D&D 5E Underwater Combat

[ichabod]

There is only a teeny little bit about underwater combat in the PHB. This leaves one point of vagueness: What exactly is underwater combat? If both the attacker and the target are underwater, it is obviously underwater combat. But what if only the target is underwater? And what if only the attacker is underwater?

Last session I ruled that if only the target is underwater, the underwater combat rules still apply. One of my players objected, feeling that the rules should only be based on the weapon, not on the full attack. This was specifically dealing with shooting arrows at fully submerged targets, but could have also applied to the guy on the shore swinging a battleaxe at a target in the water.

How would you rule in these situations?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Good question! "Realism" would make most weapons pretty terrible when used to attack something more than just a little underwater. Spears are best.

But rule of cool? I'd say disadvantage is enough of a penalty.

 

[Tonguez]

Isn’t it just disadvantage on attack and short range only? Those rules seem fair to me either way

 

[iserith]

I agree with you ruling. The question in my view is whether the weapon attack is hindered by its interaction with the water where the rules for underwater combat are concerned. It would seem to me that weapon attacks from the shore against an underwater target would be hindered.

 

[ichabod]

Isn’t it just disadvantage on attack and short range only? Those rules seem fair to me either way

I wasn't really limiting the range. Except for a couple hand axe tosses is was all within short range anyway. But I was applying disadvantage to the attacks, at least for creatures without swimming speeds. One guy cast alter self to get a swimming speed, which I thought was a nice tactic.

 

[Quickleaf]

There is only a teeny little bit about underwater combat in the PHB. This leaves one point of vagueness: What exactly is underwater combat? If both the attacker and the target are underwater, it is obviously underwater combat. But what if only the target is underwater? And what if only the attacker is underwater?

Last session I ruled that if only the target is underwater, the underwater combat rules still apply. One of my players objected, feeling that the rules should only be based on the weapon, not on the full attack. This was specifically dealing with shooting arrows at fully submerged targets, but could have also applied to the guy on the shore swinging a battleaxe at a target in the water.

How would you rule in these situations?

I took my hunter ed course in Hawai'i with a guy who was pretty knowledgable about bow-hunting (which remains my interest though I've never actually bow-hunted yet, haven't had the opportunity, just dirt time/practice) and bow-fishing, and he mentioned with a good high poundage bow shooting into clear water around 8 feet deep. I suspect you could shoot a bit deeper than that, but it would depend on water visibility & probably the current (if it's strong).

If a fight is happening in the shallows so debris/silt is being churned, if there's lots of sun/light glare off the surface, if it's night time - those are all circumstances in which I usually treat a creature lurking in the water as being hidden.