Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ye' Cind 09-30-06, 06:07 PM	Ok, this may sound a bit silly, but I just thought I would bring this up, since it deals with - as far as I can tell - a house rule. Our maniacal DM has ruled that noone can totally evade the effects of any lightning spell cast underwater (even with the evade ability which allows the character to totally avoid damage from area attacks on a successful save). He said that the "conductivity" of the medium (water) will ensure that some damage is taken. He says a successful evade ( when reflex save is made) will take a quarter damage from the lightning bolt, rather than zero damage. This did not please our party's rogue one bit. Is that a cool house rule or what? :) I mean, seriously, has this ever been brought up? Also, wouldn't the caster of the lightning bolt fry himself in this case? Appreciate your feedback, because this caused a big argument with our DM.
Salla 09-30-06, 06:09 PM	That is definitely a house rule. I, personally don't find it 'cool', but such things are subjective. :) By RAW, the bolt will operate below water precisely as it does above water.
Raven Dark 09-30-06, 06:15 PM	Some of the DMs that I have played under have had similar house rules. Unfortunately, one of them didn't tell me about the house rule until I TPK'd the entire party with a well placed lightning bolt. :( :mad: :weep:
Thiez 09-30-06, 06:17 PM	Evil will always triumph over good, because good is stupid. To translate to DnD: RAW will always triumph over realism, because realism is stupid.
Heahengel 09-30-06, 06:19 PM	To me there are two possibilities here - either it is magical, and so doesn't operate within physics anyway (the option I think that is best supported by RAW). Or everyone is going to be screwed by the electrycity in the water. I've played before with the houserule that it is the equivalent of a fireball taking effect wherever the lightning bolt originated (doing electricity damage of course). The halfway thing your DM is doing (it works normally, except that the water affects it in this one tiny way) is just silly.
Salla 09-30-06, 06:24 PM	To translate to DnD: RAW will always triumph over realism, because realism is stupid. "If D&D was, in any way, a representation of 'real' Middle Ages Europe, all our characters would be human farmers who would till crops until we got to our mid-20s, when we'd drop dead of the Black Plague. You'll pardon me if I don't reach for a character sheet." --Me This became a mantra of mine when dealing with a player who always used the phrase 'back then' to explain his actions or ideas, but it works fairly well for cries of 'realism' as well, I think. :)
mvincent 09-30-06, 06:32 PM	The halfway thing your DM is doing (it works normally, except that the water affects it in this one tiny way) is just silly.Agreed. One alternative for DM's concerned about realism here might be to have electrical spells adopt the underwater rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#underwaterCombat) for fire spells. "Fire 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 Spellcraft 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 a Spellcraft check to make the fire spell usable underwater, the surface still blocks the spell’s line of effect. "
Artix_the_Incarnate 10-01-06, 12:13 AM	Well, despite how realistic that is, if any DM ever ruled that on me, I would whip out my bastard sword and poke him where the sun don't shine. Lightning is amplified in water, yes that is realistic and logical. The problem is, D&D and logic are like two grumpy old men who live across the street from each other. They just don't get along. Personally, I would rule that since Lightning Bolt is a magical spell, it would simply fire as intended. It is definetly a house rule by your DM, and one can see where he/she is coming from, but it is really unfair in my opinion.
Kurgaar 10-01-06, 12:49 AM	Yup been there done that.... Even though it wasnt underwater per se. During a campain we had a wiz cast lightning bolt in a room ( the DM's description of said room was " a part of the tower exposed to the elements that, after the nights rain was very damp and slippery") which caused some damage to all of the PC's in the room. I think personally that its a good call to give anyone in contact with the water at least some damage if not all.
DarkRhystar 10-01-06, 12:57 AM	Our maniacal DM has ruled that noone can totally evade the effects of any lightning spell cast underwater (even with the evade ability which allows the character to totally avoid damage from area attacks on a successful save). He said that the "conductivity" of the medium (water) will ensure that some damage is taken. He says a successful evade ( when reflex save is made) will take a quarter damage from the lightning bolt, rather than zero damage. This did not please our party's rogue one bit. This is like ruling that magic missiles fall to the ground after being cast because of gravity.
Mechnomancer 10-01-06, 02:00 AM	This is like ruling that magic missiles fall to the ground after being cast because of gravity. Uh, no. I use the rule and you know what? I didn't have to even tell the players. They figured it out on their own. What with water (not distilled) being a conductor and all.
