aquatic monsters in combat [Archive] - Wizards Community

aquatic monsters in combat [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ChefOrc
11-01-05, 05:14 PM Do monsters suffer the penalties for underwater combat (i.e. -2 to attack rolls and half damage for slashing or bludgeoning weapons)? In particular, do aquatic monsters such as the giant octopus or the black dragon suffer these penalties?

If so (and I think the penalties do apply), it is strange that this is not written in the cretaure description in the MM and that the stats don't reflect that ...
ChefOrc
11-01-05, 06:54 PM Another related question.

To apply the penalty to attack and damage for combat in water, the weapons have to be bludgeoning or slashing. How do you know whether to apply the penalty if the weapons have more than one type? For example, a bite is slashing , bludgeoning and piercing according to the MM (p.312).

Does the penalty apply because the weapon is slashing and bludgeoning, or does the penalty not apply because the weapon is piercing?
ChefOrc
11-02-05, 05:59 PM here are a few more questions on the topic:

1) Concerning the chapter on underwater fights in the DMG, I cannot understand whether the intent is to have separate rules for fights where both opponents are in the water (attack and damage penalties) vs fights were a creature out of the water is attacking a creature in the water (cover bonus). It seems to me that there is no reason to separate them (any other opinion on this?). Howerver, if you stack these 2 types of modifiers, it becomes way way too hard to hit a creature underwater from outside. If you separate them, well, there does not seem to be a good explanation for why they should not apply at the same time.

2) The improved cover given to creatures in the water against creatures outside the water makes no sense to me at all. Try to imagine an aquatic creature (in the water) fighting a PC (on a dock). The creature is 5' away from the PC. Why does the cretaure get improved cover? It must be partly out of the water to attack, thus providing a target and negating part of the cover... An even worst example is for a human standing in chest-deep water fighting a PC on a dock. It is so easy to hit someone that's in the water in a case like this because they don't have mobility. Again I don't understand the improved cover. Why not use only the penalties listed in table 3.22, are they not negative enough? And if the creature is far from the surface and attacked with a ranged weapon from outside of the water, it seems to me that only applying the -2 penalty per 5' is enough ...

If nobody is able to convince me that there is a good reason for the cover rule, I am tempted to completely ignore the cover bonus, and simply apply the penalties listed in table 3.22 to all situations that involve a strike at a creature in the water, whether the attacker is in the water or not. Maybe even increase the penalty to attacks to -4, to compensate for the removal of the cover bonus. Does that make sense?

3) It seems to me that non-aquatic creatures in the water should loose their dex bonus to AC at all times. Anyone that has spent some time in a pool knows how difficult it is to react quickly in the water. I am also tempted to use that house rule. Any comments?
Rake
11-03-05, 04:24 AM The very first line of the 'underwater combat' section of the DMG (pg. 93) says:

"Land-based creatures can have considerable difficulty when fighting in water."

The penalties on table 3-22 apply only to 'land-based' creatures.

The weapon issue is simple. The PHB (pg. 114) states that if a weapon deals two types of damage (such as the morningstar), it does not deal half of one and half of the other... all the damage dealt is damage of both types. So you are dealing bludgeoning damage when you use a morningstar, and thus the penalties apply. Note that nowhere does it say 'piercing weapons function better underwater', it instead penalizes bludgeoning and slashing weapons. In other words: the fact that a weapon deals piercing damage does not help it to function underwater, but the fact that it deals bludgeoning damage does damn it to function poorly underwater.

As for losing your Dex bonus to AC while submerged, you do... unless you make a Swim check. See the "Off Balance" column of the table (and the corresponding footnote). So unless you are a practiced swimmer, you will be flat-footed while fighting underwater.

Regarding your problems with chest-deep water and cover, well... I think your issue is more with the concept of cover in general, and not with underwater combat. Fighting chest-deep in water means that about 2/3 of your body is hidden. If you don't think that merits cover, then the same should be true when fighting from behind an overturned table or a low wall. Houserule it if you must, but remember just how much of that black dragon is hidden from you when it's chest-deep in water. That ought to count for something. Actually, it ought to count for a lot.
ChefOrc
11-03-05, 08:21 AM The very first line of the 'underwater combat' section of the DMG (pg. 93) says: "Land-based creatures can have considerable difficulty when fighting in water." The penalties on table 3-22 apply only to 'land-based' creatures.
Agreed, but then table 3.22 has a row specifically for creatures with a swim speed. There are probably exceptions, but creatures with a swim speed are not land-based creatures, so this table seems to indicate that the penalties apply to all creatures, whether they are land based or not. This contradiction is the source of my question.

Fighting chest-deep in water means that about 2/3 of your body is hidden. If you don't think that merits cover ...
There lies my problem with it. Cover occurs when there is a physical obstacle that prevent you from hitting the target. In the case of a man in chest-deep water, there is no physical obstacle that prevent you from hitting him. Yes, the water will absorb some of the kinetic energy of your strikes, but I would think this is represented by the penalties from table 3.22, which are quite negative by themselves. There is no need for improved cover in addition to that. To me, dark or muddy water could maybe provide concealment, not cover.

