Hello! I am running a D&D 5e campaign and my players are great, but not always the sharpest tools in the shed in terms of decision making and strategizing. So last session I gave to each of them a cap of underwater breathing, which they are going to use again in the next session. Some characters had heavy armor, and I said these PCs sank in the water because of this, but two of them (bard and barbarian) had light armor or no armor, so they floated. In this situation, instead of just putting a lot of rocks inside of their pockets or something, they decided to frolic in the water, with the heavy characters pulling the lighter ones down. Since I don't think they are going to do any different this session (and I feel like just giving them solutions would be railroading) and they need to explore a dungeon and fight some underwater battles, I was thinking which disadvantages I should impose. How would walking with linked arms, one character floating and another pulling him down, affect their movement in an underwater dungeon? And about the combat, besides the weapon disadvantages in underwater combat and characters which wield two hand weapon having to fight with something else, what would you fellow DMs choose to impose in terms of penalties or advantages. I was thinking that disavantage in dex saving throws would make sense. What do you think?
No armor does not mean they float, as people routinely swim down pretty deep (humans are basically a tiny bit lighter than water and wearing a backpack should be enough to barely sink you). I would simply rule that the armored people always have to be walking at their swim speed (1/2 normal walk if they don't have a separate swim speed) while the no armor people can freely 'fly' at their swim speed (again, likely 1/2 walk)
More important would be things they do not want to be damaged - scrolls, spellbooks, etc. Warn them.
There is a lot of question about spells. Think about it before the game. Generally the rule is they can still cast V spells if they can breathe. (Otherwise this totally NERFS most casters). But spell effects are argued about. Force, Psychic, Necrotic and radiant should clearly still work the same But some DM's decide to change fire, cold, lightning, acid, poison, and/or thunder. Fire generally is granted resistance for being under water. Acid and poison - are they weakened? Lighting may change area of effect? Some DM's make certain things better: Cold = Ice = restrained and floating? Thunder = longer range/more damage (water is not compressible, sound travels farther and shock waves do more damage).
It is simplest to just say fire does 1/2 damage against people in water and to ignore everything else. But you are the DM, so make some calls.
Even a backpack should be enough to make them sink. I would let them swim up, but honestly ever try to swim with a backpack on you?
How realistic do you want to be? The Bends can make everything a lot more complicated. Then there is the cold often found at deep sea. You go more than a 600 ft down in the real world the water is freezing (0-5 degrees Celsisus) even near the equator.
Even clothes can be enough to make them sink. Have you ever taken swim lessons? There is one technique called the jelly fish float in which you fill your lungs with air. That makes you buoyant and float, you exhale, start to sink, inhale and float up again. Most of the human body is water. The air in your lungs is typically the only thing making you float at all. So in your example, the barbarian and bard in leather armor would also likely just sink, just more slowly. A backpack with usual adventuring gear is likely enough to sink you. It will be easier for the ones in light and medium armor to swim back to the surface.
However, RAW, swimming doubles movement cost unless you have a swim speed. This means that in 5e, a character in heavy, medium or light armor can still swim. The DM is free to modify this but RAW, the armor you are wearing doesn't affect your ability to swim.
Anyway, in your example, everyone sinks ... some just find it more easy than others.
P.S. Floating is also much easier in salt water than in fresh water so that is another factor but I don't know how much detail you'd want to get into ..
Even a backpack should be enough to make them sink. I would let them swim up, but honestly ever try to swim with a backpack on you?
How realistic do you want to be? The Bends can make everything a lot more complicated. Then there is the cold often found at deep sea. You go more than a 600 ft down in the real world the water is freezing (0-5 degrees Celsisus) even near the equator.
Actually, the water temperature is exactly 4C at any sufficient depth and stays 4C all the way to the bottom. This is because the highest density for water occurs at 4C. The water at the bottom of any body of water that is sufficiently deep will always be 4C. So, if folks are going deep (and even 100' is probably usually enough in most places), they need to dress warmly.
they are trying to sink in the sea, using caps of underwater breathing. So they have air in their lungs all the time and the salt water is helping them float. I can ask if they are going to take their backpacks with them this time and consider that, but only with their armor, in the case of the barbarian, who does not wear anything, I don't see how he would sink to the bottom of the sea while still breathing.
