Cover from water


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Environmental rules excerpt, underwater combat wrote:
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.

Recently hosted a game for my friends in which they fought a number of aquatic creatures in, on, or near water. In doing so, we all observed the sheer ridiculousness of the above rule. As was pointed out by several players, it makes no sense. How do spear fishers fish? How do you spear or even net something that has total cover relative to you? You can't, according to the rules.

This also applies to adventurers in combat. I had four pirates standing in a jolly boat armed with a spear, trident, harpoon, and net; all ready to skewer and capture the giant moray eel that was trying to tip their boat.

The table exploded when I told them that the creature had total cover relative to them. It just doesn't make any sense. Said rule makes almost any similar encounter a TPK waiting to happen, since they will never be able to hurt the monster unless it comes to them. In the meantime, it attacks the boat from absolute safety, knocking people into the water and placing them in a position where they can't effectively fight it.

In a similar encounter, I had a water naga attacking the PCs, who were all on a dock. They dared not get into the water with it. That would be suicide. In the meantime, the water naga enjoyed a +8 cover bonus to its AC as well as a +4 shield bonus due to its shield spell, making it so no one could hit it but on a natural 20. And those few crits they did get? Negated by mirror image. All the while the naga melts their faces with acid arrow and other harmful spells.

If this particular naga hadn't completely lost its mind, it would have killed them or driven them off easily.

Many Pathfinder modules involving aquatic encounters don't seem to adjust the CR or challenge to account for these things. Sure, a young giant moray eel or a young water naga might be an hittable by a group of 4th-level characters--until you add the total cover or improved cover. Then it's just not even fair.

I want to discuss the balance of the above rules as well as the sense, or lack there of, that they make.


Its ridiculous, and I noticed this myself.If someone is swimming chest deep in water he should be easier to hit if anything.


Yeah, that.. that is really silly. Total cover is ridiculous, and these cover bonuses should at least work both ways; attacking out of water should be as hard as attacking into it, no?

I'd be okay with cover if you're partially submerged, and improved cover if you're totally submerged under a few feet of water, only reaching total cover if you're way under.

I can imagine some weapons working better than others through water, too. There probably isn't enough energy in a flying arrow to penetrate that far into water - not with lethal force, anyway. But a spear? Seems like the ideal weapon for attacking into water. A wooden club? Not so much..

I know it's hard to achieve realism while keeping the rules simple, but this is just silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are certainly some edge cases (e.g. spear fishing) where the rules break down. But those rules are attempting to model firing an arrow or throwing a spear into water -- properly aiming at a target submerged more than a foot or two is extremely difficult. And even if your aim is true, after more than a foot or two, too much force is lost to moving through the water. This is why "Freedom of Movement" is essentially required.

Webstore Gninja Minion

Changed thread title to something less antagonistic.


I'd be happier with:
partially submerged = partial cover
submerged = cover
submerged with 5' of water intervening = improved cover


Murky water would add some concealment to that, of course.


Environmental rules excerpt, underwater combat wrote:
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.

WTF!? This is ridiculous! *sigh*... whoever approved of this rule should be hung by their toes and beaten with a wet squirrel. This is a terrible mechanic, and I'm surprised that it has eluded my radar until now.

Imagine if you were on land, choosing to either shoot someone on the surface of water 20 feet from you, someone hiding behind a statue 20 feet from you, or someone behind a wall with a small arrow slit 20 feet from you. Who do you think would be easier to hit? By this geniusly written rule, THE GUY ON THE SURFACE AND THE GUY BEHIND THE TINY ARROW SLIT are equally as hard to hit. It's stupid. It's really stupid.

First of all, water should not even provide cover mechanically; it should provide CONCEALMENT. Cover should be a solid surface (trees, statues, walls, etc), whereas concealment should be anything that obscures clear vision. If you're simply on the surface of water relative to others on land, you do NOT have a solid barrier that provides ANY kind of cover; therefore, you should have CONCEALMENT. Being submerged under water should be TOTAL CONCEALMENT, not total cover.

