D&D 5E Swimming in Armor

[Uller]

There is a section in Rise of Tiamat where you are travelling in a longboat. There are rules for swimming back to the boat, should you be knocked out. When I DM'ed it, I had "the Loch Ness Monster" (actually a Plesiosaur) bump the boat from underneath, trying to get a snack.
Would you believe it - most of the sailors fell out but most of the PCs stayed aboard?

Next time I'm going to give Nessie a Swallow Whole ability.

What page? I can't find it.

 

[Oofta]

A couple of points:

1) Whatever else is being carried/worn can be discarded before drowning. Armor, not so much. Remember...D&D (especially 5e) is not a simulation. Certainly if you want you can make the rules more detailed, but for my part, I like quick, simple rules that cover most situations fine. For my part, I assume that if someone is having trouble swimming the first thing they are doing is dropping whatever they are holding, then dropping their pack or removing any load bear gear they have before they sink too far.

If a DM ever enforced someone losing everything in their backpack after ditching it in the water, I might be OK with it. However, that never happens. It's always been "Oh you're wearing armor? You sink to the bottom of the ocean! Wizard carrying max capacity? "Give me a DC 5 athletics check. Well, on second thought don't bother - you bob like a cork."

I wish I were exaggerating.

2) Swimming checks are already strength based. So all else being equal, the guy with the 10 strength and no athletics skill will have a harder time than the guy with 18 strength and/or proficiency in athletics. Again....this may not be realistic. I had a buddy that was all muscle in the army. We had to swim as part of some training we were doing with boots and other gear on...he sank like a stone. I'm not strong at all and not particularly athletic but can swim pretty well, even with boots and other gear. Again...D&D isn't a simulation so this is fine, I think.

The ability to swim (rightly or wrongly) in D&D is measured by your athletics score. That may or may not be realistic, but there will always be compromises in a simplified ruleset.

Besides, maybe he just rolled a 1.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a penalty for carrying extra weight. Just that it should not matter whether the weight comes from armor or other equipment. Either take a swag at realism and use overall encumberance vs carrying capacity or just ignore the whole thing. Strength based/heavy armor archetypes already have enough disadvantages in the game they don't need any more.

 

[LordEntrails]

...
2) Swimming checks are already strength based. So all else being equal, the guy with the 10 strength and no athletics skill will have a harder time than the guy with 18 strength and/or proficiency in athletics. Again....this may not be realistic. I had a buddy that was all muscle in the army. We had to swim as part of some training we were doing with boots and other gear on...he sank like a stone. I'm not strong at all and not particularly athletic but can swim pretty well, even with boots and other gear. Again...D&D isn't a simulation so this is fine, I think.

Worth noting, in that Coast Guard rescue swimmer movie with Kevin Coster (?) there is actually a scene in there about that. It has to due with muscle density or something.

To everyone else, I do want to let you all know I appreciate the thoughts and your time. Not that the discussion need be over, but wanted to make sure you knew I appreciated the inputs etc.

 

[Uller]

If a DM ever enforced someone losing everything in their backpack after ditching it in the water, I might be OK with it. However, that never happens. It's always been "Oh you're wearing armor? You sink to the bottom of the ocean! Wizard carrying max capacity? "Give me a DC 5 athletics check. Well, on second thought don't bother - you bob like a cork."

I wish I were exaggerating.

Like I said, it's not a simulation. If people want it to be a simulation they can make more detailed rules. Just like when you are paralyzed, your AC still includes your dex bonus. A more simulationist approach would include rules for not including dex in some circumstances and not including armor in others (like touch attacks). But it's a game. Generally simpler is better.

And yes...the simplest thing is just ignore armor and there is nothing wrong with that, either.

In the case of my group, the PCs and their NPC cohorts are travelling in boats. No one is carrying anything other than armor and weapons and the like. No one is carrying around their packs. They are stowed. Of the two characters that fell out of the boat, one has no armor and a +5 athletics. The other is wearing scale mail and a +2 to athletics. It would be off to have the one weaker armored character not have some greater difficulty. So if I call for a DC 10 swim check to stay afloat through some rapids, it seems fair that the guy wearing scale mail will have a DC 14 check or make the DC 10 check at disadvantage (I'll probably just do the latter...again, simpler is better).

The ability to swim (rightly or wrongly) in D&D is measured by your athletics score. That may or may not be realistic, but there will always be compromises in a simplified ruleset.

Besides, maybe he just rolled a 1.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a penalty for carrying extra weight. Just that it should not matter whether the weight comes from armor or other equipment. Either take a swag at realism and use overall encumberance vs carrying capacity or just ignore the whole thing. Strength based/heavy armor archetypes already have enough disadvantages in the game they don't need any more.

My assumption is that when combat occurs or other dangerous situations, people are dropping their encumbering gear or have left it behind in a camp or at some other rally point. If your group is doing detailed encumbrance by the book, then yeah...it makes sense to use weight. I'd say if you are heavily encumbered, you have disadvantage on swim checks and you can drop gear to lighten up. If you are unencumbered, swim checks are at advantage. Seems fair.

 

[schnee]

If it's too much of a hassle to figure out encumbrance, then perhaps it's too much of a hassle to apply a penalty. There are many people who penalize armor wearing characters in various ways (sleeping, not able to wear armor in a city and so forth). I just see this as another example of a penalty that feels like a penalty that only applies to certain character builds. Why single out armor wearers?

