In our last campaign we had to fight a water fey guarding a treasure by the lake. A few party members jumped into the water to fight it and I stayed outside shooting arrows whenever it surfaced.
I am a paladin in chainmail and its classified as heavy armor. I do not see any rules about swimming in heavy armor in the phb, does anyone know if there is any 5e ruling with regards to swimming in heavy armor? My strength is 18 and so I have no movement restrictions in any heavy armor.
For the movement, the rules are in Chapter 8. Basically, armour or not, you need you spend 1 extra foot of movement while swimming unless you have a swimming speed.
The rules for combat Underwater are in Chapter 9. When making a melee weapon attack, a creature that doesn't have a swimming speed (either natural or granted by magic) has disadvantage on the attack roll unless the weapon is a dagger, javelin, shortsword, spear, or trident. A ranged weapon attack automatically misses a target beyond the weapon's normal range. Even against a target within normal range, the attack roll has disadvantage unless the weapon is a crossbow, a net, or a weapon that is thrown like a javelin (including a spear, trident, or dart).
I see those in the phb but I also know realistically me wearing 65lbs of armor would sink me to the bottom of any natural body of water. I know the game is fantasy based but they do put restrictions in the game that make it more realistic, strength limits for armor, half speed on difficult terrain, low light restriction. That's why I figure they would have a swimming challenge for those in armor.
You have 18 strength. You are a very strong swimmer. If your strength were less than 15 it would very much effect you as you would have even more restriction on movement.
Beyond that the DM would be justified in penalizing you further (because he's the DM and that makes things interesting). So it doesn't hurt to play it safe.
Joining late, but I do it this way...anyone swimming in armor that gives a stealth disadvantage requires a rough water check (PHB 182)...even padded leather (try jumping a pool with a winter coat tied to you and all your adventuring gear strapped to your back...let me know how it goes). If you fail the check, your only option is to take off the armor, which, except for heavy armor, only takes one minute and most can hold their breath for one minute, except characters with a constitution of < 9, who can only hold their breath for 30 secs (yeah, underwater is harder, but you'd be motivated and take shortcuts, like just cutting straps). Anyone with CON < 9 that gets near water is asking to drown, imo.
Harsh, but if you're wearing heavy armor, fail the STR check, and don't have a constitution of at least 18 (for the +4 minute hold breath bonus), you're screwed without help. You just can't get your armor off in time to save yourself. Also, if you're wearing any of those armors and fall into rough water, your STR check is at double disadvantage. Even a party member who strips off his armor and jumps in to help you might have a problem.
I'd also think that Feather Fall would allow pretty much anyone to float around with ease doing a simple doggy paddle. Rough water would just bounce you around...there's probably several other spells that would help with a little creativity...and most parties have at least a few ropes they can use to help.
On a side note and not that I do this, but personally, I don't agree with tying swimming to a STR check. It makes more sense to be DEX, imo...and CON if you have to swim any real distance. IRL, put the 2019 'world's strongest man' winner in a suit of plate mail and throw him in a lake...there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he'd sink like a rock and stay there.
anyone swimming in armor that gives a stealth disadvantage requires a rough water check (PHB 182)
Where does it say that? It just says that at the DMs discretion, swimming in rough water might require an athletics check. No mention of armor that imposes a stealth disadvantage
anyone swimming in armor that gives a stealth disadvantage requires a rough water check (PHB 182)
Where does it say that? It just says that at the DMs discretion, swimming in rough water might require an athletics check. No mention of armor that imposes a stealth disadvantage
The rest is just pure homebrew
its all pure homebrew...Note the 'but I do it this way...' The PHB reference is just where to find the rough water check. IMO, the idea that someone can just swim around in plate mail is more wildly fanciful than talking dragons....its downright bananas.
ha, great video! He says he was able to go 10 feet...in water he was already standing in (plus its not like he fell in). The narrator goes on to say 'well, with enough practice, maybe'. At my table, that'd be an ability check at the very least, imo. Thanks for the link.
