Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thesen 09-18-05, 09:08 AM	I have a funny story to tell all you DMs out there. This is the perfect example of Players attempting to make a complete fool out of their DM and totally rape the system. We were playing last week and an orc shaman the PCs were fighting withdrew from battle and dove into a river to escape their wrath. I stated that all attacks made against their enemy would be at a -4 (or +4 to his AC) due to having cover. I felt it was safe to say that a medium sized creature submerged in a flowing river should get a +4 to his AC. Here's where it gets funny.... The cleric had spiritual weapon cast. He sent the blade against the orc and the other PCs claimed that the orc shouldn't get the +4 to his AC because Spiritual Weapon was unaffected by it. When I asked them why this is what they said: "It flys through the AIR for christ's sake!!! It can certainly cut through water without a penalty!" Heh heh....comments???
VirgilCaine 09-18-05, 09:22 AM	It makes attack rolls like anything else, it takes the same penalties for those attack rolls. IMO.
clarkvalentine 09-18-05, 09:29 AM	"It flys through the AIR for christ's sake!!! It can certainly cut through water without a penalty!" That sure doesn't hold for a 747. Why would it for Spiritual Weapon?
alecthemad 09-18-05, 10:54 AM	I think the players have a good point in that the spell is a force effect and does not rely on visual targeting by the wielder to hit the target nor is it affected by the slowing of a wielder's arm as he moves in the water. On the flip side I recall from the DMG that being submerged in water breaks a spells line of effect due to the total cover afforded by the water. If he was swimming at the surface he is afforded +8 to his AC
clarkvalentine 09-18-05, 11:27 AM	I think the players have a good point in that the spell is a force effect and does not rely on visual targeting by the wielder to hit the target nor is it affected by the slowing of a wielder's arm as he moves in the water. No, but as a force effect it's likely affected by the resistance of the water itself. It's cover, not concealment. Anyway, I'd agree with your final assessment.
Aarcon Wintersfury 09-18-05, 11:49 AM	I have to side with Clarkvalentine. You can't compare something that travels through the air with something under water. The physics are totally different. Besides, part of your attacking someone is the force of your swing (hence the STR mod to the attack roll). Have you ever tried to punch someone under water? It's so dense you just cant do so effecively.
Vaelan 09-18-05, 04:23 PM	A creature completely submerged in water has total cover from people outside of the water, and thus cannot be attacked. This rule seems a bit odd though.
Treetrip Danglefoot 09-18-05, 04:30 PM	Just wanted to play devil's advocate here. What if a merman cleric cast Spiritual Weapon under water?
Templetroll 09-18-05, 04:36 PM	Just wanted to play devil's advocate here. What if a merman cleric cast Spiritual Weapon under water? The spell creates a weapon in a form that is appropriate to the god. A merman would likely get a trident spiritual weapon.
fatal error 09-18-05, 04:40 PM	The spell creates a weapon in a form that is appropriate to the god. A merman would likely get a trident spiritual weapon. Heh, somehow I don't think that's what he meant :P
Phrennzy 09-18-05, 05:49 PM	If the weapon is attacking from above the surface of the water, and the orc is below it, I would treat it with the -4 you assigned. If the weapon were to pursue the orc underwater, I'd use the underwater rules (-2 to hit, half damage on bludgeon & slashing).
Millennium 09-19-05, 01:17 PM	Just wanted to play devil's advocate here. What if a merman cleric cast Spiritual Weapon under water? Underwater creatures don't have cover from creatures who are also underwater, so the spell would act normally against underwater targets. It's the act of breaking the surface which causes the cover, much in the same way that light only refracts when it enters one medium from another. The 100% cover rule is a bit much, though. I soften it to 90%. Any attack that breaks the surface of water is going to be deflected at least somewhat, so aiming would be very hard, but you might still be able to hit.
Murrdox 09-19-05, 02:08 PM	Spiritual Weapon is affected by cover, just like any other weapon is. It doesn't matter what kind of cover it is. If Spiritual Weapon was an INCORPOREAL weapon that only made TOUCH attacks, then I would agree that you probably... But I'll hold back that ruling, because I can't remember anything specific that says incorporeal creatures ignore cover.