When I read this rule... it hurt my soul. It hurt it bad. I think a part of me died a little. I face-palmed in real life.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Liz Courts wrote:
Changed thread title to something less antagonistic.

That's probably best. Thanks.


I'd (houserule) say the rules doesn't affect Piercing weapons (they only get cover from them), but does affect slashing or Blunt stil.
So gun Bullets (sling too ) are affected since they are 1/2 blunt. Granted, this boosts arrows and crossbow bolts.


Sinatar wrote:
First of all, water should not even provide cover mechanically; it should provide CONCEALMENT. Cover should be a solid surface (trees, statues, walls, etc), whereas concealment should be anything that obscures clear vision. If you're simply on the surface of water relative to others on land, you do NOT have a solid barrier that provides ANY kind of cover; therefore, you should have CONCEALMENT. Being submerged under water should be TOTAL CONCEALMENT, not total cover.

If you fire an arrow into water from 20', after about a foot it will be moving very slowly. Here's the reason in relatively plain English: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080611121239AAAEAkB.


Water also effects the perception of the attacker, even those targets that are partially submerged. What you are aiming at that is under water, could actually be several feet from where it appears because of the way Water refracts light.

Additionally even bullets slow WAY DOWN when firing at something in water. If you have ever seen the Mythbusters show on this (Firing bullets at targets in water, even 6" of water was enough to slow some bullets down to less that lethal and throw off it trajectory.

Liberty's Edge

This rule's been around since 3.0/3.5. I once played an aventi druid who took advantage of it whenever possible. I've never had a problem with it, but I'd also have no problem adopting a rule that says completely submerged creatures take the same penalty against landbound opponents.

You'd think Called Shots could help (targeting a partially submerged creature's exposed head for instance,) but those rules, as written, make it virtually impossible to strike a creature in the water (x2 Cover AC bonus, +50% miss chance, -5 to hit for a head.)

Hostile Levitation sounds perfect for dealing with waterborne creatures until you actually read the spell effect and see it only levitates creatures a few inches off the ground. I guess that means it either doesn't work on creatures swimming in deep water or it doesn't make enough of a difference to help. Guess you could always try Telekinesis if you've got the levels for it.


Velcro Zipper wrote:
Hostile Levitation sounds perfect for dealing with waterborne creatures until you actually read the spell effect and see it only levitates creatures a few inches off the ground. I guess that means it either doesn't work on creatures swimming in deep water or it doesn't make enough of a difference to help. Guess you could always try Telekinesis if you've got the levels for it.

Except that you can't target anyone who has total cover from you. According to these rules, any aquatic enemy with a reach weapon can murder you, and you can watch them do it, but you can't target them.

That's why I'm going with this for my current Skull & Shackles campaign:

  • Partially submerged = partial cover (+2 AC, +1 reflex)
  • Submerged = cover (+4 AC, +2 reflex, no attacks of opportunity)
  • Submerged with 5' of water intervening = improved cover (+8 AC, +4 reflex, no attacks of opportunity)
  • Murky or choppy water = concealment (20% miss chance)


Hmmm, I think the problem here is that there is a huge difference between attacking a partially submerged creature (say chest deep), a creature just under the surface of the water, and a creature more then 5 feet from the surface.

In the case of partially submerged, I would say cover +4 or improved cover +8 is actually appropriate.

I creature just under the surface is going to be far more difficult to attack, because it is NOT where you are seeing it. In this case, I would apply the improved cover and probably a 50% miss chance. I would also rule that anything other then piercing is going to do half damage, or no damage.

Finally, a creature submerged more then 5 feet is going to be impossible to attack.

I would add a feat that allows someone to bump the opponent to a higher submersion category (from just under the surface, to partially submerged).

You could also allow some weapons (fishing spears, harpoons, etc.) to ignore some cover or concealment or something.

Liberty's Edge

Blueluck wrote:
Except that you can't target anyone who has total cover from you.

There's that too. I was assuming the creature casting Hostile Levitation would need Freedom of Movement or some ability or spell allowing them to ignore the cover, but it doesn't really matter since the spell is useless against waterborne foes.

