D&D 5E Swimming in Armor

[S'mon]

Heavy armor = glub, glub, glub. YMMV.

We had this debate before AIR. Basically IRL it is easy to swim forwards in metal armour, but
impossible not to sink, because the armour makes you much denser than the water. So crossing a small lake or river underwater is quite possible, but going in the ocean in metal armour is certain death.

For characters in magic armour I might be inclined to allow Athletics rolls to stay afloat briefly, but certainly if you put on non-magic plate armour and dive in the ocean, you are going to sink.

 

[Oofta]

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?

I would use the rules from the book. Because honestly I don't want to hassle with trying to figure out how much the wizard's backpack is going to weigh once it fills up with water a moment after they go for a swim Yes, I know the wizard could take off the backpack/boots/waterlogged robes but realistically I've never seen that happen.

If anything, there should be disadvantage on your athletics check to swim if you're wearing anything more significant than lightweight clothes (shorts, no shoes) or trying to carry anything. So pretty much everyone but the monk. I just don't think it's worth the overhead.

I'd make exceptions for unusual situations such as having hands tied or similar.

 

[Oofta]

We had this debate before AIR. Basically IRL it is easy to swim forwards in metal armour, but
impossible not to sink, because the armour makes you much denser than the water. So crossing a small lake or river underwater is quite possible, but going in the ocean in metal armour is certain death.

For characters in magic armour I might be inclined to allow Athletics rolls to stay afloat briefly, but certainly if you put on non-magic plate armour and dive in the ocean, you are going to sink.

In all fairness, I don't think either guy in this picture could swim the 50 meters of an olympic size swimming pool.




When you can figure out a reasonable swimming penalty for wearing robes, carrying a staff, backpack, spellbook and components and we can discuss swimming in armor.

 

[LordEntrails]

I would use the rules from the book. Because honestly I don't want to hassle with trying to figure out how much the wizard's backpack is going to weigh once it fills up with water a moment after they go for a swim Yes, I know the wizard could take off the backpack/boots/waterlogged robes but realistically I've never seen that happen.

If anything, there should be disadvantage on your athletics check to swim if you're wearing anything more significant than lightweight clothes (shorts, no shoes) or trying to carry anything. So pretty much everyone but the monk. I just don't think it's worth the overhead.

I'd make exceptions for unusual situations such as having hands tied or similar.

So you choose choice #4, RAW, which is swimming is unaffected by anything a character carries or wears. Which makes things simple, but really doesn't address my need for water being a hazard. Since RAW swimming is not really difficult except in extreme water conditions.

So, for those of you those of you who feel differently, would using the stealth disadvantage as as swim disadvantage be a sufficient rule? i.e. make water a hazard to a party (maybe not equally or fairly to all characters, is understood)
Is it simple enough? Helps makes for interesting encounters? Continues a sufficiently accepted fantasy trope?

 

[LordEntrails]

In all fairness, I don't think either guy in this picture could swim the 50 meters of an olympic size swimming pool.

View attachment 84859


When you can figure out a reasonable swimming penalty for wearing robes, carrying a staff, backpack, spellbook and components and we can discuss swimming in armor.

FYI, attachment is not viewable.

 

[Oofta]

FYI, attachment is not viewable.

Should be fixed, it's just a guy in "typical" wizard robes carrying a staff and a guy in armor.

I don't think either one could effectively swim. YMMV.

 

[LordEntrails]

...
When you can figure out a reasonable swimming penalty for wearing robes, carrying a staff, backpack, spellbook and components and we can discuss swimming in armor.

Easy, swimming in more than underclothes imposes disadvantage.

 

[Oofta]

Easy, swimming in more than underclothes imposes disadvantage.

If you're going to apply a penalty, that to me is more reasonable.

Which means this guy would be just fine

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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

Now you are just making unfounded assumptions.

 

[schnee]

So, for those of you those of you who feel differently, would using the stealth disadvantage as as swim disadvantage be a sufficient rule? i.e. make water a hazard to a party (maybe not equally or fairly to all characters, is understood)
Is it simple enough? Helps makes for interesting encounters? Continues a sufficiently accepted fantasy trope?

I think that's a tempting way to simplify it, but I'm not convinced. Especially since Padded would be significantly worse than several armors that are up to 2-1/2 times as heavy.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Armor/page4&p=7131058&viewfull=1#post7131058