Sorry for the many and long questions, but I am quite confused by the topic of underwater combat, as presented in the DMG p.93.
1) 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?
2) If so, how do you know whether to apply the penalty if the natural weapons have more than one type? For example, a bite is slashing, piercing and bludgeoning according to the MM (p.312). Does the penalty apply because the weapon is slashing, or does the penalty not apply because the weapon is piercing?
3) 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.
4) 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?
5) 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?
1) 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?
2) If so, how do you know whether to apply the penalty if the natural weapons have more than one type? For example, a bite is slashing, piercing and bludgeoning according to the MM (p.312). Does the penalty apply because the weapon is slashing, or does the penalty not apply because the weapon is piercing?
3) 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.
4) 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?
5) 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?
I think the swim check is the way to go here. If you fail the swim check, you lose your Dex bonus to AC. Losing your Dex bonus is non-trivial, so be careful about dropping it. On the other hand, there's precedent in the climbing rules, but I think it's much easier to swim than to climb and the swim check handles it nicely.
