Hi there, playing with STAP I've found that some of my players asked me about the effect that lightning bolts have on water.
Ok, DMG has its own rules with aquatic combat, but it doesn't say anything about this issue.
I mean, if water is electric conductor material, and the target/s of the spell are swimming or are diving...
They suggested me that if they fail their saving throws, then they'll take empowered damage, and if the'll save the checks, they take normal damage...
I know it's a house rule, but I'd like to know about your suggestions
Thanks in advance
nanmaniac
I would simply say that it changes the area from a line to a 20ft burst from the point of origin, similar to fireball. Increased damage doesn't make sense to me, they're getting hit with 1000s of watts of electrical energy in either case, water doesn't increase the energy, simply allows it to flow more freely and by doing so spread out more.
I would simply say that it changes the area from a line to a 20ft burst from the point of origin, similar to fireball. Increased damage doesn't make sense to me, they're getting hit with 1000s of watts of electrical energy in either case, water doesn't increase the energy, simply allows it to flow more freely and by doing so spread out more.
Thanks Rhavin. I like your idea, but What I wanted to show was that reflex save for dodging a lightning bolt is not the same on the water.
I like the idea of changing a lightning bolt in a lightning ball on water.Thanks
Nanmaniac
Lightning bolt doesn't follow conductivity, as the DC's for people wearing platemail are no different from those of people wearing no armor. The only spell i can think of that makes an exception is shocking grasp, which makes the touch attack easier if the target is wearing metal as the electrical charge leaps from the hand to the target more easily.
You could apply one of my other GM's rules to this, which is a situational negation of evasion. His logic was that if you were in a 20x20 pit and got firestormed, there is no place to avoid all of the damage. In those situations, both evasion and improved evasion were bypassed, and you simply got a save for half.
This would allow any terrain or situational effects to permit spells to be more likely to damage, without making the spells themselves more damaging.
Another option would be to look at the metabreath feats from Draconomicon. Clinging breath comes to mind, where the round after you fail a save vs the breath weapon you take half damage of it again. so a 15d8 breath becomes a 7d8 breath in the second round. if you did save to begin with, you simply take half damage in the first round and none in the second.
I would simply resolve the spell as normal. My intuition being that since the effects of a fireball will only expand 20' from where it is centered, unless hampered by something, then I would rule that a lightening bolt would resolve as normal since water does not actually hamper or prevent the spell from reaching its destination. Just as a fireball does not reshape itself to fill a non-circular room then I would think that the lightening bolt will not change its effect either. For example, if you cast a fireball into the center of a 40' x 10' room anyone on the ends of the room would be safe since the effects would only expand as far as 20' from the center of the spell. The spells don't follow the exact laws of physics and since water doesn't provide a physical barrier to the spell I would just resolve it as normal.
To clarify my rambling statement above: the effects of a spell are constant as defined by the spell description, not the physics. I generally rule that a spell resolves as described unless it is acted upon by other magic, modified when cast by a meta-magic feat, or other situation such as those. I figure spells follow the laws of magic over the laws of physics. Magic trumps physics. Just my take.
|
To add to Aaron's statements, a fireball works underwater. Why? Because it is magic not science. When you apply science to magic in a game of fantasy you are taking aspects of the game and making them unbalanced in the name of physics.
If you allowed Lightning to function as you mentioned, then what is to say that the PCs don't grab a Decanter of Water and spray all opponents down to make them conduct the energy of a lightning bolt shot into the puddle created and hitting everyone in the room. Logically that should work, but for game balance it sucks.
I had a DM who couldn't grasp the idea of Evasion working as it did. He made a houserule that made evasion suck. That in turn made rogues suck, and unbalanced a few things.
I say it's magic, enough explaination. It works like it does because it's magic. Not science. Not Physics. Magic.
FH
I am not sure how much this will add to the discussion but here goes. Water does not conduct electricity well. It is the contaminants in the water that do the conducting. That being said salt water is very contaminated. Electricity moves towards ground as quickly as possible which is why a lightening strike will hit the highest wave at sea. Being a conductor, due to contaminants, the sea water then diffuses the electricity rapidly. My take on this, if I were going to change the effect of a spell based on real world physics, is that the lightening bolt would lose some of it's range but spread out more as a cone. As it is I am happy to stick with Magic trumps real world physics and go with the spell as written.
To clarify my rambling statement above: the effects of a spell are constant as defined by the spell description, not the physics. I generally rule that a spell resolves as described unless it is acted upon by other magic, modified when cast by a meta-magic feat, or other situation such as those. I figure spells follow the laws of magic over the laws of physics. Magic trumps physics. Just my take.
I just want to add that I agree. Magic is not science, it is unnatural.
I would also like to say that the example above of a rogue in a 20x20 pit being firestormed doesn't seem right to me either. According to the rules, the only time a rogue can't use evasion is if they are helpless (ie: a dex of 0). So unless they can't move in the 20x20 pit, they should be able to do the extraordinary (which I guess is no less amazing than a someone being able to rain fire down on them from nothing).
Creative Director
|
In earlier editions of the game, there were large subsections of rules that described how spells work underwater. Lightning bolt, for example, acted more like a fireball underwater.
3rd edition dropped this element for 2 reasons: it made things a bit too complicated, and the underwater element of the game kind of got glossed over (as evidenced by the fact that the pressrue damage rules hidden in the back of the DMG get ignored and, as written, would indicate that no creature could survive deeper than 100 feet down).
|
3rd edition dropped this element for 2 reasons: it made things a bit too complicated, and the underwater element of the game kind of got glossed over (as evidenced by the fact that the pressrue damage rules hidden in the back of the DMG get ignored and, as written, would indicate that no creature could survive deeper than 100 feet down).
Yea I wondered about that. I often go scuba diving and have personally been much deeper than that. I frequently go as deep as 40 meters (about 132 feet if my math is correct)... By RAW I should be dead...
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Yea I wondered about that. I often go scuba diving and have personally been much deeper than that. I frequently go as deep as 40 meters (about 132 feet if my math is correct)... By RAW I should be dead...
Man, I start to get hellacious headaches when I swim to the bottom of the deep end at a public pool (12 feet). My skull would implode at those depths!
House rule to LB in water: DC for save is +2. FB in water: DC for save is -2. Add to those; without a ring of free action characters (in water) suffer a penalty to their save. I also have the house rule that saves in oatmeal are an automatic failure (a salty oatmeal golem is the encounter any balance breakers will face *grin*)
|
|
Yea I wondered about that. I often go scuba diving and have personally been much deeper than that. I frequently go as deep as 40 meters (about 132 feet if my math is correct)... By RAW I should be dead...Man, I start to get hellacious headaches when I swim to the bottom of the deep end at a public pool (12 feet). My skull would implode at those depths!
That headache is caused by the change in airpressure in your inner ear at increasing depths, divers have to equalize the pressure as they go deeper or risk various pressure injuries called barotrauma.
To equalize the pressure in the inner ear we use a technique known as the "valsalva maneuver", which involves pinching the nose and gently attempting to exhale through it. This has to be done several times as we descend or we could risk serious injury, like a burst eardrum...
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
That headache is caused by the change in airpressure in your inner ear at increasing depths, divers have to equalize the pressure as they go deeper or risk various pressure injuries called barotrauma.
To equalize the pressure in the inner ear we use a technique known as the "valsalva maneuver", which involves pinching the nose and gently attempting to exhale through it. This has to be done several times as we descend or we could risk serious injury, like a burst eardrum...
Huh. I was always told that doing that could flood your ear canal with water. I guess I shouldn't listen to my grandparents...
+1 Knowledge (SCUBA)!