Spike_Fightwicky 09-19-05, 02:09 PM	This should solve the problem: Attacks from Land: Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover (+8 bonus to AC, +4 bonus on Reflex saves) from opponents on land. [...] 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. Since the Spiritual Weapon requires an attack roll, it's affected by the water and the orc it's attacking gts +8 to his AC (if the orc dives under, it has total cover, and thus cannot be attack from a landbound opponent/effect). If the weapon goes underwater, it'll break line of sight and the weapon will return: From the Spiritual Weapon desc.: If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers. Also, according to the Libris Mortis, an incorporeal creature does benefit from cover (I.E. a ghost that's in the same space as a medium size piece of furniture gets a +4 bonus to AC (1/2 cover I think?) due to the cover provided)
MarkB 09-19-05, 03:13 PM	If the weapon goes underwater, it'll break line of sight and the weapon will return: Water provides cover, not concealment (unless it's particularly muddy or choppy). So long as you can see the target, you can direct the spiritual weapon to go underwater and attack it. I'd rule that the Spiritual Weapon will be subject to the same penalties as a normally-wielded weapon of its type whilst underwater, taking -2 to attack and doing half damage unless it's a piercing weapon.
Bruunwald 09-19-05, 04:05 PM	Heh, somehow I don't think that's what he meant :P I think his answer was meant to denote a sort of unspoken understanding in the rules. If a merman can wield a trident effectively underwater, then it follows that his underwater spiritual trident would be effective in that case.
primemover003 09-19-05, 04:56 PM	The Spell will work underwater and would suffer the -2 to hit and half damage unless it's piercing. As long as the target is at the surface it's +8 Cover to AC.
Spike_Fightwicky 09-20-05, 11:27 AM	Water provides cover, not concealment (unless it's particularly muddy or choppy). So long as you can see the target, you can direct the spiritual weapon to go underwater and attack it. I'd rule that the Spiritual Weapon will be subject to the same penalties as a normally-wielded weapon of its type whilst underwater, taking -2 to attack and doing half damage unless it's a piercing weapon. I'm very much aware of what type of defense mods water provides. However, if the weapon goes underwater, then line of sight to the weapon is broken (completely submerged = total cover = can't see it), so as per the spell, as soon as this happens, it will return to the caster. If you direct the weapon to attack the mostly submerged orc from above the water (where you can still see it), the orc will get his +8 Cover bonus to AC. It's kind of lose/lose for the PCs, and if the orcs duck underwater for a few rounds, it'll extremely difficult to finish them off, especially if the PCs stay on land.
MarkB 09-20-05, 12:52 PM	I'm very much aware of what type of defense mods water provides. However, if the weapon goes underwater, then line of sight to the weapon is broken (completely submerged = total cover = can't see it) That's the part I was disputing. Cover without concealment doesn't stop you from seeing someone, it just makes them harder to hit. Being underwater while your opponent is on land is one situation where it's possible to have total cover and zero concealment. Another example is Wall of Force (or a good, solid sheet of reinforced plate glass). In both situations, the usual rules for Cover and Hide checks should not be applied.
Quoriil 09-20-05, 01:32 PM	That's the part I was disputing. Cover without concealment doesn't stop you from seeing someone, it just makes them harder to hit. Being underwater while your opponent is on land is one situation where it's possible to have total cover and zero concealment. Another example is Wall of Force (or a good, solid sheet of reinforced plate glass). In both situations, the usual rules for Cover and Hide checks should not be applied. I agree, and in addition... Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects. AND It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon... So, it seems your players may be justified in their exploitation of a particularly useful spell that has ALWAYS torqued me off when I've been DMing. It is however one of the few decent, low-level, core attack spells that clerics possess. So, If you want your BBEG to shrug a spiritual weapon off, you've got to have a dispel on hand. On the plus side, throw some of these at your players and watch them figure out how to be safe from it... :)
Spike_Fightwicky 09-20-05, 04:30 PM	That's the part I was disputing. Cover without concealment doesn't stop you from seeing someone, it just makes them harder to hit. Being underwater while your opponent is on land is one situation where it's possible to have total cover and zero concealment. Another example is Wall of Force (or a good, solid sheet of reinforced plate glass). In both situations, the usual rules for Cover and Hide checks should not be applied. So we're agreed that someone underwater has total cover with relation to someone on land. From the SRD: Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover. So if he has total cover, it's basically as if he was behind a brick wall: you can't see any part of them, so you can't make attacks against them. The wall of force offers absolutely no cover, but still breaks line of effect, so it's a different means to the same end. This also means that if the sword itself goes underwater (to avoid the cover AC bonus the orc gets), you no longer have LoS to it, and according the SW rules, it returns to the caster. So, it seems your players may be justified in their exploitation of a particularly useful spell that has ALWAYS torqued me off when I've been DMing. It is however one of the few decent, low-level, core attack spells that clerics possess. So, If you want your BBEG to shrug a spiritual weapon off, you've got to have a dispel on hand. On the plus side, throw some of these at your players and watch them figure out how to be safe from it... It's a good argument, but I say it can go either way. Despite the fact that the spell attacks as a spell, the SRD limitations on attacking from land don't specify "spells that attack as if they were weapons", it only states "spells that require an attack roll". In the description of SW, it's clear that the spell requires an attack roll to function. It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing each round thereafter on your turn. It uses your base attack bonus (possibly allowing it multiple attacks per round in subsequent rounds) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus. From the RAW, the spell requires an attack roll to function, and thus it is affected by the cover bonus (+8 if the orc is bobbing with his head above water, no attack if he's under). I'll admit that it's up to interperatation (I'm not sure if a force effect can ignore water penalties) on whether or not to allow cover, but I'd favor that the orc gets his +8 AC bonus.