Just tell them how difficult it would be at the bottom using the "technique" they plan. That isn't railroading, that's just letting them know how you interprets the world/surroundings and informing them on that. If they insists on using that "technique" then, it's really their choice, but most players would then try to find another strategy.
I just googled the record for free diving (just taking a deep breath and going down) is 702 feet. Granted, they use specialized gear to help them get down and up quickly, but they don’t use magic, so that should about even out. Just say the unarmored ones swim down. They’ve got those bubbles that let them breath as long as they like, so what’s the issue? Honestly, there’s nothing that says heavy armor = sink. It’s a reasonable ruling, don’t get me wrong, but considering how strong they have to be to be wearing heavy armor, there could be a good argument that they should have a check to see if they can swim, too.
Only rules I see about swimming are it halves movement, and after an hour you need to start making con saves or get exhaustion. And if you are more than 100 feet below the surface, it’s harder. Though I’ll be the first to admit I may have missed something.
the thing about free diving is that you go down, then surface again. You don't stay and explore the bottom of the sea. And it is a technique people spend a good amount of time training for. As I said, they are going to explore a dungeon underwater and have caps of underwater breathing. So they will always have lungs full of air. I would say that the dungeon is within the mesopelagic zone, because some light still reaches the bottom. I actually need them to sink, or at least that would be the easier option. So they could explore the bottom of the sea, and the dungeon, uninterrupted, and just walk instead of swimming up and down. But they insist in the last effective solution I posted before.
But I guess my question got derailed a long time ago, so I will just ask again hoping someone answers:
I just wanted to know which disadvantages/advantages other DMs would impose for exploration and battle underwater (besides of the regular ones for underwater combat) in the conditions I described in the original post. Not if they would or would not sink, I already established as a DM which characters sink and why, and that the ones who don't sink cannot reach the bottom and stay there by themselves. If you are fighting holding someone, what effect does it have?
The easy way is to just make it the same, so you don’t worry about unintentionally unbalancing things to the point of tpk, but that defeats the point of being in a different environment, so here are some ideas. Half their move speed. Probably do something to perception checks, its tougher to see, and while sound travels farther, it can be more difficult to tell the direction it’s coming from, at least for creatures not native to the element. So either something like disadvantage, or remove proficiency bonuses (because they are not proficient in perceiving underwater). Or just a flat -2 or something. I’d say piercing weapons could work pretty well, since a thrust isn’t going to have momentum stolen like a swing would. Again, I could see removing proficiency bonuses from slashing or bludgeoning weapons. And apply that to thrown versions as well. I can’t imagine shooting a bow or crossbow would work very well. But if you have an archer in the party you don’t want them to be useless. Maybe half the ranges in the PHB, or quarter them or something. As for magic, maybe you half the damage of fire spells, but I wouldn’t do anything else, and maybe not even that. Magic by it’s nature ignores the laws of physics by creating energy from nothing. It’s easy enough to say that magical energy just works no matter where it is: magic lightning doesn’t obey the rules of normal electricity. And since that argument could apply to fire also, that’s why I’d maybe even say no changes to that, except for catching things on fire, at that point the fire becomes normal, nonmagical fire and would just go out. And for the final reason to just leave it be, it’s a lot of work basically revising the entire magic system for just a couple sessions.
The rules do have some things to say about underwater combat (see below), and to be honest I prefer them to Xaltu's house rules.
One thing I am not keen on with Xaltu's house rules, ids the removal of proficiency bonuses. While a fighter who has trained for years wielding a sword will not fight as well underwater as on land I wouldexpect him to be better than a wizard who hasn't wielded a sword in his life!
Perception checks agaion will be more difficult but again those that are trained in it should be better than those that are not. Depending on the water you don't need to go very deep to get into dim light conditions and in reality visibility is rarely more than 60ft, while sound travels further underwater it is also faster making it much more difficult to locate a sound so disadvantage on perception checks seems fair for those not used ot being underwater (for consistancy withmelee weapon attacks I would only impose disadvantage for creatures without a swim speed.
