extra weight that doesn't float, so keeping your head above water in 40 lb of armor is comparable to keeping the top foot of your torso out of the water without armor. However, heavy armor simply isn't good enough in D&D to justify the penalties it should give.
This thread has been going on for a few years now.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That and WotC seems to be taking a general stance of having a less rule-intensive game post 3.5's "we have a rule for everything" approach.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.