D&D 5E Swimming in Armor

[LordEntrails]

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.

I missed this because it got posted while I was putting together that other one. I actually like this too. Hmmm, The only problem I see is with situations like scale and breastplate. Both are AC 14, but scale is 45 pounds, breastplate is 20. One has disadvantage on stealth, the other doesn't.

I think the stealth tie in works better. But your is simple and it scales better. Except the skill DC is set regardless of the penalty (normally).Interesting idea though. (so for instance, if you say swimming in a moderate current is DC 12 and in a tsunami is DC 20, then how do you tie in the armor AC?

 

[Uller]

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.

If you don't have a swim speed, melee attacks are at disadvantage.

Edit: See what happens when I'm watching Stanley cup hockey and reading EN world at the same time...missed that "with a swim speed..." clause.

 

[LordEntrails]

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.

Spears etc no penalty, but I think mauls and swords are disadvantage aren't they?

 

[Oofta]

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.



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...



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



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



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).

I think that "what penalty should there be for wearing armor" is the wrong question. If a penalty is applied for armor, it's because armor is heavy. More to the point armor is heavy enough to be a burden to the wearer.

We have a cleric in our group who literally could not pick up a 10 pound chest without being encumbered, even though he only wears medium armor. IMHO he should be more penalized than the guy with the belt of frost giant strength and chain mail.

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?

 

[Uller]

I missed this because it got posted while I was putting together that other one. I actually like this too. Hmmm, The only problem I see is with situations like scale and breastplate. Both are AC 14, but scale is 45 pounds, breastplate is 20. One has disadvantage on stealth, the other doesn't.

I think the stealth tie in works better. But your is simple and it scales better. Except the skill DC is set regardless of the penalty (normally).Interesting idea though. (so for instance, if you say swimming in a moderate current is DC 12 and in a tsunami is DC 20, then how do you tie in the armor AC?

You could use my rule plus armors with stealth disadvantage impose swim disadvantage. Makes it pretty hard. Swimming in a tsunami...you're swimming in a tsunami...no matter what it's really really hard.

 

[LordEntrails]

I think that "what penalty should there be for wearing armor" is the wrong question. If a penalty is applied for armor, it's because armor is heavy. More to the point armor is heavy enough to be a burden to the wearer.

We have a cleric in our group who literally could not pick up a 10 pound chest without being encumbered, even though he only wears medium armor. IMHO he should be more penalized than the guy with the belt of frost giant strength and chain mail.

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?

This last sentence resonates strongly with me. Though armor wearers usually have high strength, therefore they have a higher bonus so maybe the penalty is not as discriminatory as it sounds.

Part of this is I am looking to put the rule into a module for the DMsG. So sticking with armor based is going to be familiar with people (i.e. prior editions did this). And if I go the encumbrance route, I think it would be ignored by a vast majority (as my impression is that most GM's don't bother to track).

You're swaying me, but probably not enough. I think just sticking with disadvantage if the armor has stealth disadvantage is going to be easy to use and familiar enough that it would invoke little comment/complaint.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Spears etc no penalty, but I think mauls and swords are disadvantage aren't they?

If you don't have a swim speed, then there's a penalty when using most non-piercing weapons. It's either disadvantage on the attack roll, or half damage, or something like that. It's not terribly important, because as long as you are using a spear or shortsword or something, there's no penalty whatsoever.

If you have a swim speed, then you can use any weapon underwater with no penalty. Sahuagin, for example, have no reason to use a spear or trident rather than a greatsword or maul.

 

[Eltab]

I and my DM had to make up rules to accomplish the opposite: to sink not swim

My Paladin jumped into 30-foot deep water while wearing full plate armor (and a long Rope). On purpose.
Our Rogue had already jumped in, a couple of turns ago. She was swimming towards the bottom and drowning - I wanted to get down to her FAST.
The rest of the group had the presence of mind to hold onto the other end of rope. I got to grapple with the Rogue until she went unconscious.
(The Rogue had been hit by a trap that involved pots of hallucinogenic dust. After all this, I went back and collected the unbroken pots.)

The group did eventually pull us both up to the surface. Lay on Hands was a life-saver that day.

 

[Eltab]

Can someone point me to any 5E rules about swimming DC, especially in armor? I can't find it in the PHB or DMG...

Just some generic text that swimming is an athletics check in the PHB under athletics skills. Even then I don't find a DC for swimming in a gentle river and what effects armor might have (maybe disadvantage if the armor has a stealth disadvantage?)

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.

 

[Uller]

I think that "what penalty should there be for wearing armor" is the wrong question. If a penalty is applied for armor, it's because armor is heavy. More to the point armor is heavy enough to be a burden to the wearer.

...snip...

Why single out armor wearers?

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.

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.