Does Water Breathing allow spell casting?

[Jeremy]

.. the spell says ... breath water in place of air. Meaning your mouth, lungs & everything in between is full of water ... Can you speak? NO! NILL! NADA! NIX! NOT A WORD!!!!!

The spell doesn't specifically say you can speak so you can't? But there isn't really an alternative and might easily be an oversight. As pointed out before, wizards made the spell, you don't think they'd want to be able to cast as well as breath underwater?

If you want to be able to cast spells under water why not use a spell like Freedom, or Freedom of Movement.

But you just said if the spell doesn't say you can, then you can't. Neither of those spells (even the 9th level one) says you can speak underwater.

Are you proposing we find 18th level sorcerers to cast 9th level Freedom spells on us when we want to run underwater spellcasting combats? Or rather, at least when we want to speak?

There are some good points made in prior posts. They point out reasons why water breathing is a good spell to allow V components in underwater spellcasting. Check them out.

You don't think a melee PC would just go walking in to the next lake to kill a sea monster without having a system in place that allows him/her to use the proper weapons freely. Then why shouldn't a spell caster have to prep for his/her weapon... (spells)

He should prep his weapon. With spells like water breathing for V components and Freedom of Movement for S components. Freedom of Movement specifically says it doesn't grant you the ability to breathe water, so it is a poor choice for V components. Is there a better one out there in the Core Rulebooks that you know of or do you think D&D discourages underwater combat?

 

[Xarlen]

Also, I am playing with my naked party member RIGHT NOW, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

Um, Hong, I think everyone knows what you mean.

All I can say is, beware of critical faliures, man.

 

[IceBear]

K.R. you've taken allot of flack.

You're completely correct, & I don't understand why you've taken the heat that you have. The spell says (though not word for word because I don't have the book in front of me) breath water in place of air. Meaning your mouth, lungs & everything in between is full of water.

How it's done? Well that's the magic part of it.

Can you speak? NO! NILL! NADA! NIX! NOT A WORD!!!!!

If you want to be able to cast spells under water why not use a spell like Fredome, or Freedom of Movement. Or a ring/item that allows the same as the afore noted spells. If that's too much, then you should be given an item that allows "Water speak". If your DM wasn't nice enough to do such a thing, then it wasn't meant to be, or you'll have to find one before you jump into the pond. It's one of those little draw backs to playing under water. Do the prep or pay the piper. You don't think a melee PC would just go walking in to the next lake to kill a sea monster without having a system in place that allows him/her to use the proper weapons freely. Then why shouldn't a spell caster have to prep for his/her weapon... (spells)

Magic Rub, I was attacking Kreynolds, in case that was directed at me (which I don't think it was).

Freedom of Movement wouldn't help with the verbal component underwater if you believe that you can't speak with waterbreathing, so that's useless. My point is, you've always been able to do underwater adventuring in the previous editions with waterbreathing, but there appears to be no exisiting way to do so in 3E. Yes, I know that 3E's underwater rules are pretty much non-exisitent, which is why I fall back to 2nd Editions underwater rules which did allow you to cast spells underwater with waterbreathing. I'm fine with waterbreathing working by converting water into air as it enters your nose and mouth so you can breathe. I mean, it's not like it gives you gills, and the human body isn't built for pumping water in and out of your lungs, so that even kinda makes sense. If that's how it worked, then your mouth and nose wouldn't be filled with water and thus you could cast spells with a verbal component.

For those that want to be 3E purists, I could accept differing versions of spells that could be cast underwater. If you could breath underwater, then you can make noises underwater. Now, if those noises don't make intelligent sense, then maybe the above water version of the spell doesn't work. However, a magic missle where the verbal component was changed from "Il na verok tu" to "glub gu glub" I could buy working underwater. Again, I'm pretty sure I've seen a precedent for that in some supplement.

IceBear

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

I think people should decide whether Waterbreathing allows V spellcasting underwater based on what they want for their campaigns, balance, etc. and then decide on a rationale if they think they need one. For instance,

NO: Breathing water means your lungs fill with water. You can't produce clear speech by pushing water through your vocal chords.

