What cover deos being submerged in water provide?

[Pickaxe]

Immersion implies being surrounded on all sides by water.

I would agree that a more formal definition would be helpful, but, to me, immersion implies more than just being surrounded. I'm immersed if I'm in a volume of water and I'm completely below the surface. It's not just a layer adhering to my body.

Perhaps a better way to rule this is by how much water is covering you, in a manner analogous to fog and concealment. If you're just below the surface, you have cover. If your are at least five feet below the surface, you have total cover. (And, of course you could extrapolate this to other directions, if you are researching the "Protective Water Cube" spell.)

--Axe

 

[velm]

I would have to say it would depend on how deep a person is. If a person is only 6 inches to a foot or so underwater, arrows and crossbow bolts and thrown spears would still get to them. I would probably apply a concealment bonus to them due to light refraction. Deeper down, probably start adding some cover due to resistance to objects.

 

[Piratecat]

If you wanted to try and approach reality (hah!), more than a foot or two of water would provide concealment (a lot like blur), and would provide cover vs. slashing and bludgeoning attacks. Otherwise, spells and piercing attacks would conceivably be unaffected.

Not that this is the House Rules forum.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yeah, but reality-based physics interferes with my ability to violate the rules of common sense and cynically break the game for cheap laughs.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Well, now that you're changed your original argument I don't have a problem with it at all. But 1 cm of water isn't going to do anything. If you can't see that then sorry, I'm not going to waste anymore time on this...

edit: sorry, I didn't see that last post. If this is all a joke to you (which I'm assuming it is cuz no DM worth his salt is going to let you create a spell that does what you're arguing for), then go nuts. I'm only interested in serious rules discussions.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

FYI, specific rules for "The Effects of Water" can be found on page 5 of "Into the Frozen Wastes" - an adventure download on the WotC site. It's authored by Skip Williams. The adventure was 3.0E.

In short, someone in water up to their chest has 1/4 cover from those on land and someone completely submerged has 1/2 cover. They also have types of concealment from 50 to 200 feet (less for murky water).

The table also states that water modifiers apply when the water is at least waist deep or more.

 

[taliesin15]

I think Ogrork's last post is on the right track--one thing I was looking for here was some kind of consideration for the angle of the attacker(s)--from right above (say from a ship) during daylight in clear water, it doesn't seem like immersion gives all that much cover. Especially let's say if the attacker(s) are using something like crossbows--even javelins--scenes from Moby Dick come to mind here.

And, natch, from an extreme side angle (right level at the surface, more than 25' away), even with daylight and clear calm water, its nigh impossible to *see* someone immersed in water much less attack. Right there's a situation where I can see something like +15 to AC for the immersed.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ogork, I do consider finding expoits of the RAW a "serious rules discussion." I also find it funny. This is, as I have suggested, akin to the "bag of rats" exploit for Great Cleave. It's "legal" by the rules, but it defies logic. I think that loopholes like this should be closed, and so discovering them is important.

As it stands, if I lived in Greyhawk, I could create a low-level spell that coated me with water, and by doing so achieve complete invulnerability to attacks. This is because Greyhawk's laws of physics are defined in terms of a very specific set of rules, and any changes to those rules to make them conform to a more common-sense notion of physics are "house rules," and not supported by the RAW.

Now then, we have stumbled upon a problem with the RAW. This may be milked for its comedic value, but it should also probably be fixed.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I think the makers of D&D have better things to do with their time (I know I do) than fixing "problems" created by people who take everything too literally. The downside of the internet, I suppose.

I think any decent DM knows the answer to this question and wouldn't waste their time arguing over such a frivolous interpretation of the rules.

But heh, that's just IMHO.

Ogrork out.

 

[Corlon]

merfolk wars wouldn't get much accomplished now would they?


I never realized there was a rule for this...

I'd probalby just do concealment depending on the color of the liquid involved, or cover if they're pretty far under, especially against bludgeoning weapons.