I noticed that there is no written penalty in the PHB or DMG for making Athlectics checks while wearing Heavy Armor, only disadv. for Stealth checks.
My question is how would you deal with a player trying to swim in plate armor? (crossing a river, being thrown off a bridge, falling overboard on a ship, whatever)
Auto-drowning seems harsh (if realistic) but no penalty at all seems silly. Is disadvantage enough? Trying to imagine a fully armored knight doing the breast stroke is pretty funny.
Heavy armor, PHB pg 145
Japaneese samurai were trained to swim in armor and swimming in chainmail is also a bit exhausting, but possible (probably disadvantage is ok here). For a heavy armor I would say no... BUT if your player fell of a bridge in full plate - you can make him roll Athletics or Consitution checks to walk on be bottom of the river until he gets to the shallow parts and then if he failed - give him an exhaustion level and some lost hit die (rather than having him drown).
If he fells from the deck of a ship... well, first of he is not very smart for getting on the deck of a ship in full plate and the bottom of the sea is too deep for a simple underwater walk, so you can make him roll a check to get out of his heavy armor (or at least the leg and armor plates - turning it into improvised breastplate) and then depending on his checks for getting out of the armor - make him roll an athletics check to swim out again with exhaustion and some lost hit die as a penalty (this time adding the cost of the armor for being stupid enough to wear in first place).
Having said that - PCs are supposed to be a cut above the rest, so if I had a player with a maxed strength who is trained in athletics I would also alow him a roll at disadvantage with success on something like natural 18 and above.
Clutchbone wrote:
You only need to call for a check when as the DM, you think the outcome is unceratin. Auto-drowning a PC doesn't make for a fun and exciting story, so I wouldn't go with that option.
If I had a PC fall into water wearing full plate armor, he wouldn't be "swimming" though. I let the player tell me what his/her character is doing. If the player says, "I'll just swim to shore.", I'd explain that he can't succeed at that and should pick a different action.
I'd let him make an athletics check at disadvantage to break the surface for 1 round letting his companions do something like throw him a rope.
I'd let him make an athletics check to cut off pieces of his armor (Drop his gauntlets and cut off his breast plate) to let him make a swimming check the following round.
I'd listen to other ideas he and the players came up with and rule appropriately.
In this case I wouldn't rule Failure means "you fail". I'd let failure mean the player succeeds, but at a cost. Success means he is able to. Failure means he is able to, but he spends his Second Wind and Action Surge abilities. (Or inflict a level of exhaustion if he doesn't have that).
Have a look at iserith's thread on How to Adjudicate Actions. Very awesome read.
- Eck
Have you ever tried to swim with all of your clothes and shoes on? Or while wearing the typical wizard robes?
It's incredibly difficult in real life to stay afloat for long without a life preserver. Add in the normal 30-40 pounds of adventuring gear and even in calm waters most people would have a hard time swimming even in calm water.
So no, I don't penalize people for having a character that uses heavy armor. It may be a little unrealistic, but many things in D&D are.
iserith wrote:
Clutchbone wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Clutchbone wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Athetics check DC = to the AC of armour (and shield if stupid enough to hold onto it)?
Yunru wrote:
My Paladin jumped into 30 feet of water (underground lake) while wearing plate armor - on purpose.
(You see, our group's Rogue was hallucinating and had jumped in, currently trying to 'hide' on the bottom.)
But I had done some homework first. I had checked the Drowning rules, my CON, the Rogue's CON, and how long it would take to get that armor off should the worst come to pass.
My Paladin brought along 50 feet of rope, and a strong friend or two.
I reasoned that the extra weight of the armor would allow me to catch up on her head start for the bottom.
I further reasoned that she wouldn't go too far away, since she had a 50% chance of attacking me, rolled each turn.
IT WORKED, but it took 90 minutes of IRL time.
The rest of the group successfully pulled me back up, bear-hugging an unconscious Rogue and giving her Lay on Hands 1 HP per turn to prevent Death Save Rolls but not wake her back up (to struggle) again.
Yunru wrote:
Let me put it another way. I have absolutely no clue how much harder it would be to swim in plate armor than in say, chain or leather armor. Easier? Significantly harder? No clue. It's possible that swimming in chain armor interferes more with movement than plate, with ease of swimming being leather, full plate, then chain. I'm not sure overall weight is the determining factor here but rather ease of movement.
We can argue about it all day but unless someone is willing to jump into a lake in a variety of armors (wearing period-appropriate clothes and boots of course) we'll never know. I do know that historically most sailors didn't bother to learn how to swim because you didn't survive going overboard anyway, particularly in northern oceans.
Since the rules don't implement a penalty, I don't house rule it.
Clutchbone wrote:
I would assume swimming in plate is easier, than swimming in chain mail. Plate male is lighter, and more flexible (it has joints). Chain mail on the other hand weighs down everything it covers, and reduces your movements. Neither really takes on water such as armor made of leather or cloth would. So there is no weight increase. Many people who wear chain mail however, also wear a cloth vest underneath it, which would logically take in water and become heavier. This could also be true of someone who wears plate mail however.
The player's handbook doesn't quite agree with you for plate being lighter by giving it 10 lb on top of chainmail. Also - plate is more flexible... when used for walking, riding and fighting. Swimming requires diferent set of movements. Also while padding is recommender for chain, it is absolutely neccessary for plate. Swimming in plate is certainly not possible for a normal person in normal plate armor who has normal swimming skills. I can totally see a skilled fantasy blacksmith crafting a plate that allows the wearer to swim in it and I can totally see a fantasy hero developing swimming style that allows him to stay aloft in such armor. If you throw your everyday shinning knight into a lake though - he is done for unless he manages to get out of the armor or the lake without swimming.