YES: Breathing water means water is magically turned into air (or acquires a more air-like consistency) as it enters your lungs. This allows you to speak (although not necessarily be heard) clearly when you cast. [Note that this interpretation offers a convenient "explanation" for why recipients of the spell do not have to stop and hack in pain for several rounds at the end of the duration as they expel the remaining water in their lungs.]

Whether or not you like these particular rationales is not really the point, of course. My suggestion is that the critical thing is deciding WHAT, and only afterwards WHY (if you even care why--you can always say Yes or No and say it just works that way).

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, I'm going to go with Yes, just because I like throwing in underwater adventures from time to time.

IceBear

 

[Magic Rub]

Magic Rub, I was attacking Kreynolds, in case that was directed at me (which I don't think it was).

Freedom of Movement wouldn't help with the verbal component underwater if you believe that you can't speak with waterbreathing, so that's useless. My point is, you've always been able to do underwater adventuring in the previous editions with waterbreathing, but there appears to be no exisiting way to do so in 3E. Yes, I know that 3E's underwater rules are pretty much non-exisitent, which is why I fall back to 2nd Editions underwater rules which did allow you to cast spells underwater with waterbreathing. I'm fine with waterbreathing working by converting water into air as it enters your nose and mouth so you can breathe. I mean, it's not like it gives you gills, and the human body isn't built for pumping water in and out of your lungs, so that even kinda makes sense. If that's how it worked, then your mouth and nose wouldn't be filled with water and thus you could cast spells with a verbal component.

For those that want to be 3E purists, I could accept differing versions of spells that could be cast underwater. If you could breath underwater, then you can make noises underwater. Now, if those noises don't make intelligent sense, then maybe the above water version of the spell doesn't work. However, a magic missle where the verbal component was changed from "Il na verok tu" to "glub gu glub" I could buy working underwater. Again, I'm pretty sure I've seen a precedent for that in some supplement.

IceBear

It's cool Ice Bear . My post was for everyone, & not geared directly at you. I respect your opinion to much for that kind of BS. You do make a good point, however I don't envision the spell in the same way you do. If there ever is a 3e water rule book and it says that speach is possible with waterbreathing, then cool, till then I'm going to be taking the literal meaning of the spell as the basis for my rules. There are allot of spells that have changed from 2e to 3e, so I tend not to use 2e ref's in my game. The Freedom of Movement, & Fredom spell idea was just a thought. Wanted to see what the masses felt about such a use. As a DM I would simply make it a non-issue by handing out rings of "Water speak" if my players felt as strongly as some of you folks. That way I wouldn't be messing with the spell.

 

[kreynolds]

Whether or not you like these particular rationales is not really the point, of course. My suggestion is that the critical thing is deciding WHAT, and only afterwards WHY (if you even care why--you can always say Yes or No and say it just works that way).

The other reason that a choice must be made is this:

If a wizard doesn't have access to the Water Breathing spell, and he's in a battle, he's not gonna dive into the water for the very simple reason that eventually, he'll drown, not to mention that he can't cast spells.

However, even if he does have access to the Water Breathing spell, and the spell doesn't grant the ability to speak underwater, he still won't dive into the water because he can't cast spells, even though he won't drown.

In the end, it's imperative for the wizard to be able to cast his spells, let alone not drown, and since Water Breathing is the only spell that I know of that let's you essentially "survive" underwater, it would make sense that he would be able to speak clearly.

On the flip side though, water affects normal movement, making it difficult to get around without magic or the appropriate appendages, so to effectively cast spells (assuming you can in fact speak when using Water Breathing), you would need a freedom of movement effect to cancel out the difficulty of casting spells in water due to somatic components.

So, by the rules, spellcasters shouldn't be gettin' in the water in the first damn place.

