So recently one of my players a warlock was pulled beneath the surface of a 60ft deep pool of water by a water weird. On his turn he broke free of the grapple and attempted to cast Witchbolt at a priest while still 15ft blow the waters surface. I thought immediately popped into my head "witch bolt deals lightning damage". Unable to find a ruling for this in the DMG or PHB I had the warlock take the same amount of damage he afflicted on the priest. My theory being lightning in water even if it's directed to a specific target is going to zap everything in the water. So I had him the water weird, and the intended Target the priest take the full 27 points of damage. This unfortunately do to other events that occurred during the fight lead to this chracters death. Was I in the right here? Should I have handled this differently?
Basically, it's not that simple. It's not like suddenly everything in the lake/pool/whatever is instantly electrocuted. Electricity goes from one place to another with lower electrical potential (which in a natural situation is the ground) by the best route possible. If a person is the best route possible or is in the way of the best route, then that sux. The link suggests that distance from the electricity is a big factor. Now, complicating this is that no one really knows the voltage and current of a witch bolt.
All up, you're solution seems to be possibly more on the "cinematic physics" end of the scale than the "realistic physics" end, but then this is physics we're talking about, so don't be too hard on yourself.
I'm not going to say you were wrong - you're the DM and the best arbiter of how that particular campaign should play through with the players you have.
I will note though that many, many D&D spells (and game rules) don't obey the laws of physics as we know them - each spell includes the full information you need to determine how it works. There are no rules for a regular lightning spell like Witch Bolt becoming an area of effect spell, or in fact anything saying that fire spells like burning hands don't work - note though that Creatures and objects that are fully immersed in water have resistance to fire damage. (Underwater rules in PHB).
To that end, I would say that if you're going to change how spells work on the fly (thus giving the player no chance to know in advance that you would do this) you should caution them when they say that their character will cast the spell - in this case, "As Witch Bolt is lightning, I'll rule that it will also affect you and the other monsters - are you sure you want to cast this as your action?" - their character would almost certainly understand how the spell would work.
I was pretty upset when my DM told me I was taking damage for casting a lightning damage spell while in the water. And I _didn't_ die. I was of the thought that, like Stormknight has said, that spells don't operate under normal assumptions of natural laws. My idea was that, like Fireball, the spell would tell me if there were any side effects or consequences of it being in certain areas (i.e catching things on fire or electrocuting myself)
It wound up being cinematic and cool, but still. It all depends on how you and your player felt about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
IMO Magic =/= physics. I think trying to treat spells by the rules of our reality is a very slippery slope that's more likely to slow your game, or stop it up completely as the table devolves into arguments over what is the 'right' physics. The fastest way to deal with a rule is that "A spell does what it says, nothing more, nothing less."
In the end, you are the DM and it is your choice to rule this way or not-- I just warn you that you might be opening a can of worms. ;)
No I would never make a player take damage from a lighting spell they we casting just because they were standing in a puddle. In this situation the player was 15ft under water trying to cast the spell up at an enemy who was standing on an outcropping above him. After connecting Witchbolt essentially becomes similar to power cord with an electrical current going through it.
No however I would give them advantage to hit an enemy who is wet with a lightning spell, and if multiple foes were submerged or partially submerged I would have the player role an attack against all of them.
If a player asks you if he gets an advantage to attack wet or submerged targets with lightning, the best course of action is to ask the players if they want enemies to use this tactic against them. If they say ok then make it a house rule. As FullMetalBunny said, you have to be consistent. Now that you’ve used this against them, you’ll have to let them use this to their advantage at least a little bit.
This is an example that I’ve been thinking about. According to PHB page 198, a creature fully immersed in water has resistance to fire damage. The spell Heat Metal causes fire damage so by RAW, jumping in to water to mitigate the damage of the spell works. However, I know from experience that picking up a hot pan with a wet oven mitt is a really bad idea. The water just increases the heat transference. If a player character jumps in water after he is affected by Heat Metal, I can’t change the rules to his disadvantage right then. Either I just give him fire resistance or if I want to be realistic but not disadvantage him, I could rule that while he is submerged, the caster can’t use a bonus action cause the damage again.
Another question is can you cast a spell with verbal component while you are under water? I can’t find anything that says you can’t.
Yeah, I would be pretty upset if I died in conjunction with this ruling. I just feel as a spell caster, I would understand how my spells would work in the world. I feel like my character should know how the spell would work under water.
A quick follow-up we have decided that we are gonna make it a house rule that lightning based spells and ablities have advantage if the targets are in water. We have aslo decided to make it so lightning based attacks effect every creature within a 20ft radius of the spells Target and they will take half damage. One of the players at my table is a Storm Blood Sorcerer and she is enjoying this new ruling. The warlock rerolled a gunslinger fighter and wants me to make them a lightning bullet for his guns.
If lightning strikes a body of water it doesn't fry the entire area of the water, only the direct area. Seeing as how witch bolt is a directed spell I don't know that I would personally have rules that all of a sudden it encompasses a grand area, for example if one mob is affected by witch bolt and touches something do they also take damage?
But it is your game and from a physics standpoint your ruling is certainly plausible.