Terraneaux 10-01-06, 02:11 AM	However, in this particular case RAW and physics (sorta) are aligned. Casting a lightning bolt outside of water would require an insane amount of energy. You are forcing electrons to move across a nonpolar gas (so mostly empty space, and even when it's not it doesn't want to conduct electricity) in a straight line that doesn't earth to the ground immediately afterward. Underwater, even if it was pure water (which doesn't conduct electricity all that well) you are looking at something that easier to do by something like 5 orders of magnitude (so about 10,000 times easier). Lightning bolt would move along the path straighter and much more quickly and powerfully. Though mechanically, this doesn't make sense. Maybe a feat to allow your electricity based spells to work better underwater or something.
Talchar 10-01-06, 04:59 AM	In prior editions - underwater lightning bolts were treated as if was a fireball. To me that is a reasonable rule. With respect to evasion, I would disagree with the house rule as stated. While I conceptually see what your GM's logic is, the logic does not make sense to me. (with sense being a relative term) If he is ruling that since water conducts and if you are in the water, you cannot "evade" the damage, by that same logic since air allows the propagation of heat, you could not "evade" the effects of a fireball... and so on. That said, I could agree if your GM's house rule if he based it on - you cannot "evade" or have the evasion effect limited because your movements are restricted under or in water. So that with basic evasion you either take full or quarter damage and with improved evasion you take 1/4 or no damage. This view would fall in line with the spirit of the rule that states you cannot evade is you freedom of movement is curtailed.
Beckett 10-01-06, 09:52 AM	I'd say he/she was a good D.M. If you can get away with even the most rediculous stuff just because it is a fantasy game and not reality, that what is the point of even playing. Chess is better, more inteligent, and not as drawn out.
molten_dragon 10-01-06, 11:15 AM	I always used the rule that a lightning bolt cast underwater did its damage in a 20 ft. radius burst centered on the caster. Likewise cold spells cast underwater would turn the water to ice in their area of effect. I could understand why evasion wouldn't work underwater because you can't move freely.
Darkmatter20 10-01-06, 11:53 AM	Since we're going to place real physics on a magical effect we must also consider the following: A real lightning bolt when striking the ground burns at a temperature hotter then the surface of the sun. Thats greater then 5000 degrees celsius. DnD terms something like tens of thousands of dice of damage, I don't really know it's huge anyway. The lightning bolt spell does a max of 10d6. OK so their different in that regard. Seriously people its a MAGIC spell there is no point applying physics to MAGIC. That is just daft. It's like saying that everytime you're subjected to an electrical spell you are auto stunned (disrupting electrical signals in your body) for x number of minutes, you also must make a fortitude save to not have a heartattack and die(relative to the amount of damage you take) as the electricity disrupts your hearts beat. 40mV can kill you (thats a lightbulb) in this manner. Man that cantrip electric jolt (1d3 damage) just became a death effect. Finally the rule "Line of effect" water is a solid object so doesn't just stop the line of effect of the spell. That link to the d20srd was handy for fire spells (thanks by the way) so just let other attack spells function the same. Just a spellcraft check. If the spellcraft check is passed the spell functions normally so you still get your evasion at no penalty (unless there's a rule I don't know about for underwater reflex penalties there dex and others but no reflex penalties).
DarkRhystar 10-01-06, 02:51 PM	Uh, no. I use the rule and you know what? I didn't have to even tell the players. They figured it out on their own. What with water (not distilled) being a conductor and all. Because everything in fiction must function identically to reality right?
Vorsk 10-01-06, 04:20 PM	It does go by each of the following DM's ruling for his world, unless there are specific rules to pull out and debate. Otherwise, by arguing over such a minor detail (1/4 damage on a failed evade underwater) you are losing sight of the the true purpose, which is to have fun & enjoy. No need to argue with the DM. In all honesty you are lucky your DM choose that. In my world, land creatures who normally would evade on land "might" possibly suffer penalties underwater, since that is not their normal enviroment. But I do believe underwater the elements do not function the same, IMHO. For Example: (My DM decision for underwater vs. elemental spells) A Fire spell (Fireball), would ignite off at the point of origin, but instead of fire damage it would do steam damage. A Lightning spell (Lightning bolt), would be considered Maximized & Widened for free due to the natural enviroment conditions of underwater when the spell is casted. Or even possibly increase the spell DC by a factor of 5 or 10, since it is difficult to evade or make a Reflex save versus a Lighting spell underwater. A Cold spell (Coldball - Energy Substition Cold), would ignite same as a Fireball but instead do a flash freeze A Acid spell (Acidball - Energy Substition Acid), would ignite still the same as a Fireball but instead due to the enviroment it is in it would instead do only half damage. The water mixed with the acid would dilute the spell damage potential. Conclusion: In specific non-normal daily enviroments by the decision of the DM, the enviroments can change and modify the spells reaction that players interact with. How the dynamics of a Fireball would change to steam damage, Lignting be magnified, and acid is weakened. This is based on my decision as a DM, and your DM would decided the following for his world too.
