Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elemental" data-source="post: 3381918" data-attributes="member: 7931">Okay, just to be 100% clear, I know it makes no sense. I'm not intending to seriously exploit this, and I don't have a player who's trying to exploit it. When I spotted it, my reaction was "Eh? That doesn't make any sense, needs a houserule."I was just pointing out that it seems really strange that water will automatically block all attacks--you can see them, but somehow, they still have total cover. Even if it's somehow impossible for normal humans to attack through the water surface, it's equally impossible for a STR 40 giant with a longspear. Or for a targeted spell that requires no attack. Heck, a divine blast, even.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> This old canard?Armour makes it harder to land a damaging blow on the wearer instead of the armour. Seriously, that's the sort of slam I see from people who have never actually played D&D or read the rules, so I've no idea why you've bought it up here. You do know about the difference between normal attacks and touch attacks, right?Of course, if you find the notion that it's harder to land a damaging blow on an armoured person equally as absurd as water being an impenetrable barrier by the RAW, well....</blockquote>