So are you telling me that, in my example with a man on a dock melee fighting a man in chest deep water adjacent to him, this makes sense:
The man on the dock would receive a -2 penalty to attack (with a bludgeoning weapon) and 1/2 damage, and in addition to that, the man in the water would receive +8 AC. At the same time, the man in the water would receive no penalty whatsoever to attack the man on the dock.
If this is correct, these rules make no sense at all.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ChefOrc 11-01-05, 05:14 PM	Do monsters suffer the penalties for underwater combat (i.e. -2 to attack rolls and half damage for slashing or bludgeoning weapons)? In particular, do aquatic monsters such as the giant octopus or the black dragon suffer these penalties? If so (and I think the penalties do apply), it is strange that this is not written in the cretaure description in the MM and that the stats don't reflect that ...
ChefOrc 11-01-05, 06:54 PM	Another related question. To apply the penalty to attack and damage for combat in water, the weapons have to be bludgeoning or slashing. How do you know whether to apply the penalty if the weapons have more than one type? For example, a bite is slashing , bludgeoning and piercing according to the MM (p.312). Does the penalty apply because the weapon is slashing and bludgeoning, or does the penalty not apply because the weapon is piercing?
ChefOrc 11-02-05, 05:59 PM	here are a few more questions on the topic: 1) Concerning the chapter on underwater fights in the DMG, I cannot understand whether the intent is to have separate rules for fights where both opponents are in the water (attack and damage penalties) vs fights were a creature out of the water is attacking a creature in the water (cover bonus). It seems to me that there is no reason to separate them (any other opinion on this?). Howerver, if you stack these 2 types of modifiers, it becomes way way too hard to hit a creature underwater from outside. If you separate them, well, there does not seem to be a good explanation for why they should not apply at the same time. 2) The improved cover given to creatures in the water against creatures outside the water makes no sense to me at all. Try to imagine an aquatic creature (in the water) fighting a PC (on a dock). The creature is 5' away from the PC. Why does the cretaure get improved cover? It must be partly out of the water to attack, thus providing a target and negating part of the cover... An even worst example is for a human standing in chest-deep water fighting a PC on a dock. It is so easy to hit someone that's in the water in a case like this because they don't have mobility. Again I don't understand the improved cover. Why not use only the penalties listed in table 3.22, are they not negative enough? And if the creature is far from the surface and attacked with a ranged weapon from outside of the water, it seems to me that only applying the -2 penalty per 5' is enough ... If nobody is able to convince me that there is a good reason for the cover rule, I am tempted to completely ignore the cover bonus, and simply apply the penalties listed in table 3.22 to all situations that involve a strike at a creature in the water, whether the attacker is in the water or not. Maybe even increase the penalty to attacks to -4, to compensate for the removal of the cover bonus. Does that make sense? 3) It seems to me that non-aquatic creatures in the water should loose their dex bonus to AC at all times. Anyone that has spent some time in a pool knows how difficult it is to react quickly in the water. I am also tempted to use that house rule. Any comments?
Rake 11-03-05, 04:24 AM	The very first line of the 'underwater combat' section of the DMG (pg. 93) says: "Land-based creatures can have considerable difficulty when fighting in water." The penalties on table 3-22 apply only to 'land-based' creatures. The weapon issue is simple. The PHB (pg. 114) states that if a weapon deals two types of damage (such as the morningstar), it does not deal half of one and half of the other... all the damage dealt is damage of both types. So you are dealing bludgeoning damage when you use a morningstar, and thus the penalties apply. Note that nowhere does it say 'piercing weapons function better underwater', it instead penalizes bludgeoning and slashing weapons. In other words: the fact that a weapon deals piercing damage does not help it to function underwater, but the fact that it deals bludgeoning damage does damn it to function poorly underwater. As for losing your Dex bonus to AC while submerged, you do... unless you make a Swim check. See the "Off Balance" column of the table (and the corresponding footnote). So unless you are a practiced swimmer, you will be flat-footed while fighting underwater. Regarding your problems with chest-deep water and cover, well... I think your issue is more with the concept of cover in general, and not with underwater combat. Fighting chest-deep in water means that about 2/3 of your body is hidden. If you don't think that merits cover, then the same should be true when fighting from behind an overturned table or a low wall. Houserule it if you must, but remember just how much of that black dragon is hidden from you when it's chest-deep in water. That ought to count for something. Actually, it ought to count for a lot.
ChefOrc 11-03-05, 08:21 AM	The very first line of the 'underwater combat' section of the DMG (pg. 93) says: "Land-based creatures can have considerable difficulty when fighting in water." The penalties on table 3-22 apply only to 'land-based' creatures. Agreed, but then table 3.22 has a row specifically for creatures with a swim speed. There are probably exceptions, but creatures with a swim speed are not land-based creatures, so this table seems to indicate that the penalties apply to all creatures, whether they are land based or not. This contradiction is the source of my question. Fighting chest-deep in water means that about 2/3 of your body is hidden. If you don't think that merits cover ... There lies my problem with it. Cover occurs when there is a physical obstacle that prevent you from hitting the target. In the case of a man in chest-deep water, there is no physical obstacle that prevent you from hitting him. Yes, the water will absorb some of the kinetic energy of your strikes, but I would think this is represented by the penalties from table 3.22, which are quite negative by themselves. There is no need for improved cover in addition to that. To me, dark or muddy water could maybe provide concealment, not cover. So are you telling me that, in my example with a man on a dock melee fighting a man in chest deep water adjacent to him, this makes sense: The man on the dock would receive a -2 penalty to attack (with a bludgeoning weapon) and 1/2 damage, and in addition to that, the man in the water would receive +8 AC. At the same time, the man in the water would receive no penalty whatsoever to attack the man on the dock. If this is correct, these rules make no sense at all.