I've spent the better part of five minutes writing all sorts of 'realistic' thinking on this, but I agree with you...D&D 5E is a 'heroic' game. It's not the Fantasy Vietnam of Basic, it's tough to die. Characters are bad-ass. So I'd say the Champion fighter should be able to swim in armor as well as the pasty Wizard in long, flowing, water-soaked robes. Maybe even better.

That said, I think it's OK for people with a definite weakness - such as a melee Tank wearing full plate who didn't shore up their stats or skills to handle it - to be vulnerable. It's the same for a caster dumping CHA being susceptible to Banishment, or an INT dump stat to always falling to Mind Flayers.

I'm not sure how I'll ultimately go on this, but I'm less worried about being 'realistic' as I am about allowing water hazards to work as a legitimate feature in combat set pieces. Something that creates a real danger and suspense, but isn't immediately lethal.

 

[Uller]

I'm not sure how I'll ultimately go on this, but I'm less worried about being 'realistic' as I am about allowing water hazards to work as a legitimate feature in combat set pieces. Something that creates a real danger and suspense, but isn't immediately lethal.

I think this nails my thinking on it. Water should be a hazard that is meaningful but it should be simple to adjudicate. Characters who used Str as a dump stat will have trouble no matter what. Characters that wear lots of armor will have trouble too. I think the simplest thing is just use the same penalty for stealth as for swimming.

 

[Oofta]

Like I said, it's not a simulation. If people want it to be a simulation they can make more detailed rules. Just like when you are paralyzed, your AC still includes your dex bonus. A more simulationist approach would include rules for not including dex in some circumstances and not including armor in others (like touch attacks). But it's a game. Generally simpler is better.

And yes...the simplest thing is just ignore armor and there is nothing wrong with that, either.

In the case of my group, the PCs and their NPC cohorts are travelling in boats. No one is carrying anything other than armor and weapons and the like. No one is carrying around their packs. They are stowed. Of the two characters that fell out of the boat, one has no armor and a +5 athletics. The other is wearing scale mail and a +2 to athletics. It would be off to have the one weaker armored character not have some greater difficulty. So if I call for a DC 10 swim check to stay afloat through some rapids, it seems fair that the guy wearing scale mail will have a DC 14 check or make the DC 10 check at disadvantage (I'll probably just do the latter...again, simpler is better).





My assumption is that when combat occurs or other dangerous situations, people are dropping their encumbering gear or have left it behind in a camp or at some other rally point. If your group is doing detailed encumbrance by the book, then yeah...it makes sense to use weight. I'd say if you are heavily encumbered, you have disadvantage on swim checks and you can drop gear to lighten up. If you are unencumbered, swim checks are at advantage. Seems fair.

Ok, let's do a simple thought experiment. Sir Swifty, the high dex fighter in studded leather VS Captain Clanky the strength based fighter in plate.

Let's compare carrying capacity (numbers based on my own group, YMMV). I'm throwing in 10 pounds of miscellaneous gear because I've never seen a character that didn't have some extra stuff and because water logged clothes/boots are heavy.

Sir Swifty:
Studded Leather 13
Shield 6
Long Bow 2
Rapier 2
Miscellaneous 10
Total Weight 27
Strength 8
Carrying Capacity 120
Percent of Capacity 23

Captain Clank:
Plate 65
Shield 6
Long Bow 2
Long Sword 3
Miscellaneous 10
Total Weight 86
Strength 20
Carrying Capacity 300
Percent of Capacity 28

Why penalize Clanky for having 5% more weight as a percentage of their carrying capacity? And this is close to a best-case scenario assuming minimal gear with no other weapons. Give Sir Swifty a reasonable amount of equipment characters seem to always carry or a feat and throw him in medium armor and he's much worse off.

 

[schnee]

Yeah, I think 'Disadvantage on Stealth' is really a subtle thing.

People are built to detect danger. Our lives have depended on it. And the type of noise you make as a person really sticks out against the background. It doesn't take much at all to make stealth hard.

Does that really translate to a 20-40% penalty on movement checks for climbing? Running? Acrobatics? Nah. It shouldn't reply to Swimming either.

Now... Encumbered? I'd consider calling that Disadvantage. And it presents a clear case of 'keep that backpack full of gold, or drop it and live?' That makes for interesting gaming.

 

[CydKnight]

I played an AL game yesterday, Foulness in Mulmaster, and took off my chainmail to swim underwater to the cavern at the end. I tied off my gear to a rope, dragged it only as far as I needed to while under water, then pulled it up when I surfaced. I strapped my weapon to me. Yeah I got attacked by multiple bad guys as soon as I surfaced, but I survived since the rest of the party was right behind me.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Why penalize Clanky for having 5% more weight as a percentage of their carrying capacity? And this is close to a best-case scenario assuming minimal gear with no other weapons. Give Sir Swifty a reasonable amount of equipment characters seem to always carry or a feat and throw him in medium armor and he's much worse off.

"Carrying capacity" simply isn't very relevant in water, buyoancy is what matters. That steel plate armor would sink straight to the bottom if Captain Clank wasn't wearing it, while the studded leather armor will probably float until it gets completely waterlogged.