Same could be argued with the 60-100lbs of non-armor gear that most characters carry. It's either stick with the rules (no penalty) or apply the same penalties to a barbarian with 80lbs of weapons and supplies strapped to it's back. Or the same for a character with a 10 strength carrying 30lbs (surfers use 30-40lb rocks to sink to the bottom and run for exercise, so plenty to sink someone to the bottom). Obviously, homebrewing rules and creating weight to strength ratio tables is fine, but make sure you're not just applying it to heavy armor wearers when others should have similar penalties. (If the rationale is because it's based on weight)
My thoughts are that there should be some penalty to movement rate and perhaps even to attack rolls not necessarily b/c of the weight - whales and submarines travel just fine in the water - but b/c of the design of land-based armor often traps water between the armor and the wearer. There are small cavities in armor that water enters and exits from as a matter of course when a person wearing it tries to swim or engage in any dextrous movement (like trying to spear someone). This is not something we notice much on land b/c the viscosity and resistance of Earth atmosphere is so much "thinner" than the viscosity and resistance of water. Therefore, attempting to fight or swim underwater while wearing any armor with multiple layers would naturally be more cumbersome.
It bears mentioning, I feel, that according to my admittedly quick research, D&D makes the armor WAY heavier than it should be, especially considering that most DnD worlds have been using the same armors for thousands of years, so the creation of such should be absurdly refined and as close to perfect as you can get it with human(oid) hands. A suit of full plate armor weighed less than the equipment loadout of a typical modern soldier (approx 60 pounds vs 90 pounds), and if you've got proficiency, that means you've trained extensively in that armor, probably since your teens if not before. The suits were well articulated also.
A lot of the things games (and people) say about heavy armor aren't really true, especially the ones about how much they limit mobility, and how if someone in armor fell down, they couldn't get back up, or needed ladders or cranes to get onto a horse. Those are pure myth. You could do somersaults in those suits with some practice.
Just found this thread from googling the same question. Honestly as a DM I wouldn’t worry about it too much if the party is just having one or two water encounters in the entire campaign. However in a game where water is a regularly occurring theme such as pirates, underwater, etc. I would impose a penalty to athletics checks to swim equal to half of the armor’s weight rounded up. E.G. leather armor weighs in at 10lbs. So I would impose a -5 penalty to swimming while full plate, weighing in at 65lbs. would give the player a whopping -33 penalty. It may be harsh but let’s be honest, if you’re part of a crew on a sailing ship and you wear a full suit of armor then your main role will be as the anchor.
ha.. well he is moving but that is definitely not swimming...and definitely not swimming and fighting.... you might realistically be able to "swim" for maybe 30-45seconds max, and definitely not be able to fight if we are being realistic....
IMO the way I'd do it....anyone without a swimming speed ...i would give the player 2-3 rounds then after that maybe STR check to not drown, and use the underwater combat rules. The player could alternatively cut off their armor or pieces of it to prevent further drowning if they fail a roll.
Just to bring up a point not covered already; heavy armor already has a whole lot going against it in 5e (cost, weight, high requirements, stealth penalty, discouraging primary save ability DEX, etc.) so really doesn't need home rules penalizing it further...
I mean RAW says that it takes 5 minutes (30 rounds) to take off heavy armor, so it is basically a death sentence in any "the ship is going down!" scenario to impose drowning checks. Personally I don't think escape options where the PC lives but with 10 AC and their 1,500 gp armor in pieces at the bottom of the ocean would be that warmly received, unless the DM is running a world where they could reasonably expect to just loot another set of platemail the same session (but even that rather makes a mockery of the saving/party fund pooling involved in obtaining it).
Obviously this thread was just started out of curiosity, but I don't think I have ever seen one heavy armor conversation that actually 'talks up' wearing 65 lbs of metal e.g. heavy armor wearers should be impervious to crude arrows, small/medium beast attacks, Spike Growth... - it does often seem to be viewed as vanilla AC in combat yet unyielding deadweight while adventuring. Heavy armor smiths need to hire a good publicist! ^_^
I feel like plate armor is quite under appreciated. You would be covered in heavy plates of solid steel, which would make it basically impossible to harm someone wearing plate armor with a piercing/slashing weapon. historically, this was basically how it was (the whole hit a chink in the armor thing would be practically impossible).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I did NOT eat those hikers.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi,
In our last campaign we had to fight a water fey guarding a treasure by the lake. A few party members jumped into the water to fight it and I stayed outside shooting arrows whenever it surfaced.