Shadowmind64 10-01-06, 07:36 PM	if the dm wants to rule it like that then let him, lets not throw a fuss about a possible 2.5d6 here.
halaster 10-01-06, 07:52 PM	in my game lightning bolt does d8 dmg instead of 6. but they must make a spellcraft check to do so. saying that it affects others would also cause the caster to take dmg, so that would nerf the use of the spell underwater almost imediatly.
CryoSilver 10-01-06, 07:56 PM	Lightning Bolt in fresh water = Less damage, because fresh water is a poor conductor LB in salt water = burst effect, at least IMO
AnonymousInternets 10-01-06, 07:57 PM	I haven't bothered to read what everyone said, but this is probably a repeat: Lightning spells create magic lightning, which does not follow normal physics. Realistically, it'd be impossible to dodge lightning anyways, because it would steer towards you at the speed of light. With that in mind, we have no reason to believe that it would suddenly apply to realistic physics when underwater, so we should assume it acts normally.
User5127 10-01-06, 08:13 PM	isn't there some kind of rule that states that a magic effect can go outside of its area of effect? and if the area of effect (if you want to go that far) for a lightning bolt is... A LINE! then it stants to reason that the water wouldn't conduct it simply because the electricity CAN'T go outside of its area of effect. i'm sure i read that some where...
Vorsk 10-01-06, 11:20 PM	If the DM is making a whole underwater campaign, then yes it could be devestating lightning bolt, but then they would know their enemies could use it right back at them. While making a purely underwater campain they might not then even use elemental lightning since it is never really seen in their world, which would then allow the DM to control what is used and not used. The situation I feel it is the DM's call to what is decided, without informing the players of the potential use lightning could do underwater, so they can not pre-plan their spells for min/max when going underwater. Then the underwater NPCs would know and use its effect towards the PCs. Giving the DM the suprise attack to make the PCs jump and react.
DragonChild_ 10-01-06, 11:37 PM	The situation I feel it is the DM's call to what is decided, without informing the players of the potential use lightning could do underwater, so they can not pre-plan their spells for min/max when going underwater. Wait, wait, "pre-planning" is min/maxing? As in, actually using a strategy is min/max? Being smart is min/max? Not preparing useless spells is min/max? I guess min/max has absolutely no meaning to you, because the other opposite I can think of for that is "really, really dumb." The truth of the matter is, lightning spells work normally underwater by RAW. You most certainly can change that; but if you don't tell the players well in advance, you're springing a houserule on them, and being a total jerk. You wouldn't suddenly tell someone they can't use fireball when there's a strong wind, would you?
utilitarian 10-02-06, 12:25 AM	We've always played it that a lightning bolt which hits water becomes a fireball shaped damage effect at the point of contact (only effecting the water), I suppose under this circumstance your lightning bolt would go off in your face -_^ Then again, we're dealing with magic here. Magic is magic.
Vorsk 10-02-06, 03:43 PM	Wait, wait, "pre-planning" is min/maxing? As in, actually using a strategy is min/max? Being smart is min/max? Not preparing useless spells is min/max? I guess min/max has absolutely no meaning to you, because the other opposite I can think of for that is "really, really dumb." The truth of the matter is, lightning spells work normally underwater by RAW. You most certainly can change that; but if you don't tell the players well in advance, you're springing a houserule on them, and being a total jerk. You wouldn't suddenly tell someone they can't use fireball when there's a strong wind, would you? First of all you have complete misunderstood what I was stating. Only reverting to using the words realy realy dumb & a total jerk. Now, if the DM's campaign is normally above ground, barely at all frequently visitng the underwater world then how would the PCs know or understand how would Lightning OR Fireball be effected when casted underwater. That is where the DM would have a bit control initially, and when a lightning bolt or fireball did go off the DM can describe to what effects happened so the players then suddenly learn from it. Then now knowing what works and what does not. It's called roleplaying. Ok by telling the players ahead of time how Lightning bolt would change when used underwater, so they are not suprised by your rulling is also not very smart by your standards. Where is the role playing and the learning curve put into that. It would otherwise allow them to min/max without any uncertainties. For example in my world as a DM a lightning bolt would be considered maximized & widen, a fireball would do steam damage instead when casted underwater, and acid spells would be reduced to half damage due to water dilution. This is my philosophy of how these "magical" spells would work, not natural phenomenas. That is something far from the norm players would deal with in their normal character life above ground, but telling them ahead of time of the enviroment and effects that they go adventuring into will give them time to prepare to min/max for the situation at hand. By doing that as a DM you will have a harder time to challenge the players than normally. And that I feel is not well planned out, because you want to keep the players always on their toes. Lastly, the main point this game is about roleplaying, and every DM has a different view they can adopt for their own worlds as they see fit. As long as the DM's view does not contradict the core rules of D&D then there is no reason to b&tch and moan about it.