Your fix is good, but I'd think murky or choppy water would give better than a 20% miss chance. Relatively clear water seems more like a 20% to me what with the optical distortion and all. Water you can hardly see through to start with seems like 50%. Good luck with the ruling either way.


Fergie & Velcro Zipper, I see your points, and agree to an extent. I was trying to stick with existing game mechanics (partial cover, cover, improved cover, concealment), without making anyone unable to be targeted. Total concealment (50% miss chance) is for targets you can't see at all, and only know what square they may occupy.

The scenario I'm picturing is a fight between an aquatic enemy and one on land. An aquatic enemy who is close enough to the surface that they're reaching out of the water and attacking shouldn't also be able to stay under enough water to prevent all attacks.

The rules for Acquatic Terrain also impede ranged attacks. So, shooting a bow at someone 10' under water would give the defender +8 AC and the attacker -2 attack. That's kinda like saying something is impossible, except for incredible luck, legendary skill, or magic.

"Ranged Attacks Underwater: Thrown weapons are ineffective underwater, even when launched from land. Attacks with other ranged weapons take a –2 penalty on attack rolls for every 5 feet of water they pass through, in addition to the normal penalties for range."


Wishing my search fu was better. There's an episode of Myth Busters involving firing bullets at someone under the surface. Water is much more like a solid object than one would think when it comes to being penetrated (at least by mundane bullets). Fergie has the right idea here ... 5 feet of water and you likely are not capable of inflicting any damage realistically. But then this is not the real world, it is high fantasy.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The water of the river didn't save Esiador from arrows.


Blueluck wrote:
Velcro Zipper wrote:
Hostile Levitation sounds perfect for dealing with waterborne creatures until you actually read the spell effect and see it only levitates creatures a few inches off the ground. I guess that means it either doesn't work on creatures swimming in deep water or it doesn't make enough of a difference to help. Guess you could always try Telekinesis if you've got the levels for it.

Except that you can't target anyone who has total cover from you. According to these rules, any aquatic enemy with a reach weapon can murder you, and you can watch them do it, but you can't target them.

That's why I'm going with this for my current Skull & Shackles campaign:

  • Partially submerged = partial cover (+2 AC, +1 reflex)
  • Submerged = cover (+4 AC, +2 reflex, no attacks of opportunity)
  • Submerged with 5' of water intervening = improved cover (+8 AC, +4 reflex, no attacks of opportunity)
  • Murky or choppy water = concealment (20% miss chance)

You can still targer the square that you think they are in, which should not be too difficult. It is pretty much how spear fishing works anyhow I would assume. I also would imagine spear fishing is not that easy. I doubt even the best spear fishers hit all of the time.

Also I thought Spear Fisherman were typically standing in the river, which you could argue is not an attack from land and therefore not subject to this rule.


Ravingdork wrote:
The water of the river didn't save Esiador from arrows.

No idea who Esiador is, or how many archers were firing at them. What are you looking to get out of these rules? If you watch the Myth Buster's episode mentioned above, I think you'll quickly realize that injuring anyone with a mundane arrow that is underwater is pretty much impossible. And obviously striking someone that is even partially submerged in water is presenting a much smaller target (full cover).

It certainly makes sense, given the nature of D&D, that a feat would be available to negate such cover, as a poster above suggested. This would allow the heroes to do heroic things like reliably hurt them with ranged weapons while they are in water.

The rules do breakdown a bit when discussing the use of a reach weapon against a target that is treading water that is also attempting to attack back. That's about the only time I think the existing rules breakdown.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Adam Ormond wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
The water of the river didn't save Esiador from arrows.
No idea who Esiador is...

He's the guy who lost the One Ring in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. You know, the one who owned it prior to Gollum.

Dark Archive

Ravingdork wrote:
Adam Ormond wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
The water of the river didn't save Esiador from arrows.
No idea who Esiador is...
He's the guy who lost the One Ring in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. You know, the one who owned it prior to Gollum.

don't know your past, don't know your future....

hey, you kids, get off my lawn!!!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

He's talking about Isildur.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I always heard it as Eee-See-Uh-Dor.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Cover from water All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.