D&D 5E Swimming in Armor

[TheCosmicKid]

I've had to swim in clothes, and it's noticeable different than in a swimming suit. What experience swimming in armor do those who say it doesn't matter have?

Throw on 40 pounds plus a quilted cloth under that that would fill with water? I don't buy it.

Plus, if swimming in armor wasn't a problem, then how come historically sailors don't wear armor? How come modern body armor has quick release pulls for dumping it if you fall in water?

Regardless, at my table, swimming in armor is a problem. I just have to figure out rules that are simple, and reasonably believable.

Swimming in armor is definitely a problem. Swimming in anything more than a lightweight skintight suit is a problem. There's a reason survival swim courses teach you how to get out of your clothes. Realistically, all the crap adventurers wear and carry would grant them a huge disadvantage even if they don't wear armor. Practically, I assume that the swimming rules assume this disadvantage as the default, and grant advantage to characters who strip down and prepare for their swim.

What swimming in armor is not is a death sentence. Here's a guy swimming in samurai armor. It's doable. I'd just never want to do it.

So for light and maybe medium armor, I think it's fair to write it off as part of the overall assumed gear in the swimming rules. For heavy armor, calling for DC 15 Athletics checks in smooth water, higher in rougher water, seems simple and appropriate.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Short answer: There are none.

Long answer: I had stealth-disadvantage armor grant the same penalty to athletics for long-periods of swimming.

That's exactly how i play, for any swimming check.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], I didn't talk about the myth of barely being able to move in armor. And the 40 pounds of armor I mentioned is right in the range you gave. Which matches the weights in the PHB too.

I haven't studied viking armor, but I've always been under the impression it wasn't much more that studded leather. Which is light armor, and per my rules would impose no penalty.

To be fair, I decided to do a little Google to see what I can find:

Here's a guy swimming in a chain shirt (medium armor, PHB says 20lbs) without the padded undergarmet in calm water. Notice he was able to do so, but obviously it wasn't a trivial affair.

Here's a guy in full chain not even trying to swim and really not even floating. Sounds pretty close to what I'm suggesting; penalty, disadvantage, no movement (floating / treading water only).

Here's Mythbuster's trying full plate as a shark protector. He mighted have been weighted since he has scuba on. No conclusions from this.

Swimming in samurai armor, not easy, but possible in calm water. Seems to fit with my rules, IMO. Note here's more info onthis video, and the discussionthat a special stroke was developed and used; http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/swim-samurai-33-lbs-medival-armor-article-1.1178426

Here is full plate, which clearly shows this guys inability to swim in it in calm water. Note, it may look like he's floating, but he's standing. Watch when he tries to float, and instead sinks within seconds.

Is there still any reason to think swimming in medium or heavy armor wouldn't impose a penalty? (Maybe wizards robes would too, but that's not what I was asking about.)

Like I said, do what you want nobody's stopping you. I'd be a little more convinced by videos if it was a professional athlete actually used to wearing armor attempting to do the swimming. I've seen other videos of people successfully swimming in armor (though admittedly I can't find it now), but I'm not surprised that your typical western random couch potato would struggle.

As far as vikings, there was a variety but most used chain mail and shield. Of course I've also heard that many sailors didn't swim (especially in areas like the North Sea) because if you fell overboard you were pretty much a goner anyway. If I had to give someone a penalty, it would be a penalty to their athletics check, not an automatic "you can't swim in heavy armor". This is a fantasy game about heroes, even heroes that wear armor.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have a simple solution. I set the DC based on everything that could make it hard to do.
Choppy water? Armour? Robes? Backpack? Bedroll? Shield? Stuff in your hands? All things that raise the DC.
NONE of them should raise it to the point where the check is impossible to succeed.
(Well, maybe if it was a dude in plate falls overboard in a south-seas hurricane and won't let go of the cannonball he's carrying)
... then he deserves to drown.

 

[discosoc]

I just grant a flat disadvantage to swim checks when wearing medium or heavy armor. Still makes it doable if the person is proficient in athletics, but still pretty iffy if the DC is 15+.

 

[Oofta]

I have a simple solution. I set the DC based on everything that could make it hard to do.
Choppy water? Armour? Robes? Backpack? Bedroll? Shield? Stuff in your hands? All things that raise the DC.
NONE of them should raise it to the point where the check is impossible to succeed.
(Well, maybe if it was a dude in plate falls overboard in a south-seas hurricane and won't let go of the cannonball he's carrying)
... then he deserves to drown.

Which makes sense. It's a spectrum. A monk with no appreciable equipment, no penalty. A wizard in robes carrying close to their weight capacity? He's going to have as many, if not more issues than someone in armor.

Actually if I cared enough to make a house rule I'd probably base it on carrying capacity versus the amount being currently carried. What should matter is how much spare carrying capacity you have. I've seen wizards that can't carry rations because they'd be slowed even though they aren't in armor and people in armor that could pick up the wizard and his equipment and still not be encumbered. The classification of armor (or lack therein) being worn shouldn't be the issue, how close you are to being overloaded could be.