DragonChild_ 10-02-06, 04:01 PM	Ok by telling the players ahead of time how Lightning bolt would change when used underwater, so they are not suprised by your rulling is also not very smart by your standards. Where is the role playing and the learning curve put into that. It would otherwise allow them to min/max without any uncertainties. Are you seriously telling me that it's better roleplaying to lie to your players about the rules, and spring houserules on them? Because when you sit down to play, you agree to play by these rules, and if you change them mid way through without letting them know ahead of time, that's what you're doing - lying, and springing houserules. As long as the DM's view does not contradict the core rules of D&D then there is no reason to b&tch and moan about it. Hey, I have no problem with letting players know ahead of time that lightning bolt doesn't work underwater. But the thing is, it DOES contridict the core rules. I'm not saying houserules are bad. I'm saying houserules are really, REALLY awful if you don't tell people in advance.
icnivad 10-02-06, 04:25 PM	What with water (not distilled) being a conductor and all. I think you should research the spell Distill Water. Then your lightning bolt would operate normally. Or perhaps you should cast Distill vodka, and then no one in your party would care if they get hit by a lightning bolt. Seriously, though, as far as house rule goes, I like the idea of having a lightning bolt cast underwater operate like a fireball from casters location. This is a fairly realistic example of how electricity operates under water. It spreads out and loses power the more it spreads. Your DM could also take this one step further saying that the spell spreads from the caster (non directional) and deals 1d6 less damage for every 5 feet away. So a character 20 feet away from a 7th level lightning bolt would take 3d6. no save. (have you ever tried moving out of the way under water?) or save could be based on swim skill. just some thoughts.
Vorsk 10-02-06, 05:14 PM	Dragonchild, you have taken my comments out of context and minipulated them. Explained to me by all my examples in this thread is how would I be lying or springing rules against the players that hurt them? If you learned to comprehend all of my text prior to any comments you would learn its about functionally playing and trying to describe to the players how magic would unfold in a completely non-normal enviroment. Its not lying or using a system against them, but instead wanting to put depth into a roleplaying system to create a more exciting experience. None of my examples of what I do as a DM do NOT hurt the players, but only add depth to the roleplaying experience. Especially trying to add depth to an enviroment (underwater experience) the characters would not normally experience in an non-hero's life. Dragonchild if you are against roleplaying by adding depth then you should re-evaluate why you are playing this game.
DarkRhystar 10-02-06, 06:54 PM	Two plus one minor points: 1) If you're going to make a house-rule, tell your players. Good manners and all that... 2) If you're going to make a house-rule, make sure it is one that makes the game more fun for those involved. A house-rule made for the sake of realism alone is distasteful. 3) House-ruling fantasy to be more realistic just... seems... odd. :looloo:
DragonChild_ 10-02-06, 07:16 PM	Explained to me by all my examples in this thread is how would I be lying or springing rules against the players that hurt them? This is very simple. If you say that you're playing D&D, and unless you specifically mention a houserule, it's lying to change that houserule mid-game. Lightning Bolt, by the RAW, works fine underwater. Saying that it doesn't mid-play is just like telling the wizard that you changed fireball to deal less damage mid-play. It's unfair, it's not fun. Dragonchild if you are against roleplaying by adding depth then you should re-evaluate why you are playing this game. This is seriously hilarious. "I disagree with you, so you're not a roleplayer!" What a trite, overused, silly argument. Hey, here's something for "roleplaying". I know how electricity works underwater. Why would my wizard with a double-digit spellcraft bonus not know how lightning bolt works underwater? Doesn't it seem to be against "roleplaying" to have my incredibly intelligent not know how spells work? Edit: In short, these are the facts of the matter. The rules quiet specifically say they work one way. You're suggesting changing these rules without telling players, and only letting them know mid-game when they end up wasting a turn damaging themselves. If you think this is fun, fair, or "roleplaying", then I doubt you'll find many, if any, to agree with you.