FriendoftheDork 09-20-05, 05:30 PM	I can't why the spiritual weapon shouldn't be able to go underwater and fight with those penalties. After all, the weapon is not attacking from land, even though the spell was cast there. This is the first time I've seen these underwater cover rules. IMO they sound silly. Sure water helps absorbs the attack, but improved cover? I mean, what is easier to hit, a soldier swimming on the surface of the water, or one behind a firing port in a castle? AT the very least the swimmer should be flat-footed and also get a penalty to dex as well. it's hard to dodge blows underwater. And crossbow bolts should penetrate the surface pretty well. Wasn't Isuldur killed by orcs while attempting to hide invisible under water?
Spike_Fightwicky 09-20-05, 05:40 PM	I can't why the spiritual weapon shouldn't be able to go underwater and fight with those penalties. After all, the weapon is not attacking from land, even though the spell was cast there. This is the first time I've seen these underwater cover rules. IMO they sound silly. Sure water helps absorbs the attack, but improved cover? I mean, what is easier to hit, a soldier swimming on the surface of the water, or one behind a firing port in a castle? AT the very least the swimmer should be flat-footed and also get a penalty to dex as well. it's hard to dodge blows underwater. And crossbow bolts should penetrate the surface pretty well. Wasn't Isuldur killed by orcs while attempting to hide invisible under water? Those orcs must have been good with the bow :D I think the problem is trying to apply too many real world physics to the D&D mechanics. Ever wonder how it's feasible for a 6 foot fighter to attack a 100 foot tall monster? Even though all he can reach is its foot, he still deals as much damage as if he were attack a sheep. I think they just streamlined rules where too many physics would get involved. It makes total sense that the subject in the water should be denied his dex bonus (it's easy to sneak attack when the only visible target is the most vital part of his body). I guess that's where house ruling should get involved. I admit the RAW are a little silly (though it's all we have apart from house ruling).
MarkB 09-20-05, 07:43 PM	So we're agreed that someone underwater has total cover with relation to someone on land. Yes. So if he has total cover, it's basically as if he was behind a brick wall: you can't see any part of them, so you can't make attacks against them. The wall of force offers absolutely no cover, but still breaks line of effect, so it's a different means to the same end. This also means that if the sword itself goes underwater (to avoid the cover AC bonus the orc gets), you no longer have LoS to it, and according the SW rules, it returns to the caster. No. Total cover means there's something solid enough between you and your opponent that his physical attacks can't penetrate. Usually, that also means your enemy can't see you. However, in a very few cases - water (which is transparent) being one of them, and a Wall of Force (which is invisible) being another, it's possible to gain total cover against physical attacks whilst still being completely visible. In that case, your opponent can direct a mobile spell effect around your cover (send it underwater in the first case, or send it around or over the wall in the second) and still direct it to attack you once it has line of effect to you, because it never has to leave his line of sight.
General_Ridley 09-20-05, 08:05 PM	My thoughts: If the cleric doesn't have the Aquatic Spellcasting feat, the +4 to AC stays.
Ogmug 09-20-05, 08:39 PM	I think the key to deciding if the bonus should apply resides in the description of the spell itself It uses your base attack bonus (possibly allowing it multiple attacks per round in subsequent rounds) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus. It uses YOUR base attack, so it stands to reason it is based off of what the cleric would need to hit.
