D&D 5E Swimming in Armor

[Uller]

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.

I don't see how it is punishing Sir Swifty. It's keeping them equal. Let's assume both characters are proficient in athletics and a +3 bonus. Sir Swifty has a 12 str. So he gets +4 and Clanky gets a +9. I call for a DC 10 swim check. If you go with my original suggestion (min DC is the AC of armor worn), Swifty needs to roll an 8. Clanky needs to roll a 9. If you go with stick to the same DC but impose disadv for armor with the stealth disadv then Swifty needs a 6 (75% chance of success) and Clanky auto succeeds on the easy check. If you make the DC higher for harder situations (say 15), then Swifty needs an 11 (50% success) and Clanky needs a 6 with disadv (about a 56% chance). So it seems to me that using armor gives the result we would naturally expect. The stronger character in heavy armor has about the same chances as the weaker one in lighter armor. Put a weak character in heavy armor and success becomes tougher.

 

[Oofta]

"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.

I didn't realize your armor was made of cork!

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I didn't realize your armor was made of cork!

More things than just cork can float you know. Like say ducks, or witches. And dry leather

 

[Oofta]

I don't see how it is punishing Sir Swifty. It's keeping them equal. Let's assume both characters are proficient in athletics and a +3 bonus. Sir Swifty has a 12 str. So he gets +4 and Clanky gets a +9. I call for a DC 10 swim check. If you go with my original suggestion (min DC is the AC of armor worn), Swifty needs to roll an 8. Clanky needs to roll a 9. If you go with stick to the same DC but impose disadv for armor with the stealth disadv then Swifty needs a 6 (75% chance of success) and Clanky auto succeeds on the easy check. If you make the DC higher for harder situations (say 15), then Swifty needs an 11 (50% success) and Clanky needs a 6 with disadv (about a 56% chance). So it seems to me that using armor gives the result we would naturally expect. The stronger character in heavy armor has about the same chances as the weaker one in lighter armor. Put a weak character in heavy armor and success becomes tougher.

If both were naked, Clanky could probably swim in a tempest, where Swifty might have a hard time swimming in even slightly choppy water. Have them carry roughly an equal amount of weight as a percentage of their carrying capacity and now they're about even.

That's a penalty that has no logical justification based on how the rules implement swimming.

 

[LordEntrails]

"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.

I've got to agree with this too. Ability to carry stuff on dry land, to walk with it, to lift it, etc. Is not a good representation of how much stuff someone can swim with. It's tempting to think it would be related, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

Again, basing this on what I know of buoyancy and the muscled swimmer problem that was mentioned before.
Not particularly direct sources for what we are discussing, but related and interesting:
- Livestrong
- Scientific American (skip to the observations section)

So, from that there are a couple of observations;
- swimming doesn't take strength, it takes aerobic/lean muscle
- muscle sinks in water, fat floats

"Strength" in D&D certainly represents both types of muscle, but I think it's fairly safe to say carrying capacity on land does not need to equal swimming capacity. I can see one arguing either side of that, and both would be right, depending upon your perspective.

I think that it is important that water is a hazard when appropriate. And for people fighting on a boat, it (IMO) should be.

Here's the ways (that I remember) we have discussed it could be a hazard to a group of PCs'
1) based on strength, a simple athletics check. Simple, but fat guys float on their own
2) based on encumbrance, not simple, and really just a strength based check with modifiers, and see comments on fat and muscle type
3) based on armor, again a strength based check with modifiers, but much simpler than encumbrance. Penalizes tanks, but does seem to account for buoyancy
4) I don't think we came up with a 4th did we?

 

[Uller]

If both were naked, Clanky could probably swim in a tempest, where Swifty might have a hard time swimming in even slightly choppy water. Have them carry roughly an equal amount of weight as a percentage of their carrying capacity and now they're about even.

That's a penalty that has no logical justification based on how the rules implement swimming.

It's not a penalty. It's logical. Clanky can swim really well and then covers himself in steel plates so it gets a little harder. Swifty can swim proficiently and covers himself in something less dense. The result is they then swim about equally. That makes sense to me. Clanky's greater skill in swimming allows him a buffer to swim as well as the unarmored guy that isn't as good at it. YMMV.

How about this: Clanky and Barbar the Barbarian. Both are equally strong and equally athletic. Clanky is wearing full plate and Barbar is in his loin cloth. The both fall in the water. Should they both swim equally well?

It's not about weight. It's about buoyancy. If one of them were wearing 200 lbs of inflatable raft they would automatically not sink.

I'm a strong swimmer. I've worn body armor. Wouldn't dream of trying to swim in it. D&D isn't real life...it's heroic. But choices should have some consequences.

 

[Oofta]

It's not a penalty. It's logical. Clanky can swim really well and then covers himself in steel plates so it gets a little harder. Swifty can swim proficiently and covers himself in something less dense. The result is they then swim about equally. That makes sense to me. Clanky's greater skill in swimming allows him a buffer to swim as well as the unarmored guy that isn't as good at it. YMMV.

How about this: Clanky and Barbar the Barbarian. Both are equally strong and equally athletic. Clanky is wearing full plate and Barbar is in his loin cloth. The both fall in the water. Should they both swim equally well?

It's not about weight. It's about buoyancy. If one of them were wearing 200 lbs of inflatable raft they would automatically not sink.

I'm a strong swimmer. I've worn body armor. Wouldn't dream of trying to swim in it. D&D isn't real life...it's heroic. But choices should have some consequences.

I'll be the first to admit that D&D doesn't do a very good job of modeling many things - including swimming. I accept that these things are not particularly realistic in exchange for a game that's easy, and fun, to play. I wouldn't want to go for a swim in clothes/boots/carrying weapons/ wearing a backpack, but then again I'm not a heroic warrior in a fantasy campaign.

If Barbar was carrying 60 pounds of weight but no armor would you penalize them? If the answer is no, I don't see the justification for the armor penalty.

But, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Personally, I don't see a reason to add yet another rule that penalizes characters that wear heavy armor.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If Barbar was carrying 60 pounds of weight but no armor would you penalize them? If the answer is no, I don't see the justification for the armor penalty.

Is he carrying 60 pounds of gold or 60 pounds of firewood? Or something else?

 

[Oofta]

Is he carrying 60 pounds of gold or 60 pounds of firewood? Or something else?

He's carrying his buddy's studded leather armor, which is really hardened leather with metal plates sewn to it which gives it a buoyancy not significantly different from plate armor with it's padding.

Something like this:


Or maybe he's carrying a backpack, wearing heavy boots, and a tool belt with various implements.

Why? Are you going to ask? Go through his equipment list and add a buoyancy factor chart to the game? Would it matter if the guy in plate armor had 20 pounds of cork on his character sheet? Or if they were a cooper carrying an empty barrel?

We just disagree. I see this whole topic as yet one more way to penalize characters who wear armor. You don't. So be it.

 

[LordEntrails]

...

We just disagree. I see this whole topic as yet one more way to penalize characters who wear armor. You don't. So be it.

So, without making a buoyancy chart, or otherwise complicating things, how would you make water a hazard? That's what I'm trying to get to.

Two guys go swimming, both have the same attributes and skills. Keeping it simple, what makes one swim and the other not? armor? total encumbrance? free hands? boots? nothing?