Mechnomancer 10-03-06, 12:35 AM	Now, if the DM's campaign is normally above ground, barely at all frequently visitng the underwater world then how would the PCs know or understand how would Lightning OR Fireball be effected when casted underwater. That is where the DM would have a bit control initially, and when a lightning bolt or fireball did go off the DM can describe to what effects happened so the players then suddenly learn from it. Then now knowing what works and what does not. It's called roleplaying. actually it's called Knowledge: Arcana Because everything in fiction must function identically to reality right? I use the rule and you know what? I didn't have to even tell the players. They figured it out on their own. What with water (not distilled) being a conductor and all. Surprisingly enough, it's never come up. Or perhaps you should cast Distill vodka, and then no one in your party would care if they get hit by a lightning bolt. Amen!
redraven 10-03-06, 01:28 PM	More than anything, I see two reasons why the idea of changing the functioning of Lightning Bolt underwater is asinine: 1) If you are willing to nerf (i.e. Fireball) or break (i.e. free Widen/Maximize) one elemental spell based on the environment where it is cast, it is hypocritical not to go all the way. In other words, Fireball deals only half damage if any at all during a rain storm/high winds, Cone of Cold doesn't work in desert settings, thunderstorms increase Lightning Bolt's effectiveness, etc. 2) It never fails to amaze me how many DMs do not like rogues and their Evasion ability. Give it a rest, people. If a rogue can take a Fireball bead to the face while tied up in a 5-foot square broom closet and take no damage, then the rogue can clearly evade a Lightning Bolt cast underwater. Nerfing one of the defining features of the rogue (and quite possibly one of their most important abilities) because it offends your conception the real world is dumb. If it really bothers you, change it from an (Ex) ability to a (Su) one. Problem solved. As others have pointed out, springing house rules on your players is asinine. There is no reason to believe that an Int 20 wizard with 15 ranks in Knowledge: Arcana would not realize that a Lightning Bolt works differently underwater. It'd be one thing if you invented a completely new monster or spell that the player could have never heard about before, but it is something else entirely to use a common spell in a common environment in a totally new way that no amount of knowledge could have foreseen.
icnivad 10-03-06, 01:51 PM	I agree that if you're going to change the rules, the DM should certiantly let the players know. Supposedly they have studied for years about how this spell works, and would know how it works in a unique environment. at the very least, the DM should tell the players that they don't know how this spell might react underwater and let them decide if they still want to go ahead with it. I don't think that a DM wanting to make this rule necessarily "dislikes rogues". I think that adding little environmental flavor rules like this one forces the characters to think strategically. so, rather than have: I hit the mage. The mage casts a fireball at you. I hit the mage. The mage casts a lightning bolt at you. you might get: I hit the mage. The mage casts a fireball at you. Ouch. I'm hurting, I look around. You're on a beach, there's a lake to your left about 10 feet away, and a forest to your right about 50 feet away. I jump in the lake, and swim down at a 45 degree angle. remember my necklace of water breathing is still on. The mage runs to the edge of the lake and curses. This holds especially true if the characters or npc's are setting up an ambush, where they have more control of the environment. Personally, I try to encourage players to come up with creative solutions to problems.
Mechnomancer 10-03-06, 02:38 PM	Fireball deals only half damage if any at all during a rain storm/high winds, Maybe if it was a sustained burn, but it's not. It's an explosion. Cone of Cold doesn't work in desert settings, thunderstorms increase Lightning Bolt's effectiveness, etc. I don't see the reasoning behind these. As for the OP's problem, I'd side with him only in that no one was entitled to a Knowledge arcane check to know about the consequences of hitting water with a lightning bolt, or if it was a PC mage that fired it, that he/she was not given a spellcraft check to use a lightning bolt under difficult cicumstances.
