D&D General How many air-blown waterskins are needed, if wearing metal armors, to prevent sinking in water?

[GMMichael]

None.

The above are normal guys (Commoners) and not Leveled PCs.

1) Why is he calling the mail "chain mail?"
2) The cameraman made it pretty obvious that the "swimming" was happening in shallow water.
3) That guy's swimming was dangerously close to sinking, despite the shallow water.

So, like @Oofta , I'm not convinced. However, the "leveled PCs" part is a good point; it shouldn't take too much Proficiency to overcome a decent swimming penalty. Or: strength check penalty.

 

[Flamestrike]

The question I would have for this is did he have a gambeson under the armor because it looks like he does not. That's what gave the guy in chain that I watched buoyancy. Of course, whether people wore a gambeson under plate also depends on who you ask and may have varied.

The issue with plate armor is not so much the weight, it's also the lack of mobility. The articulation isnt really designed for any swimming strokes other than breath stroke.

For weight alone, it's long been established that you actually need to strap on around 10 percent of your bodyweight - give or take for fat/muscle composition - in lead weights (divers use dive belts for this purpose) just to sink to the bottom and counter act your own bodies boyancy:

https://diveandmore.com/how-much-weight/#:~:text=Take 10% of your body weight in lead&text=For example, muscles sink and,actually need more than 18lbs.

So your average 85 kilo man requires around 8.5 kilos of lead weights just to counter his own flotation, and even then he can pretty easily tread water to counteract that weight strapped to him.

Like, anyone can test this out.

1) Strap on a dive belt with lead weights.
2) Jump in the pool and tread water (starting in the shallow end and supervised by friends of course).

I'm ex-military myself and in good shape, and I can tread water and swim with a 10-kilo (25lb or so) dive belt attached (but you have to work at it, and it tires you out much faster than it does without).

However, the "leveled PCs" part is a good point; it shouldn't take too much Proficiency to overcome a decent swimming penalty. Or: strength check penalty.

Exactly. I'm not a levelled PC capable of falling from the Empire State building and walking away or taking down 3 Brown bears at the same time bare handed or smacking the Balrog of Moria to death with a hammer.

This thread is a textbook example of the guy in the gym fallacy. The 'guy in the gym' is an unlevelled Commoner with 5 hit points and a Strength score of 10.

He's not an 11th level Fighter capable of doing a superhero landing from a 100' fall and walking away, or killing a T-Rex with a pocket knife.

Those guys can swim in Plate.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

1) Why is he calling the mail "chain mail?"

Too much D&D?

2) The cameraman made it pretty obvious that the "swimming" was happening in shallow water.

That doesn't affect how difficult it is to swim, just the consequences of failure.

3) That guy's swimming was dangerously close to sinking, despite the shallow water.

The guy isn't a trained warrior. Make a DC 10 Athletics check.


The point isn't to suggest it's easy to swim in armor, just to debunk the idea that you would sink like a stone. Clearly a floatation aid would be helpful. But then the wizard also needs one - those long robes are going to become waterlogged.

 

[greg kaye]

But then the wizard also needs one - those long robes are going to become waterlogged.

The wizard likely has one, s/he just needs to empty out any remaining water and blow it up. That cleric in chain armour or plate could do with at least 12.

The wizard also likely has 10 lb of lift from mage hand (a skin of air, with our physics, would just give 4.16) and can also throw up his cloak sash to that faithful owl. The fighter can just hold onto the wizard. =D

But I'd otherwise suggest that a wizard in the middle of calm, deep water might typically do better than a metal-weighed tank and that the wizard may be able to pull off those long robes more easily than the tank can unbuckle all that armour.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The wizard also likely has 10 lb of lift from mage hand (a skin of air, with our physics, would just give 4.16) and can also throw up his cloak sash to that faithful owl. The fighter can just hold onto the wizard. =D

This seems to combine over-realism with with over-rules. Is it realistic that a wizard can cast a spell (with V and S components) whilst at the same time trying top avoid drowning by struggling out of soggy clothes? And simultaneously instruct a familiar?

But per RAW, Mage Hand cannot carry an object over 10lb at all. It does not exert 10 lb of force. Also, per RAW, the wizard is not an object, and is therefore not affected by the spell.

 

[greg kaye]

The guy isn't a trained warrior. Make a DC 10 Athletics check.

Those guys were the kind of people who would be willing to step into a lake or a swimming pool wearing metal armour. The first guy likely had the equivalent of a chain shirt while the second had Japanese armour that looked to be largely composed of leather which might even contain air while having about the same weight as water.

Chain armour, in our physics, would give a downward drag or 48 lbs and I'd hope that the fighter would have a similarly high level of swimming expertise.

The description of mage hand says that it "can't attack, activate magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds." Some might say that this means that it can carry up to 10 pounds of weight. Unless drowning is immediate, nothing would need to be done simultaneously.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Those guys were the kind of people who would be willing to step into a lake or a swimming pool wearing metal armour. The first guy likely had the equivalent of a chain shirt while the second had Japanese armour that looked to be largely composed of leather which might even contain air while having about the same weight as water.

Chain armour, in our physics, would give a downward drag or 48 lbs and I'd hope that the fighter would have a similarly high level of swimming expertise.

But, as pointed out, other items, such as a cork gambeson, might exert an net upthrust. Then you have to consider the rest of their gear, the effect of having things held in hands, body shape and streamlining, the effect of cold, etc

Or you could just accept that D&D is never going to be realistic, and forget it.

The description of mage hand says that it "can't attack, activate magic items, or carry more than 10 pounds." Some might say that this means that it can carry up to 10 pounds of weight. Unless drowning is immediate, nothing would need to be done simultaneously.

It says it cannot carry an object of more than 10lb. Object has a specific meaning in D&D rules - not a creature. You could not, for example, use mage hand to restrain a crawling claw, even though it weighs less than 10lb, because it is a creature, not an object.

And there is no reason to expect magic to respect any of our physical laws. That's what makes it magic.

 

[greg kaye]

But, as pointed out, other items, such as a cork gambeson, might exert an net upthrust. ...

No one has mentioned cork and I haven't heard it to be the typical material of gambeson.

My thoughts have related to a potential sinking of a ship but it, in many circumstances, it can certainly be relevant to consider a potentially temporary trapping of air in clothing.

In our world physics:
air has a density of 1.3 kg m−3,
water has a density of 997 kg m−3, and
carbon steel has a density of 7,840 kg m−3

Air has a net buoyancy of about 995 kg m−3 in water while steel would have a net weight in water of 6843 kg m−3.

I'm not sure it fits the image of a 5e fighter to be blown up like a marshmallow but, certainly, some level of perhaps temporary buoyancy could be maintained.

This thread has little to do with Mage Hand but whether the hand can have any interaction with an "object" that weighs more than 10 pounds may depend on DM interpretation:

 

[aco175]

This is kind of what I was picturing from the OP.

This is kind of how I would rule it baring some great rolls by the player.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This thread has little to do with Mage Hand but whether the hand can have any interaction with an "object" that weighs more than 10 pounds may depend on DM interpretation:

Earlier Paragraph: "You can use the hand to manipulate an object, open an unlocked door or container, stow or retrieve an item from an open container, or pour the contents out of a vial."

i.e. if it's not an object, a door or a container Mage Hand cannot interact with it in any way (RAW).