So recently one of my players a warlock was pulled beneath the surface of a 60ft deep pool of water by a water weird. On his turn he broke free of the grapple and attempted to cast Witchbolt at a priest while still 15ft blow the waters surface. I thought immediately popped into my head "witch bolt deals lightning damage". Unable to find a ruling for this in the DMG or PHB I had the warlock take the same amount of damage he afflicted on the priest. My theory being lightning in water even if it's directed to a specific target is going to zap everything in the water. So I had him the water weird, and the intended Target the priest take the full 27 points of damage. This unfortunately do to other events that occurred during the fight lead to this chracters death. Was I in the right here? Should I have handled this differently?
Physics!
Basically, it's not that simple. It's not like suddenly everything in the lake/pool/whatever is instantly electrocuted. Electricity goes from one place to another with lower electrical potential (which in a natural situation is the ground) by the best route possible. If a person is the best route possible or is in the way of the best route, then that sux. The link suggests that distance from the electricity is a big factor. Now, complicating this is that no one really knows the voltage and current of a witch bolt.
All up, you're solution seems to be possibly more on the "cinematic physics" end of the scale than the "realistic physics" end, but then this is physics we're talking about, so don't be too hard on yourself.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI'm not going to say you were wrong - you're the DM and the best arbiter of how that particular campaign should play through with the players you have.
I will note though that many, many D&D spells (and game rules) don't obey the laws of physics as we know them - each spell includes the full information you need to determine how it works. There are no rules for a regular lightning spell like Witch Bolt becoming an area of effect spell, or in fact anything saying that fire spells like burning hands don't work - note though that Creatures and objects that are fully immersed in water have resistance to fire damage. (Underwater rules in PHB).
To that end, I would say that if you're going to change how spells work on the fly (thus giving the player no chance to know in advance that you would do this) you should caution them when they say that their character will cast the spell - in this case, "As Witch Bolt is lightning, I'll rule that it will also affect you and the other monsters - are you sure you want to cast this as your action?" - their character would almost certainly understand how the spell would work.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I was pretty upset when my DM told me I was taking damage for casting a lightning damage spell while in the water. And I _didn't_ die. I was of the thought that, like Stormknight has said, that spells don't operate under normal assumptions of natural laws. My idea was that, like Fireball, the spell would tell me if there were any side effects or consequences of it being in certain areas (i.e catching things on fire or electrocuting myself)
It wound up being cinematic and cool, but still. It all depends on how you and your player felt about it.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
IMO Magic =/= physics. I think trying to treat spells by the rules of our reality is a very slippery slope that's more likely to slow your game, or stop it up completely as the table devolves into arguments over what is the 'right' physics. The fastest way to deal with a rule is that "A spell does what it says, nothing more, nothing less."
In the end, you are the DM and it is your choice to rule this way or not-- I just warn you that you might be opening a can of worms. ;)
Here is the million gold coin question, will you be consistent in this ruling?
If the party used a decanter of endless water would the Witchbolt apply to every enemy that is currently "wet"?
I love the magic system in Divinity Original Sin, but it's a lot of magical consquences and consistancy is important.
Would a lighting bolt shot at enemies under water give a save?
No I would never make a player take damage from a lighting spell they we casting just because they were standing in a puddle. In this situation the player was 15ft under water trying to cast the spell up at an enemy who was standing on an outcropping above him. After connecting Witchbolt essentially becomes similar to power cord with an electrical current going through it.
No however I would give them advantage to hit an enemy who is wet with a lightning spell, and if multiple foes were submerged or partially submerged I would have the player role an attack against all of them.
If a player asks you if he gets an advantage to attack wet or submerged targets with lightning, the best course of action is to ask the players if they want enemies to use this tactic against them. If they say ok then make it a house rule. As FullMetalBunny said, you have to be consistent. Now that you’ve used this against them, you’ll have to let them use this to their advantage at least a little bit.
This is an example that I’ve been thinking about. According to PHB page 198, a creature fully immersed in water has resistance to fire damage. The spell Heat Metal causes fire damage so by RAW, jumping in to water to mitigate the damage of the spell works. However, I know from experience that picking up a hot pan with a wet oven mitt is a really bad idea. The water just increases the heat transference. If a player character jumps in water after he is affected by Heat Metal, I can’t change the rules to his disadvantage right then. Either I just give him fire resistance or if I want to be realistic but not disadvantage him, I could rule that while he is submerged, the caster can’t use a bonus action cause the damage again.
Another question is can you cast a spell with verbal component while you are under water? I can’t find anything that says you can’t.
Yeah, I would be pretty upset if I died in conjunction with this ruling. I just feel as a spell caster, I would understand how my spells would work in the world. I feel like my character should know how the spell would work under water.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersYes, you can cast spells underwater - even those with verbal or material components.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/717061380453453825
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
A quick follow-up we have decided that we are gonna make it a house rule that lightning based spells and ablities have advantage if the targets are in water. We have aslo decided to make it so lightning based attacks effect every creature within a 20ft radius of the spells Target and they will take half damage. One of the players at my table is a Storm Blood Sorcerer and she is enjoying this new ruling. The warlock rerolled a gunslinger fighter and wants me to make them a lightning bullet for his guns.
If lightning strikes a body of water it doesn't fry the entire area of the water, only the direct area. Seeing as how witch bolt is a directed spell I don't know that I would personally have rules that all of a sudden it encompasses a grand area, for example if one mob is affected by witch bolt and touches something do they also take damage?
But it is your game and from a physics standpoint your ruling is certainly plausible.