Bill the Wizard and his party are checking out a sunken wreck in 30 feet of sea water when they encounter an angry clan of sahuagin. Bill sees a likely leader and casts lightning bolt. Bill's traveling companion and protege, Annabelle, notices that several of the angry fish-people are clumped together and casts shatter.
The RAW (as far as I can tell) make no distinction about lightning and thunder damage under water. (Creatures completely submerged in water are resistant to fire damage.) What should happen in this case is that the lightning bolt becomes an area spell with a 100' radius and shatter's area and damage should be magnified significantly when cast in water.
The RAW seem often to ignore physics (and this is reasonable since we're talking about magic), but I prefer to make adjustments when circumstances seem to call for them. The players running Bill and Annabelle should have known better than to cast lightning and thunder inducing spells while they were submerged (along with the rest of their party) in water.
'Realism' and 'Magic' generally dont go together too well.
Also, who says a lightning bolt is like a normal bolt of lightning? For all we know, it could be a magical substance that resembles a lightning bolt.
If I was a player at your table, I would have no problem if you gave advance warning that spells like lightning would not work the same underwater, but I think as in any situation that is something you need to explain beforehand. If you let the player cast lightning and then said the electricity hurts everyone, understandably that wouldnt feel fair at all to your players.
1) If the spell requires verbal components I'd say you can cast one spell, expending all your air to cast the verbal components and then you start drowning.
2) If the spell requires somatic components I would require a Concentration check DC equal 10 + the spell level. Since the somatic portions require intricate hand gestures and being under water would add difficulty as water resistance presses against you.
Other than that I would do it case by case regarding affects. It is magical so a lightning bolt coursing through the water is okay since it is magical.
'Realism' and 'Magic' generally dont go together too well.
Also, who says a lightning bolt is like a normal bolt of lightning? For all we know, it could be a magical substance that resembles a lightning bolt.
If I was a player at your table, I would have no problem if you gave advance warning that spells like lightning would not work the same underwater, but I think as in any situation that is something you need to explain beforehand. If you let the player cast lightning and then said the electricity hurts everyone, understandably that wouldnt feel fair at all to your players.
Thanks, Zorag_The_Mighty.
I definitely make my players aware of my thoughts on realism ahead of time.
I think realism is even more necessary in a fantasy setting than in more mundane settings to emphasize the magic by contrast. Take for example fly that specifically says you fall if you're still in the air when the duration ends. I think WoC (and its predecessors) did a great job with that one, and I think it helps to put the magic into context, show it interacting with the mundane elements of the world. (Gravity in this case.) As DMs, I think we need to have a basic assumption about how magic and the mundane world interact in our campaign settings and base our rulings on that underlying assumption. In the example above, I read the text of the spell and find "a stroke of lightning" and take that at face value: the caster magically evokes real lightning which then interacts with the mundane world just like normal lightning, at least within the limits of the spell's description.
If it's just magic, why bother to have fire, poison, lightning, thunder, etc. types of damage? We could really simplify the game by saying damage is damage and a spell is one way to cause it. We would need only one damaging spell, and we could just call it "damage." I think the reason we have so many options is to we can (if we wish) make the game as rich and satisfying as we can make it by applying as much realism as possible. I find playing the game with attention to this kind of detail makes it a more enjoyable experience because players have to think things like "what happens to that barrel of black powder over there by the orphanage door if I toss a fireball at the ogre trying to break in?" (Okay, that was a cheesy example.)
Anyway, that was the point of the post: to get a feel for the level of attention others give to the interaction of spell effects and the ordinary rules of matter and energy in their campaigns.
I appreciate the responses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi all.
Bill the Wizard and his party are checking out a sunken wreck in 30 feet of sea water when they encounter an angry clan of sahuagin. Bill sees a likely leader and casts lightning bolt. Bill's traveling companion and protege, Annabelle, notices that several of the angry fish-people are clumped together and casts shatter.
The RAW (as far as I can tell) make no distinction about lightning and thunder damage under water. (Creatures completely submerged in water are resistant to fire damage.) What should happen in this case is that the lightning bolt becomes an area spell with a 100' radius and shatter's area and damage should be magnified significantly when cast in water.
The RAW seem often to ignore physics (and this is reasonable since we're talking about magic), but I prefer to make adjustments when circumstances seem to call for them. The players running Bill and Annabelle should have known better than to cast lightning and thunder inducing spells while they were submerged (along with the rest of their party) in water.
What would you do?
Thoughts?
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
'Realism' and 'Magic' generally dont go together too well.
Also, who says a lightning bolt is like a normal bolt of lightning? For all we know, it could be a magical substance that resembles a lightning bolt.
If I was a player at your table, I would have no problem if you gave advance warning that spells like lightning would not work the same underwater, but I think as in any situation that is something you need to explain beforehand. If you let the player cast lightning and then said the electricity hurts everyone, understandably that wouldnt feel fair at all to your players.
Well first of alla
1) If the spell requires verbal components I'd say you can cast one spell, expending all your air to cast the verbal components and then you start drowning.
2) If the spell requires somatic components I would require a Concentration check DC equal 10 + the spell level. Since the somatic portions require intricate hand gestures and being under water would add difficulty as water resistance presses against you.
Other than that I would do it case by case regarding affects. It is magical so a lightning bolt coursing through the water is okay since it is magical.
Thanks, Zorag_The_Mighty.
I definitely make my players aware of my thoughts on realism ahead of time.
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
I think realism is even more necessary in a fantasy setting than in more mundane settings to emphasize the magic by contrast. Take for example fly that specifically says you fall if you're still in the air when the duration ends. I think WoC (and its predecessors) did a great job with that one, and I think it helps to put the magic into context, show it interacting with the mundane elements of the world. (Gravity in this case.) As DMs, I think we need to have a basic assumption about how magic and the mundane world interact in our campaign settings and base our rulings on that underlying assumption. In the example above, I read the text of the spell and find "a stroke of lightning" and take that at face value: the caster magically evokes real lightning which then interacts with the mundane world just like normal lightning, at least within the limits of the spell's description.
If it's just magic, why bother to have fire, poison, lightning, thunder, etc. types of damage? We could really simplify the game by saying damage is damage and a spell is one way to cause it. We would need only one damaging spell, and we could just call it "damage." I think the reason we have so many options is to we can (if we wish) make the game as rich and satisfying as we can make it by applying as much realism as possible. I find playing the game with attention to this kind of detail makes it a more enjoyable experience because players have to think things like "what happens to that barrel of black powder over there by the orphanage door if I toss a fireball at the ogre trying to break in?" (Okay, that was a cheesy example.)
Anyway, that was the point of the post: to get a feel for the level of attention others give to the interaction of spell effects and the ordinary rules of matter and energy in their campaigns.
I appreciate the responses.
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.