D&D 5E Does lightening bolt spell cause extra damage to sea creatures in water?

[pukunui]

The 5e update of "The Styes" in Ghosts of Saltmarsh includes a lightning-based glyph of warding trap that's underwater. The text states that "Because the lightning diffuses evenly through the water, no saving throw is allowed against this effect."

So it doesn't change the area of effect of the glyph. It just doesn't allow a save to avoid any of the damage.

 

[cbwjm]

I like using the older rules where lightning spells create an AoE burst at their start point. This is a little more problematic now since lightning bolts starts from the caster so they'd also be caught in it. I also make fire spells fail underwater.

 

[Deathmaster Banak]

...and so we’re rolling initiative next weekend for battle. And they’re already discussing tactics which is cool...but one player wants to cast lightening bolt into the river, and I’m pretty sure they think that the electricity will cause damage to the hags even if they succeed in their saving throw or that the damage will be amplified because they’re in water?!

Why would the character think that a lightning bolt would do more damage to creatures in water?
Has the character conducted numerous experiments in the world to find this out?
If this is what he is thinking then it looks to me like a case of the player wanting to use real world knowledge that his character would not have which I don't think should be seen as cool or rewarded.

 

[Immoralkickass]

Here's the obligatory 'the spell only does what it says on a tin, nothing more, nothing less.'

I know i know, it sounds boring, but think about it the other way round: If the whole party was underwater, and when the BBEG cast Lightning Bolt, the DM says 'well logically the water would amplify the lightning damage, so you all take 28d6, and you all get disadvantage on Dex saves.' How would you feel?

Honestly, these kind of things only sound appealing when it benefits you.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure if it's in 5e, but I think in earlier editions, a lightning bolt acted as a fireball centered at the start point of the 'bolt'.

That's how I do it. Doesn't do any extra damage though.

 

[S'mon]

I like using the older rules where lightning spells create an AoE burst at their start point. This is a little more problematic now since lightning bolts starts from the caster so they'd also be caught in it. I also make fire spells fail underwater.

I have instant fire spells not work underwater, but a flaming sphere would still work.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Magical lightning doesn't act like real world electricity. Shocking Grasp is a good example. It's extra effective against targets in metal armor, whereas real metal armor would actually protect against electricity by conducting it away from the body.

 

[Weiley31]

I know i know, it sounds boring, but think about it the other way round: If the whole party was underwater, and when the BBEG cast Lightning Bolt, the DM says 'well logically the water would amplify the lightning damage, so you all take 28d6, and you all get disadvantage on Dex saves.' How would you feel?

Dat the BBEG knows EXACTLY how much that evil plan would work against the party.

 

[Casimir Liber]

I find the idea of a fireball working underwater so.....counterintuitive...sigh

 

[The Scythian]

Honestly, these kind of things only sound appealing when it benefits you.

Not necessarily true.

In one of our group's 2E campaigns in the early 1990s, our wizard cast lightning bolt at some alligators we were fighting in shallow water in a sewer tunnel. The DM decided that the lightning bolt would zap the rest of us in the water and we actually had to raise our cavalier from the dead. We were pretty heated in the moment (and we instituted a wergild policy after the battle), but we laugh about it to this day and it's one of the stories we tell new players to our group. I've also used the story over the years to illustrate the kind of unexpected but fun things that can happen in D&D. It doesn't seem to put people off at all.