I am a paladin in chainmail and its classified as heavy armor. I do not see any rules about swimming in heavy armor in the phb, does anyone know if there is any 5e ruling with regards to swimming in heavy armor? My strength is 18 and so I have no movement restrictions in any heavy armor.
Thanks for any advice.
For the movement, the rules are in Chapter 8. Basically, armour or not, you need you spend 1 extra foot of movement while swimming unless you have a swimming speed.
The rules for combat Underwater are in Chapter 9. When making a melee weapon attack, a creature that doesn't have a swimming speed (either natural or granted by magic) has disadvantage on the attack roll unless the weapon is a dagger, javelin, shortsword, spear, or trident. A ranged weapon attack automatically misses a target beyond the weapon's normal range. Even against a target within normal range, the attack roll has disadvantage unless the weapon is a crossbow, a net, or a weapon that is thrown like a javelin (including a spear, trident, or dart).
Heavy armor doesn't affect any form of movement beyond reducing your speed if you don't meet the strength requirement.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I see those in the phb but I also know realistically me wearing 65lbs of armor would sink me to the bottom of any natural body of water. I know the game is fantasy based but they do put restrictions in the game that make it more realistic, strength limits for armor, half speed on difficult terrain, low light restriction. That's why I figure they would have a swimming challenge for those in armor.
You have 18 strength. You are a very strong swimmer. If your strength were less than 15 it would very much effect you as you would have even more restriction on movement.
Beyond that the DM would be justified in penalizing you further (because he's the DM and that makes things interesting). So it doesn't hurt to play it safe.
Extended Signature
Joining late, but I do it this way...anyone swimming in armor that gives a stealth disadvantage requires a rough water check (PHB 182)...even padded leather (try jumping a pool with a winter coat tied to you and all your adventuring gear strapped to your back...let me know how it goes). If you fail the check, your only option is to take off the armor, which, except for heavy armor, only takes one minute and most can hold their breath for one minute, except characters with a constitution of < 9, who can only hold their breath for 30 secs (yeah, underwater is harder, but you'd be motivated and take shortcuts, like just cutting straps). Anyone with CON < 9 that gets near water is asking to drown, imo.
Harsh, but if you're wearing heavy armor, fail the STR check, and don't have a constitution of at least 18 (for the +4 minute hold breath bonus), you're screwed without help. You just can't get your armor off in time to save yourself. Also, if you're wearing any of those armors and fall into rough water, your STR check is at double disadvantage. Even a party member who strips off his armor and jumps in to help you might have a problem.
I'd also think that Feather Fall would allow pretty much anyone to float around with ease doing a simple doggy paddle. Rough water would just bounce you around...there's probably several other spells that would help with a little creativity...and most parties have at least a few ropes they can use to help.
On a side note and not that I do this, but personally, I don't agree with tying swimming to a STR check. It makes more sense to be DEX, imo...and CON if you have to swim any real distance. IRL, put the 2019 'world's strongest man' winner in a suit of plate mail and throw him in a lake...there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he'd sink like a rock and stay there.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Where does it say that? It just says that at the DMs discretion, swimming in rough water might require an athletics check. No mention of armor that imposes a stealth disadvantage
The rest is just pure homebrew
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
its all pure homebrew...Note the 'but I do it this way...' The PHB reference is just where to find the rough water check. IMO, the idea that someone can just swim around in plate mail is more wildly fanciful than talking dragons....its downright bananas.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
But haven't reenactors shown that while difficult, it's possible?
http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=20316
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
ha, great video! He says he was able to go 10 feet...in water he was already standing in (plus its not like he fell in). The narrator goes on to say 'well, with enough practice, maybe'. At my table, that'd be an ability check at the very least, imo. Thanks for the link.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I mean, he's a commoner, so maybe that 'enough practice' would get him to level 1 :P
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Sink like a stone.