FactOfFiction wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
The question really depends on if your gaming style is simulative, cinematic or something in between. Simulative would mean that its highly suspect and if it is not impossible it would be dangerously uncertain. If your style is cinematic then the laws of physics submit to the power of awesome and the characters can most certainly swim in armor while fighting a great white shark and rescuing a mermaid. If its somewhere in between the two then he should be able to swim in armor if you feel he is strong enough and is familiar with wearing his armor and moving around in it.
In the end there really is no right answer because its up to you the DM to decide what flavor you want your stories to have.
Personally I'd go with the middle ground and have the character make a strength check each round they're in the water with a failure reducing the speed at which he swims that round, say half speed or 5 feet whatever. Repeat each round they make the roll again till they get out of the water or until you feel its appropriate to have them start drowning.
Be sure to have sonic the hedgehog drowning music ready for added comedic effect
To accurately gauge how well an adventurer could stay afloat, you'd need to go through all of his gear - people previously mentioned having to drop your shield and shed your backpack... but if your shield is largely made of wood, and your backpack is waterpoof, then they'll be a huge aid to keeping you afloat (probably not moving quickly, but definitely afloat). Is your weapon a longsword, or a morningstar? The latter is most likely hollow metal and is probably neutrally buoyant at worst. A spear, club or staff are all going to float if they're made of wood or hollow metal. Heck, a greataxe may well float, depending on the disposition of haft and head.
Of course your gear floating might not be a good thing - it's going to be near impossible to block with a floating shield or attack with a floating weapon while trying to fight underwater for instance.
Our Paladin in our seafaring game got around this problem by obtaining a set of Mariner's armour. He went from "I'm not fighting near the edge of the ship ever!" to "I dive in to grapple the Aboleth!" With the acquisition of this one "uncommon" item, he is now doing a lot more fun and interesting things than before!
OoftaMeg wrote:
I would either go with handwave any penalty for swimming in armour (inc plate), or impose disad. I wouldnt make it auto drown, even if a bit unrealistic. It's one of those areas I dont mind bending reality somewhat.
Coredump00 wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Things to keep in mind:
First, you need to let your players know what the rules are regarding armour and swimming BEFORE it becomes relevant. If it is "You will sink like a stone", that's fine as long as they KNOW that in advance. It can make for exciting fights abourd the deck of a ship as the tank fighter will be aware it is near-certain death if the pirates drive him overboard.
Secondly, if you try to maintain a certain level of "realism" regarding how the non-magical parts of the universe work, it totally makes sense to make swimming (and possibly climbing, but lest's not get sidetracked) much more difficult in armour. I get that. BUT, consider: what classes are most likely to have one of their precious skill slots devoted to Athletics? Answer, the ones who are also most likely to wear heavy armour. So you would be penalizing them on one of the things their class choices design them to do.
What would I do personally? I would apply Disadvantage on swimming rolls to any character wearing armour that has disadvantage on Stealth checks, and also any character that is "Encumbered" if using the more detailed encumbrance rule. But I wouldn't require a check at all unless the water was choppy, the distance great, or some other negative circumstance applied. If a check was required, on a failure they would sink 15 feet.
As far as I can see - he is not swimming, he is slowly sinking while moving forward. A stonger person will be slowly sinking and moving forward faster
If I were to rule it out I would start from the fact that it is impossible for an average knight to do it which for me means 15 Str, training in athletics and +2 proficiency bonus, so a DC of about 25 seems reasonable. If it is in the middle of a battle, probably will wave out the disadvantage due to the adreanline rush. Also, I will have a large variety of other option for a player who fails said almost impossible check other than "you drawn". If I don't die from falling into a bear pit with poisonous steel spikes at the bottom, then I surely expect not to outright die for falling into the water. Still, a game where "I swim in my fulplate with a backpack and a greatsword on my back through the running river" is a smart solution... is a bit too stupid game for me.
Definitely only wearing half plate in that video.
I think it depends on your world / campain. For example if the campain requiers ship travel every other session then it reasonable to presume that proficenecy includes such actions as such arrmor would not exist due do the fact nobody would buy it. But if your campain is land locked and the Kolbolds are just flooding a cavern. . . then you tell them they are unable to swim in it
just a thought
Well, they'd survive for a few rounds, so they could be rescued. Unlikely, I'd have the full plate wearer walk a plank in full plate. Wouldn't the pirates want to keep the armor?
I'd resolve it by either
1) letting the player find a way to breath/ walk on the bottom
2) letter the other players find a way to mount a rescue
3) let the player doff the armor and swim back up without it (probably turn this into multi-round checks to add tension.)
of course there's always
4) mermen find him and give him gillyweed.
Wuzzard wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
BRJN wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
I would think the looser the clothing the more dangerous it would be.
Falling in wearing a wedding dress or wizard robes would probably result in straight up drowning. The loose folds just interfere way too much with your arms and legs.
Even if you can't swim properly in armor, if it is strapped tightly to you and not interferring with movement, you can still grab on to things to pull yourslf up.
Vulf wrote:
This question always makes me think of Lancelot's song in the musical Camelot.
"A knight of the Table Round should be invincible,
Succeed where a less fantastic man would fail.
Climb a wall no one else can climb,
Cleave a dragon in record time,
Swim a moat in a coat of heavy iron mail."
I might require both the armor proficiency and athletics proficiency, but otherwise don't see much problem. It is a very thematic action for a heroic character, is it really hard to do? Probably. Do I think a character should be able to? Yes.