Just wondering. I was hoping to electrocute a pool we were pretty sure had an aboleth in it, so I was wondering if there were/anybody had created some rules.
I divide the damage by the number of 5 ft squares if in a puddle or the number of 5 ft cubes if a body of water. Quick and dirty but it seems to work out. Creature occupying more than one space take increased damage accordingly.
I've also heard of people dividing it by the number of "terminal" points (ie the number of things eligible to take damage in the water) but I don't like that quite as well.
You could even do something like, say, giving a lightning bolt a fireball's area, but with a start point adjacent to the casting character. For shocking grasp, though, maybe use burning hands as a base.
I seem to recall some 2E rules that worked a little like this, but I don't remember the specifics.
Make a spell specifically for this.
That would seem to defeat the point since there are lots of spells that generate electricity and everyone knows it conducts. Unless the laws of physics work very differently in Pathfinder.
Make a spell specifically for this.That would seem to defeat the point since there are lots of spells that generate electricity and everyone knows it conducts. Unless the laws of physics work very differently in Pathfinder.
The question you have to ask yourself in this case is, do you want real world physics to determine how your magic works. If you do, you're possibly opening up a can of worms with every other damage spell.
Do fire spells work underwater? You could make a case for steam doing damage.What about acid spells? How fast is it going to dilute to uselessness?
What about ice spells? Will your cone of cold become a wall of ice and float away?
In answer to the OP, what I've seen and used before is the lightning bolt taking on fireball area like someone else mentioned above.
The question you have to ask yourself in this case is, do you want real world physics to determine how your magic works. If you do, you're possibly opening up a can of worms with every other damage spell.
Do fire spells work underwater? You could make a case for steam doing damage.
What about acid spells? How fast is it going to dilute to uselessness?
What about ice spells? Will your cone of cold become a wall of ice and float away?In answer to the OP, what I've seen and used before is the lightning bolt taking on fireball area like someone else mentioned above.
From the Aquatic terrain section of gamemastering:
Nonmagical fire (including alchemist's fire) does not burn underwater. Spells or spell-like effects with the fire descriptor are ineffective underwater unless the caster makes a caster level check (DC 20 + spell level). If the check succeeds, the spell creates a bubble of steam instead of its usual fiery effect, but otherwise the spell works as described. A supernatural fire effect is ineffective underwater unless its description states otherwise. The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell. If the caster has made the caster level check to make the fire spell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell's line of effect.
So, the answer is the fire spells cause steam damage underwater when they work at all. The others seem not to be addressed and weren't likely thought of at the time.
However, to keep things on topic, I would agree with you and Abyssian and simply say give the lightning bolt an area damage.
That would seem to defeat the point since there are lots of spells that generate electricity and everyone knows it conducts. Unless the laws of physics work very differently in Pathfinder.
Well as far as I know in real life there are no spells that generate electricity, so there's one way that Pathfinder physics are very different from real life.
The problem with establishing some precedent such as "electricity magic is super-effective in water" is that you get people abusing that precedent proactively instead of just reactively.
Well as far as I know in real life there are no spells that generate electricity, so there's one way that Pathfinder physics are very different from real life.
The problem with establishing some precedent such as "electricity magic is super-effective in water" is that you get people abusing that precedent proactively instead of just reactively.
That's not even getting into the electromagnetic spectrum where light and sound could also be manifestations of electric magic nor into magnetism or how such spells deal with metal armor.
However, while the metaphysics of magic obviously don't obey physics in most ways, it's also obvious that the Paizo folks meant for it to follow some of the same rules otherwise magical fire would work normally with water. It's only reasonable to figure out how this might affect other energy spells too.
@Indagare if they didn't bother to spell out an exception I think you should assume it works as normal. cf 2nd edition D&D which did list a litany of ways that spells were altered when cast underwater. So it's not like the idea had no precedent or wouldn't have occurred to them.
edit: 2nd edition modifications to spells cast underwater - might provide useful basis if you want to houserule.
If it doesn't take into account whether you're grounded, wearing a lot of metal, etc etc it shouldn't take into account whether you're soaking wet / immersed in water, either.
Applying one bit of (possibly specious) real-world logic in isolation and extrapolating a lot of dodgy game mechanics out of it is not a good idea, IMO.
One of my prior groups (way back in 2nd ed, who'd have thought?) somehow got the idea into their heads that the "edge" of wall of force was a "monomolecular cutting edge" and used it for various shenanigans involving monsters getting sheared in half and so forth. This despite the fact that (a) there's no rules precedent whatsoever for any such thing and (b) a wall of force is, um, force, and therefore not composed of molecules, hence not mono-molecular. But once the GM had agreed to this extremely tortured logic, wall of force was the go-to combat spell in every situation, for the "monomolecular edge" advantage. /eyeroll
|
go like this?:
have the wizard aim the spell at a square on the surface of the water. use this square for the center of the burst. for each 5-feet away from the center of the burst, the spell inflicts one less die damage. the burst only affects things under water, creating a hemisphere of electricity. if the spell does not normally offer a Reflex save for half, it does now.
@Indagare if they didn't bother to spell out an exception I think you should assume it works as normal. cf 2nd edition D&D which did list a litany of ways that spells were altered when cast underwater. So it's not like the idea had no precedent or wouldn't have occurred to them.
edit: 2nd edition modifications to spells cast underwater - might provide useful basis if you want to houserule.
Hey! I remember when that was first printed in Dragon magazine. :D