Same could be argued with the 60-100lbs of non-armor gear that most characters carry. It's either stick with the rules (no penalty) or apply the same penalties to a barbarian with 80lbs of weapons and supplies strapped to it's back. Or the same for a character with a 10 strength carrying 30lbs (surfers use 30-40lb rocks to sink to the bottom and run for exercise, so plenty to sink someone to the bottom). Obviously, homebrewing rules and creating weight to strength ratio tables is fine, but make sure you're not just applying it to heavy armor wearers when others should have similar penalties. (If the rationale is because it's based on weight)
Not arguing re: RAW here, however...
My thoughts are that there should be some penalty to movement rate and perhaps even to attack rolls not necessarily b/c of the weight - whales and submarines travel just fine in the water - but b/c of the design of land-based armor often traps water between the armor and the wearer. There are small cavities in armor that water enters and exits from as a matter of course when a person wearing it tries to swim or engage in any dextrous movement (like trying to spear someone). This is not something we notice much on land b/c the viscosity and resistance of Earth atmosphere is so much "thinner" than the viscosity and resistance of water. Therefore, attempting to fight or swim underwater while wearing any armor with multiple layers would naturally be more cumbersome.
It bears mentioning, I feel, that according to my admittedly quick research, D&D makes the armor WAY heavier than it should be, especially considering that most DnD worlds have been using the same armors for thousands of years, so the creation of such should be absurdly refined and as close to perfect as you can get it with human(oid) hands. A suit of full plate armor weighed less than the equipment loadout of a typical modern soldier (approx 60 pounds vs 90 pounds), and if you've got proficiency, that means you've trained extensively in that armor, probably since your teens if not before. The suits were well articulated also.
A lot of the things games (and people) say about heavy armor aren't really true, especially the ones about how much they limit mobility, and how if someone in armor fell down, they couldn't get back up, or needed ladders or cranes to get onto a horse. Those are pure myth. You could do somersaults in those suits with some practice.
Just found this thread from googling the same question. Honestly as a DM I wouldn’t worry about it too much if the party is just having one or two water encounters in the entire campaign. However in a game where water is a regularly occurring theme such as pirates, underwater, etc. I would impose a penalty to athletics checks to swim equal to half of the armor’s weight rounded up. E.G. leather armor weighs in at 10lbs. So I would impose a -5 penalty to swimming while full plate, weighing in at 65lbs. would give the player a whopping -33 penalty. It may be harsh but let’s be honest, if you’re part of a crew on a sailing ship and you wear a full suit of armor then your main role will be as the anchor.
That's limiting mobility while surrounded by air, though. Underwater, there's more than just the weight of the armor to consider.
ha.. well he is moving but that is definitely not swimming...and definitely not swimming and fighting.... you might realistically be able to "swim" for maybe 30-45seconds max, and definitely not be able to fight if we are being realistic....
IMO the way I'd do it....anyone without a swimming speed ...i would give the player 2-3 rounds then after that maybe STR check to not drown, and use the underwater combat rules. The player could alternatively cut off their armor or pieces of it to prevent further drowning if they fail a roll.
Just to bring up a point not covered already; heavy armor already has a whole lot going against it in 5e (cost, weight, high requirements, stealth penalty, discouraging primary save ability DEX, etc.) so really doesn't need home rules penalizing it further...
I mean RAW says that it takes 5 minutes (30 rounds) to take off heavy armor, so it is basically a death sentence in any "the ship is going down!" scenario to impose drowning checks. Personally I don't think escape options where the PC lives but with 10 AC and their 1,500 gp armor in pieces at the bottom of the ocean would be that warmly received, unless the DM is running a world where they could reasonably expect to just loot another set of platemail the same session (but even that rather makes a mockery of the saving/party fund pooling involved in obtaining it).
Obviously this thread was just started out of curiosity, but I don't think I have ever seen one heavy armor conversation that actually 'talks up' wearing 65 lbs of metal e.g. heavy armor wearers should be impervious to crude arrows, small/medium beast attacks, Spike Growth... - it does often seem to be viewed as vanilla AC in combat yet unyielding deadweight while adventuring. Heavy armor smiths need to hire a good publicist! ^_^
I feel like plate armor is quite under appreciated. You would be covered in heavy plates of solid steel, which would make it basically impossible to harm someone wearing plate armor with a piercing/slashing weapon. historically, this was basically how it was (the whole hit a chink in the armor thing would be practically impossible).
I did NOT eat those hikers.