 

[IceBear]

It's cool Ice Bear . My post was for everyone, & not geared directly at you. I respect your opinion to much for that kind of BS. You do make a good point, however I don't envision the spell in the same way you do. If there ever is a 3e water rule book and it says that speach is possible with waterbreathing, then cool, till then I'm going to be taking the literal meaning of the spell as the basis for my rules. There are allot of spells that have changed from 2e to 3e, so I tend not to use 2e ref's in my game. The Freedom of Movement, & Fredom spell idea was just a thought. Wanted to see what the masses felt about such a use. As a DM I would simply make it a non-issue by handing out rings of "Water speak" if my players felt as strongly as some of you folks. That way I wouldn't be messing with the spell.

Oh, I know that there are many changes from 2nd Edition to 3E so I don't normally do this, but I do use this approach in areas where the 3E rules are lacking (and they are REALLY lacking for underwater rules). I have the attitude that if the 3E rules are vague, I'll use historical precedent to decide (ie the old rules). Now, as I said, I'm not 100% knowledgeable with the rules so if someone came to be and said you could do X in 3E this way, then I'd go with that.

I know you could use the silent spell feat, but that doesn't sit well with me.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

The other reason that a choice must be made is this:

If a wizard doesn't have access to the Water Breathing spell, and he's in a battle, he's not gonna dive into the water for the very simple reason that eventually, he'll drown, not to mention that he can't cast spells.

However, even if he does have access to the Water Breathing spell, and the spell doesn't grant the ability to speak underwater, he still won't dive into the water because he can't cast spells, even though he won't drown.

In the end, it's imperative for the wizard to be able to cast his spells, let alone not drown, and since Water Breathing is the only spell that I know of that let's you essentially "survive" underwater, it would make sense that he would be able to speak clearly.

On the flip side though, water affects normal movement, making it difficult to get around without magic or the appropriate appendages, so to effectively cast spells (assuming you can in fact speak when using Water Breathing), you would need a freedom of movement effect to cancel out the difficulty of casting spells in water due to somatic components.

So, by the rules, spellcasters shouldn't be gettin' in the water in the first damn place.

Yeah, I think in the 2nd Edition rules there was even notes on now spells with somatic components could be affected underwater. I wouldn't let someone cast completely unhindered underwater without some form of freedom of movement too.

Anyway, I've sent the question along to the Sage to see what his opinion is.

IceBear

 

[Magic Rub]

The spell doesn't specifically say you can speak so you can't? But there isn't really an alternative and might easily be an oversight. As pointed out before, wizards made the spell, you don't think they'd want to be able to cast as well as breath underwater?

That's a big ol' bunch of nothing but 'Jeremy Assumes'. No fact, no rules, no grounds for a good ruling. Yes there is an alternative, an item that would allow you to speak, or a spell to do the same. Some thing that isn't messing with the existing spell as written. The wizard made the spell to breath water, that's it. Maybe he was a telepath, had no want to cast spells under water because he only used the spell to go visit the Trout King for tea & to play chess? (it's no worse then your guess)

But you just said if the spell doesn't say you can, then you can't. Neither of those spells (even the 9th level one) says you can speak underwater.

Are you proposing we find 18th level sorcerers to cast 9th level Freedom spells on us when we want to run underwater spellcasting combats? Or rather, at least when we want to speak?

The spells I had noted were simply examples, though yes bad ones. All I'm proposing is that the spell does not grant you the magical gift of speaking clearly (or at all) under water. That a spell caster should have to do additional prep in order to cast V spells.

There are some good points made in prior posts. They point out reasons why water breathing is a good spell to allow V components in underwater spellcasting. Check them out.

Yes I have checked out those "good points made in prior posts"... oh Wait... you mean the other posts... the ones I don't agree with. Ya I've checked out those post, & nope I didn't agree. I think that might be why we're not right now.

He should prep his weapon. With spells like water breathing for V components and Freedom of Movement for S components. Freedom of Movement specifically says it doesn't grant you the ability to breathe water, so it is a poor choice for V components. Is there a better one out there in the Core Rulebooks that you know of or do you think D&D discourages underwater combat?

See my last post to Ice bear