User5127 10-03-06, 05:06 PM	if you don't see the point of no cone of cold in a desert then how about on the elemental plane of fire? or in a volcano? or some where else where cold would be impossible? *sigh* rahter than repeat whats been said I'll agree with redraven and every one else who has posted a similar idea.
redraven 10-03-06, 05:39 PM	Maybe if it was a sustained burn, but it's not. It's an explosion. A sudden burst of heat and flame that's gone in a flash, yes. And if you try casting it in a torrential downpour in which all exposed flames are automatically extinguished, it is realistic that flames, even instant ones, would have difficultly manifesting themselves. Likewise in areas with little oxygen (space, Moon, etc.). Further, if there are high winds in the area, it would also make sense to change the radius of a Fireball to burn upwind less and downwind more. I don't see the reasoning behind these. If a Lightning Bolt works better due to the immediate environment, than any elemental spell should work better (or worse) based on its immediate environment. How bad will you get frozen if hit with Cone of Cold in the middle of an arid, 110+ degree desert? If being underwater heightens a Lightning Bolt, it stands to reason a torential downpour would similarly enhance it. But really, the reasons themselves are irrelevant. The point is that if the DM makes a token effort to introduce more realism into the campaign, it is asinine to cherry-pick "obvious" things like Lightning Bolt in water and ignore, say, the ability for anyone to fall two miles onto solid rock and only take 70 points of damage, on average. Or even other environment factors in the same subset of realism (e.g. Fireball in rainstorm, etc).
Vorsk 10-03-06, 05:44 PM	Knowledge: Arcana I totally agree, and or possibly require a Spellcraft Check. I would not as a DM just freely tell them, but if they roleplayed and asked the question I would have them roll a Knowledge Arcana or Spellcraft check. That would be completely fair and all within the boundries of roleplaying, otherwise I would tell them as a description to when they casted the spell if they did not originally ask to make a check. I would probably set the DC to 20, to understand how elemental spells differ for an enviroment completely made of water, compared to their natural enviroment of air. By setting the DC (IMHO) to 20, a 3rd level wizard would have it difficult since they do not yet have the spell Lightning bolt, or Fireball. A 7th level Wizard would have an average time, but a 9th level wizard would very easily know how magic changes in such enviroments. More than anything, I see two reasons why the idea of changing the functioning of Lightning Bolt underwater is asinine: 1) If you are willing to nerf (i.e. Fireball) or break (i.e. free Widen/Maximize) one elemental spell based on the environment where it is cast, it is hypocritical not to go all the way. In other words, Fireball deals only half damage if any at all during a rain storm/high winds, Cone of Cold doesn't work in desert settings, thunderstorms increase Lightning Bolt's effectiveness, etc. I think your missing the point and blowing everything out of proportion, since your trying to bring in thunderstorms or deserts now into this conversation. Instead the subject is dealing with an enviroment made purely of water (ocean) or compared to an enviroment made purely of air (land) while on the Material Plane. Not some elemental plane of existence. We all know how natural phenomenas react in our normal world (Material Plane), but how does magic? I feel that is for the DM to decide when it comes to their own world they want to create. Now if your stating how certain spells work on seperate planes; Fire, Earth, Water, or Air than that is another story. I would probably require a Knowledge Planes & Arcane.
DragonChild_ 10-03-06, 05:46 PM	I would not as a DM just freely tell them, but if they roleplayed and asked the question I would have them roll a Knowledge Arcana or Spellcraft check. That would be completely fair and all within the boundries of roleplaying, otherwise I would tell them as a description to when they casted the spell if they did not originally ask to make a check. Roleplaying does not mean "having a DM that screws over the players as best he can". Stop pretending like it does. Does the wizard have to ask you "Did you change this spell?" before he takes EACH spell? Does the fighter have to ask "Did you change this feat?" before he takes EACH feat? If not, why do you change some spells without telling the players at all? And try not to say "roleplaying", tell me how that's fair. Just because you sent a PM to me that said "I refuse to address any of your points at all" doesn't make them go away.
Vorsk 10-03-06, 05:54 PM	Roleplaying does not mean "having a DM that screws over the players as best he can". Stop pretending like it does. Does the wizard have to ask you "Did you change this spell?" before he takes EACH spell? Does the fighter have to ask "Did you change this feat?" before he takes EACH feat? If not, why do you change some spells without telling the players at all? And try not to say "roleplaying", tell me how that's fair. Just because you sent a PM to me that said "I refuse to address any of your points at all" doesn't make them go away. Correct I won't discuss this with you anymore, your blowing everything way out of proportion. I sat down with my other friends last night and discussed with them how magical ligntning and other spells would be effected in different conditions. Guess what they all had different ideas, just as maybe you & I do, so as DM's they can make their own decision for their own world.