As it is I just hand-wave it as too complicated and not worth my effort. But, then again I'm a lazy DM sometimes and don't worry about things that just get in the way of the story without adding a ton of value.

 

[Uller]

I'm about to have this issue in my PbP game...two NPCs just fell out of the boat they are on. I'm leaning toward just making the minimum DC for any swim checks be the AC of any armor worn. So if I call for a DC 12 athletics check to swim in some current but the character is wearing chain mail then the DC is 16 instead. Full plate would be 18.

 

[LordEntrails]

Swimming in armor is definitely a problem. ...

What swimming in armor is not is a death sentence. Here's a guy swimming in samurai armor. It's doable. I'd just never want to do it....

Agreed. And my proposed rules did not make it a death sentence. That was one of the videos I linked, but it's definitely one of the best examples. It shows that it is possible, but it's not easy, trivial, etc.

Like I said, do what you want nobody's stopping you. I'd be a little more convinced by videos if it was a professional athlete actually used to wearing armor attempting to do the swimming. I've seen other videos of people successfully swimming in armor (though admittedly I can't find it now), but I'm not surprised that your typical western random couch potato would struggle.

As far as vikings, there was a variety but most used chain mail and shield. Of course I've also heard that many sailors didn't swim (especially in areas like the North Sea) because if you fell overboard you were pretty much a goner anyway. If I had to give someone a penalty, it would be a penalty to their athletics check, not an automatic "you can't swim in heavy armor". This is a fantasy game about heroes, even heroes that wear armor.

The samurai video is not a couch potato. I believe he was an accomplished swimmer before, but not sure. He had to use a special stroke that was developed just for swimming in armor, and his speed was very slow. Similar to a "dog paddle" in speed.

And I don't get why people keep coming back to this can't swim in heavy armor. I never said that, my rules don't say that...

I have a simple solution. I set the DC based on everything that could make it hard to do.
Choppy water? Armour? Robes? Backpack? Bedroll? Shield? Stuff in your hands? All things that raise the DC.
NONE of them should raise it to the point where the check is impossible to succeed.
(Well, maybe if it was a dude in plate falls overboard in a south-seas hurricane and won't let go of the cannonball he's carrying)
... then he deserves to drown.

See I don't see that as simple. A table of penalties is cumbersome. A flat penalty or disadvantage is simple.

I just grant a flat disadvantage to swim checks when wearing medium or heavy armor. Still makes it doable if the person is proficient in athletics, but still pretty iffy if the DC is 15+.

Yea, maybe, but I think to differentiate between medium and heavy, maybe... see below...

...
Actually if I cared enough to make a house rule I'd probably base it on carrying capacity versus the amount being currently carried. What should matter is how much spare carrying capacity you have. I've seen wizards that can't carry rations because they'd be slowed even though they aren't in armor and people in armor that could pick up the wizard and his equipment and still not be encumbered. The classification of armor (or lack therein) being worn shouldn't be the issue, how close you are to being overloaded could be.

As it is I just hand-wave it as too complicated and not worth my effort. But, then again I'm a lazy DM sometimes and don't worry about things that just get in the way of the story without adding a ton of value.

This is probably the most realistic (based on encumbrance) but again, that's not easy. Then players will start doing thing like, ok, I drop my bedroll and my this, now I'm not at disadvantage... Plus I rarely track weight (even though FG does it for me).

I'm thinking now that the easiest rule would be simply if the armor grants disadvantage for stealth then it also grants disadvantage on swim (athletics) checks too. Maybe add in a speed penalty (stacking difficult terrain, so it would be 3 for 1 movement).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Which makes sense. It's a spectrum. A monk with no appreciable equipment, no penalty. A wizard in robes carrying close to their weight capacity? He's going to have as many, if not more issues than someone in armor.

Actually if I cared enough to make a house rule I'd probably base it on carrying capacity versus the amount being currently carried. What should matter is how much spare carrying capacity you have. I've seen wizards that can't carry rations because they'd be slowed even though they aren't in armor and people in armor that could pick up the wizard and his equipment and still not be encumbered. The classification of armor (or lack therein) being worn shouldn't be the issue, how close you are to being overloaded could be.

As it is I just hand-wave it as too complicated and not worth my effort. But, then again I'm a lazy DM sometimes and don't worry about things that just get in the way of the story without adding a ton of value.

To make all of that easy, I just get the player to roll and eyeball the result. If they roll a 3 and are wearing plate and a shield, and holding a mace, I'll say "you go under and swallow water!" If they roll a 23, I'll say "You beat your way to the surface, in spite of the difficulty!", if they roll a 14, I'll have to give it a little more thought. I'd probably say "You swallow water, but you manage to get a breath in before your overall weight pulls you down!" (and then wait and see how they roll next round. The 3 pulls 'em down, the 23 has 'em break the surface. The 16? "You manage to beat to the surface long enough to get a breath in, and go back under from the weight."

Rinse, repeat.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

By the rules in the book, anyone with a swim speed can swing a maul underwater at no penalty to hit or damage. The underwater rules are somewhat lacking in this edition.