|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reference: Underwater Combat
Coming to a part in our game that requires some underwater fighting, I read up on the rules once more to do it. I had never thought about some of these questions before (especially #1), and now more are coming up the more I think about them. Help me, Rules forum!
1: Do all creatures using bludgeoning or slashing attacks take the -2 attack/half damage penalty, including native aquatic creatures? This always seemed to be obvious to me, of course aquatic creatures do their normal damage, they're only ever really fighting underwater. However, now that I read the rules again, it actually calls out the same penalty even with a swim speed. I don't know what to think anymore!
In defense of aquatic creatures getting their full attack/damage, the very first sentence of "Underwater Combat" references "Land-based creatures". It seems intentional that this chart is only for non-aquatic creatures, but... still unsure.
2: If the attack allows for the piercing type, but still includes the others, do you take the most favorable or least? Is it the player's choice? If the player has a bite attack, would that suffer no penalty?
Leaning towards yes with this one.
3: How are combat maneuvers handled? Do they have types? If a creature makes a grapple attempt, is it bludgeoning and suffers the -2 penalty? If it doesn't, what if the grapple is part of a bludgeoning attack with grab? That attack would take the -2, would the ensuing grapple take -2 as well? How about other maneuvers?
4: Would constrict damage be penalized? Would it depend on whether the grapple attempt was? Currently I'm thinking constrict shouldn't, by the time you've started this path the water likely doesn't matter anymore... but I digress.
More questions as they pop up. Biggest one is the aquatic creature one, and I have yet to find an answer for it.
I'd agree that water based creatures shouldn't take the penalty. It's not clear from the RAW, but it doesn't seem right to penalise a creature in its own environment. The penalty makes perfect sense as a rule to show how a fighter would struggle to be as effective as usual with a war hammer, and that's how it should be implemented.
I'd also agree that attacks with multiple damage types that include piercing don't take the penalty. I guess it is similar to how damage reduction works. If your weapon can injure something in a certain way, that's how you'd choose to use it in that specific situation.
1: I believe that (although it isn't states) the rules for using weapons underwater only apply to manufactured weapons. So, a sahuagin using its claw attacks gets full damage from them, but if he's using a longsword, it is subject the underwater combat rules.
2: For me, it would depend on how it is worded. A dagger is Piercing OR Slashing...wielder chooses how he is using it. A morningstar is Piercing AND Bludgeoning...it suffers the penalties for bludgeoning weapons underwater.
3: For some of this (disarm, sunder etc.), it would depend on what type of weapon is being used. Attacking someone's weapon with your weapon should receive the appropriate penalties. Bull rush, overrun, and all the others, I would probably rule that there are no penalties (aside from some of the obvious ones, like reduced movement for non-swim-speed creatures, etc.) However, there is a footnote to the table which states grappling creatures without freedom of movement or a swim speed take a -2 to their grapple checks.
4: Constrict damage should not be penalized. The same footnote mentioned above also states that creatures deal damage normally when grappling. As constrict is a function of grapple, I'd say this qualifies.
===
Taffer
Well, looking at #2, I would lean towards the idea that it would be unpenalized if it does piercing damage, even if it does other damage types at the same time. I mean, there simply must be a reason why bite includes all three damage types, no?
I'm going with this idea under the assumption that bite has all three because a lot of the creatures with bits (wolves, snakes, sharks) would simply not have any other way of dealing effective damage if they came against any specific DR or...well rules like these.
I mean, are you honestly going to tell me that sharks and piranhas can't effectively damage you in their own environment?
I will acknowledge that things like claws or slams would be ineffective though, even if they in the case of #1, where they are used by aquatic creatures. But hey, when I think of some deep sea monstrosity, I tend to go with teeth. Admittedly, this approach would put tentacles in a bind...but they hardly seemed like they would be used for damage anyway, but rather to grapple so a octopus/squid's hard beak (again with the bite) could finish the job.
|
|
Thanks for the responses! After some consideration, I think this is how I would go with it working:
1: I partially agree with Taffer's post. Manufactured weapons should probably stick to the penalties for underwater combat, if they apply. However, I wouldn't say that they should *only* apply to manufactured weapons. I'd say they applied to land-based (non-aquatic creature) natural attacks as well. For example, a leopard's bite attack wouldn't be as effective as a shark's.
2: Agree with Taffer. Keeping with the above rules, if the weapon is anything except just piercing, then its penalized.
3: Agree with Taffer 100% here.
4: Same as #3.
Thanks again for all the help!