Quoriil 09-21-05, 11:05 AM	So we're agreed that someone underwater has total cover with relation to someone on land. Sure, but because this is a non-fire spell, it doesn't matter... ;) So if he has total cover, it's basically as if he was behind a brick wall: you can't see any part of them, so you can't make attacks against them. The wall of force offers absolutely no cover, but still breaks line of effect, so it's a different means to the same end. This also means that if the sword itself goes underwater (to avoid the cover AC bonus the orc gets), you no longer have LoS to it, and according the SW rules, it returns to the caster. Cover and concealment are not the same thing, as has been argued: the invisible cover provided by the wall of force is still total cover, but it can be worked around by summoned creatures or mobile spell effects... It's a good argument, but I say it can go either way. Despite the fact that the spell attacks as a spell, the SRD limitations on attacking from land don't specify "spells that attack as if they were weapons", it only states "spells that require an attack roll". In the description of SW, it's clear that the spell requires an attack roll to function. ...and the description of the effects of water on spells that require an attack roll goes on to say that it imposes a -2 to the attack for every 5 feet of water that the attack passes through. The SpWeap passes through less than 5 ft of water, therefor: no penalty. From the RAW, the spell requires an attack roll to function, and thus it is affected by the cover bonus (+8 if the orc is bobbing with his head above water, no attack if he's under). I'll admit that it's up to interperatation (I'm not sure if a force effect can ignore water penalties) on whether or not to allow cover, but I'd favor that the orc gets his +8 AC bonus. Force effects are not adressed but spell effects are, the SRD says that they are not impacted whatsoever (except for the aforementioned penalty to attack and fire spells cannot pass the water's surface).
Spike_Fightwicky 09-21-05, 11:26 AM	Sure, but because this is a non-fire spell, it doesn't matter... ;) Because it's a spell that requires a constant line of effect from the SW to the caster to function, it very much does matter. ;) Cover and concealment are not the same thing, as has been argued: the invisible cover provided by the wall of force is still total cover, but it can be worked around by summoned creatures or mobile spell effects... ...and the description of the effects of water on spells that require an attack roll goes on to say that it imposes a -2 to the attack for every 5 feet of water that the attack passes through. The SpWeap passes through less than 5 ft of water, therefor: no penalty. I'm not really concerned about how the spell attacks underwater. My main point is that while the SW remains above water, the orc has a +8 cover bonus to his AC when it tries to attack him (as per underwater combat rules and trying to attack the head, which is the only visible part and considered a tiny target, which is where the AC bonus comes into play). Force effects are not adressed but spell effects are, the SRD says that they are not impacted whatsoever (except for the aforementioned penalty to attack and fire spells cannot pass the water's surface). I'm sure the spell can function fine underwater. The point I'm trying address is that if the caster sends his SW underwater to combat the orc in order to negate the +8 cover bonus to AC while the caster is still on land. As soon as the SW dips down underwater, it gets total cover with repect to the Caster (as per underwater combat rules). This means that the caster loses Line of Effect to his SW (as per total cover rules). From the SW spell, as soon as the caster loses his LoE to his SW, it returns to him and hovers until commanded to do something else. And river water that's being disturbed by a bunch of fleeing orcs trying frantically to swim away is not exactly "transparent", as there's likely alot of mud and sediment getting kicked up by the swimmers.
primemover003 09-21-05, 01:30 PM	Once you cast SW you don't need line of effect, the spell never mentions LoE... you only need to see it and it must be within range. Water does not neccessarily block line of sight, though you could certainly rule that the fleeing orcs kicked up enough muck to provide concealment. Water does break line of effect vs. surface casters, buyt the SW has already been cast and is a mobile effect. It can follow the target as long as you can see the target.
Spike_Fightwicky 09-21-05, 01:43 PM	Once you cast SW you don't need line of effect, the spell never mentions LoE... you only need to see it and it must be within range. Water does not neccessarily block line of sight, though you could certainly rule that the fleeing orcs kicked up enough muck to provide concealment. Water does break line of effect vs. surface casters, buyt the SW has already been cast and is a mobile effect. It can follow the target as long as you can see the target. You know what, that's true. I re-read the spell and you only need to see it for it to work. I'm convinced :D (I swear I read the caster needs LoE, but apparently I was wrong) So unless the orcs are swimming up a storm (which is a possible result, all up to the DM on what kind of river they're in) the blade can have fun underwater. Half damage and -2 penalty unless it's a piercing SW, but no cover. My apologies for over-complicating this thread.