Johnny_Angel 10-03-06, 06:00 PM	It would make sense. Even though it's not supported by the RAW, if I were a DM, I would make a similar judgement about lightning zapping you if you were underwater. I would make sure my players knew this ahead of time though. Honestly, I've even considered making lightning do more damage against targets wearing metal armor, but I haven't yet figured out exactly what effect it would have. I realize that realism and gaming don't always go hand in hand, but I think that there are situations which can be made more realistic. Even though it is a fantasy game within a fantasy world, I think it makes it easier for players to get into playing their characters and become part of the fantasy world if that fantasy is at least somewhat based on reality. The main question here is whether or not the DM informed you of the changes he made beforehand. If not, he may have assumed you would know that in his world that lightning does more damage in water. I think it's wrong to assume that the DM is always trying to screw people over; DMs make mistakes the same way that PCs make mistakes. As far as Evasion not working, that would also be a house rule which (if the dm was using it) should have told you ahead of time. It is a variant rule which some people use. Again though, I'm not saying the ruling itself is right or wrong; that's up to the DM's discretion, but variant rules and changes in the rules should be told to the players so that they are aware of it before those situations arise within the game; that's what I think the main issue is here.
DragonChild_ 10-03-06, 06:12 PM	Guess what they all had different ideas, just as maybe you & I do, so as DM's they can make their own decision for their own world. And I never said you couldn't change it. What I said was, if you change any rule, especially any rule that the players are making use of, you have an obligation to inform the players. Do you disagree?
redraven 10-03-06, 06:22 PM	I would not as a DM just freely tell them, but if they roleplayed and asked the question I would have them roll a Knowledge Arcana or Spellcraft check. That would be completely fair and all within the boundries of roleplaying, otherwise I would tell them as a description to when they casted the spell if they did not originally ask to make a check. One of the most fundamental tenants of D&D roleplaying is that the player and the character are different entities. Just because the player knows the wizard just cast Fireball does not mean his Barbarian character knows what a Fireball is or how much damage it deals. While the concept of metagaming is known quite well, you as a DM are engaing in an equally damaging practice, reverse metagaming, for lack of a better term. Why should the player have to roleplay the question if that player has no idea you introduced a house rule? Is it impossible to fathom that a genius-level wizard who has consistantly generated Lightning Bolts from his fingertips on a daily basis for god knows how long know the interaction before you allow the character to zap himself? At the bare minimum, the character should get a free Knowledge Arcana check before casting the spell to see if they know the interaction before electicuting themselves. Your asinine ruling reminds me of an epic-level campaign I was in a few years ago where the 21st-level cleric wasted a turn casting Chain Lightning on a lich. The player never fought a lich before and didn't know about the immunity to electricity, but his epic-level character certainly would have given his +40 bonus to Knowledge Religion checks. By forcing the character the waste a turn and a spell, it only encouraged the player to metagame future battles. I think your missing the point and blowing everything out of proportion, since your trying to bring in thunderstorms or deserts now into this conversation. Instead the subject is dealing with an enviroment made purely of water (ocean) or compared to an enviroment made purely of air (land) while on the Material Plane. No, the actual subject is about how terrible DMs introduce house rules, without telling their players, based on asinine efforts of increasing realism in a heroic fantasy. If you think Lightning Bolt should change its nature based on being cast underwater ala real life, I invite you to try to burn something in a rainstorm or get an even 20-foot radius blast with TNT with 80+ mph winds.
Vorsk 10-03-06, 06:29 PM	And I never said you couldn't change it. What I said was, if you change any rule, especially any rule that the players are making use of, you have an obligation to inform the players. Do you disagree? No I do not disagree. I stick with the rules that players use. I do not change feats, class abilities, etc... unless the player comes to me with question/concern and everyone involved does not agree to the ruling. Then with agreement to everyone involved would the ruling be changed. As stated in the DM Manual in the introductory it states that the rules in the book are guidelines. Now as a DM when encountering very strange and unique situation I like to add depth to the enviroment, bringing more life to gaming, if it hinders them or hurts them then no I would not do it without talking with them first. But if an idea is to suprisingly benefit them then why would I want to tell them and spoil the suprise unless they did a DC check prior to.