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). Creatures and objects that are fully immersed in water have resistance to fire damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello! I am running a D&D 5e campaign and my players are great, but not always the sharpest tools in the shed in terms of decision making and strategizing. So last session I gave to each of them a cap of underwater breathing, which they are going to use again in the next session. Some characters had heavy armor, and I said these PCs sank in the water because of this, but two of them (bard and barbarian) had light armor or no armor, so they floated. In this situation, instead of just putting a lot of rocks inside of their pockets or something, they decided to frolic in the water, with the heavy characters pulling the lighter ones down. Since I don't think they are going to do any different this session (and I feel like just giving them solutions would be railroading) and they need to explore a dungeon and fight some underwater battles, I was thinking which disadvantages I should impose. How would walking with linked arms, one character floating and another pulling him down, affect their movement in an underwater dungeon? And about the combat, besides the weapon disadvantages in underwater combat and characters which wield two hand weapon having to fight with something else, what would you fellow DMs choose to impose in terms of penalties or advantages. I was thinking that disavantage in dex saving throws would make sense. What do you think?
No armor does not mean they float, as people routinely swim down pretty deep (humans are basically a tiny bit lighter than water and wearing a backpack should be enough to barely sink you). I would simply rule that the armored people always have to be walking at their swim speed (1/2 normal walk if they don't have a separate swim speed) while the no armor people can freely 'fly' at their swim speed (again, likely 1/2 walk)
More important would be things they do not want to be damaged - scrolls, spellbooks, etc. Warn them.
There is a lot of question about spells. Think about it before the game. Generally the rule is they can still cast V spells if they can breathe. (Otherwise this totally NERFS most casters). But spell effects are argued about. Force, Psychic, Necrotic and radiant should clearly still work the same But some DM's decide to change fire, cold, lightning, acid, poison, and/or thunder. Fire generally is granted resistance for being under water. Acid and poison - are they weakened? Lighting may change area of effect? Some DM's make certain things better: Cold = Ice = restrained and floating? Thunder = longer range/more damage (water is not compressible, sound travels farther and shock waves do more damage).
It is simplest to just say fire does 1/2 damage against people in water and to ignore everything else. But you are the DM, so make some calls.
Yeah, the thing is that they need to sink till the bottom of the sea to reach the dungeon. So only sinking a bit would not be enough.
Even a backpack should be enough to make them sink. I would let them swim up, but honestly ever try to swim with a backpack on you?
How realistic do you want to be? The Bends can make everything a lot more complicated. Then there is the cold often found at deep sea. You go more than a 600 ft down in the real world the water is freezing (0-5 degrees Celsisus) even near the equator.
Even clothes can be enough to make them sink. Have you ever taken swim lessons? There is one technique called the jelly fish float in which you fill your lungs with air. That makes you buoyant and float, you exhale, start to sink, inhale and float up again. Most of the human body is water. The air in your lungs is typically the only thing making you float at all. So in your example, the barbarian and bard in leather armor would also likely just sink, just more slowly. A backpack with usual adventuring gear is likely enough to sink you. It will be easier for the ones in light and medium armor to swim back to the surface.
However, RAW, swimming doubles movement cost unless you have a swim speed. This means that in 5e, a character in heavy, medium or light armor can still swim. The DM is free to modify this but RAW, the armor you are wearing doesn't affect your ability to swim.
Anyway, in your example, everyone sinks ... some just find it more easy than others.
P.S. Floating is also much easier in salt water than in fresh water so that is another factor but I don't know how much detail you'd want to get into ..
Actually, the water temperature is exactly 4C at any sufficient depth and stays 4C all the way to the bottom. This is because the highest density for water occurs at 4C. The water at the bottom of any body of water that is sufficiently deep will always be 4C. So, if folks are going deep (and even 100' is probably usually enough in most places), they need to dress warmly.
they are trying to sink in the sea, using caps of underwater breathing. So they have air in their lungs all the time and the salt water is helping them float. I can ask if they are going to take their backpacks with them this time and consider that, but only with their armor, in the case of the barbarian, who does not wear anything, I don't see how he would sink to the bottom of the sea while still breathing.
