| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This came up tonight:
Bard was sitting in a boat on the surface of the ocean. Party druid and fighter, both with Water Breathing, were fighting a kelpie 60 feet underwater. The bard, passing his perception check to see the combat, decided to cast Glitterdust and target it so that the kelpie was in it while the druid and fighter were not. I said that there'd be a "miss chance" on the targeting of the spell because of refraction, and the fact he was trying to aim at something 60 feet below the surface of the water. I mean, that's some depth. Player tried to make an argument that since there was no attack roll and he could see the kelpie, he should be able to hit it with whatever he wanted.
How do you handle a situation like this? Was I being unfair?
I'm not usually in favor of house-rules that give spells extra miss chances for targeting, but "because of refraction" seems like an excellent reason. To target something with a spell, you need to know where it is, and unlike the usual "well how can you see whether it's sixty feet or seventy feet away clearly your fireball misses" nonsense, refraction would legitimately screw up your knowledge of the target's location (unless you're a merfolk or otherwise used to hitting things underwater).
Actually Martyn, anyone below 10ft of water has total concealment for purposes of ranged attack from above water, so even being allowed to cast with a miss chance is not RAW from my understanding. Therefore you're being generous to begin with!
Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land. Land-bound opponents who have freedom of movement effects ignore this cover when making melee attacks against targets in the water. A completely submerged creature has total cover against opponents on land unless those opponents have freedom of movement effects. Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects.
Everyone's wrong. The water line has zero effect on spells unless it requires an attack roll, is a fire spell, or is specifically called out in the spell.
Ravingdork saves the day, I eat my words and everyone is happy again.
Everyone's wrong. The water line has zero effect on spells unless it requires an attack roll, is a fire spell, or is specifically called out in the spell.
Yeah, but we're talking about 60 feet of water. And not calm water either. Have you guys ever dropped something into the deep end of a swimming pool? We're talking five or six times that distance.
I found this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2TZoIv6ly4
The guy filming looks like he stays at just below water level, while the diver submerges to 60 feet (according to the video title) and then returns. The diver completely disappears from view. I'm going to assume that the underwater combat rules refer to cases where the creature on land can visibly see the creature submerged, and while there are no rules for visibility underwater, surely there are cases when you can see an opponent who is within range of your spell, but you can't accurately target them. Like an opponent in a mirror maze. The light bends upon exiting the water, so you're literally targeting an area the creature isn't. This might not make a difference if the two areas are in the same 5-foot square, which would be the case in most instances with submerged creatures less than 10 feet underwater, but is not the case when the distance is much, much greater.
Can you target areas you are only viewing through the reflection of a mirror?
...and while there are no rules for visibility underwater, surely there are cases when you can see an opponent who is within range of your spell, but you can't accurately target them. Like an opponent in a mirror maze. The light bends upon exiting the water, so you're literally targeting an area the creature isn't. This might not make a difference if the two areas are in the same 5-foot square, which would be the case in most instances with submerged creatures less than 10 feet underwater, but is not the case when the distance is much, much greater.
Can you target areas you are only viewing through the reflection of a mirror?
I'm afraid that's wrong too. :D
There ARE indeed rules for underwater visibility.
Stealth and Detection Underwater: How far you can see underwater depends on the water's clarity. As a guideline, creatures can see 4d8 × 10 feet if the water is clear, and 1d8 × 10 feet if it's murky. Moving water is always murky, unless it's in a particularly large, slow-moving river.
It's hard to find cover or concealment to hide underwater (except along the sea floor).
Invisibility: An invisible creature displaces water and leaves a visible, body-shaped “bubble” where the water was displaced. The creature still has concealment (20% miss chance), but not total concealment (50% miss chance).
Long story short, you don't want to mix physics with magic. That's like following the white rabbit. It only leads to WEIRD.
In any case, Wizards and Witches can probably fight with mirrors because their high intelligence allows them to better calculate the angles and trajerctories. Bards, sorcerers, and oracles can do it through sheer talent, luck, and magical power. Clerics, druids, and similar casters can do it through deific guidance and faith.
Actually, they might not be able to do it - based on the Environment quote Ravingdork just provided, there's only a 50% chance of seeing something 60 feet below the surface of turbulent water. Admittedly, that's purely because of water blocking light and not at all because of refraction, but it's still quite significant.
Again, those are rules for seeing something, not for targeting it. And I'm not sure if those rules for detection underwater refer to seeing creatures at a certain depth from the surface, or if they instead refer to one creature seeing another while both are underwater at roughly the same depth.
Needless to say, I also don't know if Glitterdust would work underwater, regardless if the rules state that it doesn't. It conjures a cloud of dust. Everyone at the table unanimously agreed that a small area underwater briefly looked like Goldschlager. Not going to pretend to know what would honestly happen in such a situation, so I just went with the spell as written, though I'm not entirely sure how the mechanics of Glitterdust is supposed to work in the first place. Does the dust get in your eyes? Are you blinded by the radiance? Why does a single save remove the effect if the cloud and radiance is still there? Do the particles themselves give off blinding light?
I know I'm reading too much into it, but reading too much into it is why I play Pathfinder and not 4th edition. The rules are there to make sense, and if the rules don't make sense, I'm pretty sure we're encouraged to break them, as often happens by anyone who writes an adventure path module.