Post/Author/DateTime	Post
awroe 06-25-07, 05:38 PM	If you cast a spell above water, can it take effect underwater as well? E.g. I cast glitterdust just above the surface - does the spell also affect creatures under the water too? Slightly different question - can I target the centre of the spell underwater if I am above the water?
Some_call_me_Tim 06-25-07, 05:56 PM	If you cast a spell above water, can it take effect underwater as well?Generally, yes. The exception is fire effects. "Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects." "The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell." E.g. I cast glitterdust just above the surface - does the spell also affect creatures under the water too?Glitterdust does not require an attack roll nor is it a fire effect, so it behaves normally. Slightly different question - can I target the centre of the spell underwater if I am above the water?Generally, yes. In the case of glitterdust, definitely.
Timlagor 06-25-07, 07:24 PM	NO The surface of water explicitly blocks LoE.
Some_call_me_Tim 06-25-07, 07:52 PM	NO The surface of water explicitly blocks LoE.Citation please. The DMG section on underwater combat (p. 93) is where the above quotes were taken: "Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects." "The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell." [emphasis added] Unless there is a contradiction elsewhere in the rules, the above quotes seem very explicit.
Timlagor 06-25-07, 10:49 PM	Ho hum... i knew it was a mistake not to find the citation. I'll have another look but it does look like I may have been wrong.
Howie23 06-26-07, 02:28 AM	Citation please. .. Unless there is a contradiction elsewhere in the rules, the above quotes seem very explicit. Here are the elements of the issue. 1) The surface of water provides total cover. (DMG 93) 2) If you don't have line of effect to your target, it has total cover. (PHB 152). 3) Line of effect is blocked by solid barriers. (PHB 176) If 2 is reversible (if your target has total cover, then you don't have line of effect), then the total cover provided by water surface blocks line of effect. If that is the case, then the fire spell stuff on DMG 93 seem redundant regarding LoE. And, it doesn't help that LoE references solid barriers, which the surface of water is not. David
_metz_ 06-26-07, 03:47 AM	Just quietly (slightly off topic) Aquatic casting from Lords of Madness solves this problems. (I built a wizard cohort for my pirate, who had access to this feat, so it was a no brainer). If you are building something like a Sea Witch, or water based caster, you really want that feat.
bitznarf 06-26-07, 10:10 AM	You missed the part about some spells not being affected by the water/air boundary Howie. The rules quite specifically call out the difference, ie that spells that are not [Fire] spells and don't require an attack roll are not affected the the water in any fashion. The parts you are talking about don't contradict what Tim said at all.
solbergb 06-26-07, 12:09 PM	Here are the elements of the issue. 1) The surface of water provides total cover. (DMG 93) 2David careful. It does not provide total cover to everything. "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." Melee attacks with freedom of movement, and all nonfire magical attacks which do not require attack rolls are not affected by the air/water barrier. You have to read the entire rule, in context.
Vamroc 06-26-07, 12:17 PM	Citation please. The DMG section on underwater combat (p. 93) is where the above quotes were taken: "Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects." "The surface of a body of water blocks line of effect for any fire spell." [emphasis added] Unless there is a contradiction elsewhere in the rules, the above quotes seem very explicit. According to this Lightning Bolt, Magic Missile, and other such spells can be cast in to a body of water and continue to function normally. The intent is Fire Spells don't work underwater because the water extinguishes the flame. You must break surface tension in order to effect things under water. Magic doesn't have that property thus you must be underwater when spells are cast. An underwater enemy also is considered to have total concealment when his opponent is on dry land. There is a fifty percent miss chance if his head is above water. So unless the magical effect can break surface tension you can't target people underwater. Either learn to breath water or cast a spell that evaporates water.
solbergb 06-26-07, 12:21 PM	An underwater enemy also is considered to have total concealment when his opponent is on dry land. No...he has total cover. Which is not the same thing. Unless the water is "murky" the people on land can see you just fine....and target you with targeted nonfire spells. Even "murky" water has pretty good visibility on a tactical scale: "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." indeed "It's hard to find cover or concealment to hide underwater (except along the seafloor). "
bitznarf 06-26-07, 12:42 PM	According to this Lightning Bolt, Magic Missile, and other such spells can be cast in to a body of water and continue to function normally. Yes, they do. So unless the magical effect can break surface tension you can't target people underwater. Um, where do the rules mention 'surface tension'? Oh, and the stuff solbergb said.
Howie23 06-26-07, 02:11 PM	careful. It does not provide total cover to everything. "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." Melee attacks with freedom of movement, and all nonfire magical attacks which do not require attack rolls are not affected by the air/water barrier. You have to read the entire rule, in context. Points taken, and thanks to Dale also. The elements that I outlined are the ones that I think cause the confusion (and I'll readily admit that this is an area that I have trouble getting my hands around). So, a spellcaster attempting to target a creature on the other side of the water surface is faced with total cover if either the spell is a fire spell, or if it is spell that requires an attack roll, but not one that is either an area effect, nor a targetted spell that does not require an attack roll? David
bitznarf 06-26-07, 03:41 PM	So, a spellcaster attempting to target a creature on the other side of the water surface is faced with total cover if either the spell is a fire spell, or if it is spell that requires an attack roll, but not one that is either an area effect, nor a targetted spell that does not require an attack roll? David Exactly.
awroe 06-26-07, 04:02 PM	My instinctive answer was yes / no i.e. Spell effects travel through the land/water barrier (except for fire spells), but the barrier prevents choosing a point of origin the other side of it. In the situation where it came up it didn't matter, as I was casting Solid Fog which says in the spell it doesn't work underwater (well, in the Fog Cloud blurb it inherits from)
solbergb 06-27-07, 12:29 PM	Yeah...most or all fog spells don't work underwater, because the core spell fog cloud doesn't. I expect most wind spells work poorly, if at all. On the surface of water though, they make waves and stuff.