Just tell them how difficult it would be at the bottom using the "technique" they plan. That isn't railroading, that's just letting them know how you interprets the world/surroundings and informing them on that. If they insists on using that "technique" then, it's really their choice, but most players would then try to find another strategy.
Ludo ergo sum!
Why don’t they just swim down?
I just googled the record for free diving (just taking a deep breath and going down) is 702 feet. Granted, they use specialized gear to help them get down and up quickly, but they don’t use magic, so that should about even out.
Just say the unarmored ones swim down. They’ve got those bubbles that let them breath as long as they like, so what’s the issue? Honestly, there’s nothing that says heavy armor = sink. It’s a reasonable ruling, don’t get me wrong, but considering how strong they have to be to be wearing heavy armor, there could be a good argument that they should have a check to see if they can swim, too.
Only rules I see about swimming are it halves movement, and after an hour you need to start making con saves or get exhaustion. And if you are more than 100 feet below the surface, it’s harder. Though I’ll be the first to admit I may have missed something.
How deep is this place they are going?
the thing about free diving is that you go down, then surface again. You don't stay and explore the bottom of the sea. And it is a technique people spend a good amount of time training for. As I said, they are going to explore a dungeon underwater and have caps of underwater breathing. So they will always have lungs full of air. I would say that the dungeon is within the mesopelagic zone, because some light still reaches the bottom. I actually need them to sink, or at least that would be the easier option. So they could explore the bottom of the sea, and the dungeon, uninterrupted, and just walk instead of swimming up and down. But they insist in the last effective solution I posted before.
But I guess my question got derailed a long time ago, so I will just ask again hoping someone answers:
I just wanted to know which disadvantages/advantages other DMs would impose for exploration and battle underwater (besides of the regular ones for underwater combat) in the conditions I described in the original post. Not if they would or would not sink, I already established as a DM which characters sink and why, and that the ones who don't sink cannot reach the bottom and stay there by themselves. If you are fighting holding someone, what effect does it have?
The easy way is to just make it the same, so you don’t worry about unintentionally unbalancing things to the point of tpk, but that defeats the point of being in a different environment, so here are some ideas.
Half their move speed.
Probably do something to perception checks, its tougher to see, and while sound travels farther, it can be more difficult to tell the direction it’s coming from, at least for creatures not native to the element. So either something like disadvantage, or remove proficiency bonuses (because they are not proficient in perceiving underwater). Or just a flat -2 or something.
I’d say piercing weapons could work pretty well, since a thrust isn’t going to have momentum stolen like a swing would. Again, I could see removing proficiency bonuses from slashing or bludgeoning weapons. And apply that to thrown versions as well. I can’t imagine shooting a bow or crossbow would work very well. But if you have an archer in the party you don’t want them to be useless. Maybe half the ranges in the PHB, or quarter them or something.
As for magic, maybe you half the damage of fire spells, but I wouldn’t do anything else, and maybe not even that. Magic by it’s nature ignores the laws of physics by creating energy from nothing. It’s easy enough to say that magical energy just works no matter where it is: magic lightning doesn’t obey the rules of normal electricity. And since that argument could apply to fire also, that’s why I’d maybe even say no changes to that, except for catching things on fire, at that point the fire becomes normal, nonmagical fire and would just go out. And for the final reason to just leave it be, it’s a lot of work basically revising the entire magic system for just a couple sessions.
The rules do have some things to say about underwater combat (see below), and to be honest I prefer them to Xaltu's house rules.
One thing I am not keen on with Xaltu's house rules, ids the removal of proficiency bonuses. While a fighter who has trained for years wielding a sword will not fight as well underwater as on land I wouldexpect him to be better than a wizard who hasn't wielded a sword in his life!
Perception checks agaion will be more difficult but again those that are trained in it should be better than those that are not. Depending on the water you don't need to go very deep to get into dim light conditions and in reality visibility is rarely more than 60ft, while sound travels further underwater it is also faster making it much more difficult to locate a sound so disadvantage on perception checks seems fair for those not used ot being underwater (for consistancy withmelee weapon attacks I would only impose disadvantage for creatures without a swim speed.
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).
Creatures and objects that are fully immersed in water have resistance to fire damage.