Vorsk 10-03-06, 06:39 PM	No, the actual subject is about how terrible DMs introduce house rules, without telling their players, based on asinine efforts of increasing realism in a heroic fantasy. If you think Lightning Bolt should change its nature based on being cast underwater ala real life, I invite you to try to burn something in a rainstorm or get an even 20-foot radius blast with TNT with 80+ mph winds. Your blowing everything out of proportion too. Ive discussed all my issues with my gaming friends, verbally & they understand my thoughts, yet we are here to debate in text and easily misquote/misunderstand each other. Lastly, IMHO: Natural Fire != Magical Fire Natural Lightning != Magical Lightning If you want to put into effects wind speed and direction into your gaming world as it effects spells, go for it your the DM of your own world, but I really wouldn't since there is no need to micro manage.
drakkonflye 10-03-06, 07:14 PM	[QUOTE=redraven] If a rogue can take a Fireball bead to the face while tied up in a 5-foot square broom closet and take no damage, then the rogue can clearly evade a Lightning Bolt cast underwater. Acording to the DMG, 3.5 Ed, page 293, Evasion and Improved Evasion: "As with a Reflex save for any creature, a character must have room to move in order to evade. A bound character or one squeezing through an area (crawling through a 2-1/2-foot-wide shaft, for example) cannot use evasion. As with a Reflex save for any creature, evasion is a reflexive ability. The character need not know the attack is coming to use evasion. ... Improved evasion is like evasion, except that even on a failed saving throw the character takes only half damage." This is not meant to criticize Redraven; I'm not here to make enemies. I'm just noticing a series of responses here questioning how evasion works. Please keep in mind that the PHB 3.5 states under monk, ranger, and rogue that the character cannot be paralyzed, unconscious, or otherwise helpless (such as being bound or pinned by another character) to successfully use evasion. As for underwater effects, use of evasion might be hampered without the use of any freedom of movement effects. I might suggest to determine if the character can evade an effect, compare his/her current movement rate to his/her position within the area of effect. If he/she has enough movement to get out of the area of effect (and for purposes of evade, consider this free movement as it is a reflexive action, NOT movement remaining after any standard actions), then he/she can successfully evade the effect. If he/she doesn't have enough movement, then he/she cannot evade the effect fully and therefore would take damage. I've used this myself in my own campaigns, and nobody had a problem with it. This is especially true when the party spellcaster is trying to figure out how to make effective use of his/her spell effects against difficult foes. Remember: What's good for the players, is good for the DM as well, and giving an airborne dragon evasion makes for an interesting battle ;)
User5127 10-03-06, 10:25 PM	well if you guys want realism with regards to a lightning bolt underwater, then consider this: wouldn't the damage be less than a normal lightning bolt since the electricity is no longer hitting a single target but is now spread over an area? consider that realisitcally electricity tries to spread itself out evenly. so in a direct current it would hit 100% for full effect. now if the water disperses the elecricity then the damage itself (ie the pure voltage) would be spread out and therefore lessened, mabye not greatly, but at least to a degree. so basically this begs the next question, how far does the electricity spread? and how much damage does it do? adding realism adds complications like real world physics. so just be sure you understand those ramafications. as well Jonny_Angel mentions that a lighting bolt (i'm assuming above gound in a normal setting) would do more damage to a character in more metal (ie full plate as opposed to leather) to that i say no to the more damage. i don't think it would deal more damage per se since the full effect of the bolt hits the player and the type of armor he is wearing is pretty much irrelevent. hell get hit full force by those 10000 giga jules or what ever the hell amount of voltage a lightning bolt has. his armor won't amplify the charge making more electricity go through him. it'll most likely act as an ecelent conductor causing the damage to travel faster in his body. wich mostly translates to in game effects on the person hit, like if he has spiked armor then the bolt will arc from spike to spike making it look really kool, but i'd still be just as painful.
Jhaelen 10-04-06, 05:59 PM	adding realism adds complications like real world physics. so just be sure you understand those ramafications.Amen. Realism and D&D rules just don't mix well. Game balance and ease of use should always trump realism. Please also note that too much realism tends to get in the way of good stories - there's a reason why most good action movies avoid it ;) It's also a matter of taste, though: Ask your players if they'd prefer a more realistic campaign or a more cinematic type of campaign. If you decide to go for more realism try to do it without creating thousands of additional rules that will still fail to model reality completely while making the game unplayable. About house-rules: It's generally a good idea to discuss them before-hand (i.e. before they are put into use). AND after having agreed on a house-rule it's a good idea to put it down in writing and apply it consistently.