PDA

View Full Version : Lightning into water? (D&D 3.5)



MariettaGecko
2010-06-18, 10:10 AM
I am curious as to how other DMs would handle this sort of situation.

I had a situation in a game that I ran where a duskblade/artificer (no, it wasn't Eberron, but I didn't at the time know that I shouldn't allow Eberron flavor into my non-Eberron game) and the rest of the party were faced with an underground lake inhabited by a dragon. After taking a few significant hits (including my nearly killing a PC or two), the artificer decided to animate rope to get a rope to go out into the water a good distance. He then used his artificer abilities to cast a lightning bolt (several times, in different places) *through* the rope and into the water.

At the time, I ruled that at the center, the lightning did full damage, and as it moved out, every five feet further, the lighning did 1 die less damage until it dropped to zero damage. This created an area of effect which allowed the player to do some fairly significant damage to the dragon, but I don't think he was ultimately killed until he got just a bit too close and the duskblade managed to get a rope to grapple the dragon, and then he cast something through the rope which killed it.

So two questions here:

1. How to handle lightning into water?
2. Should duskblades/artificers be able to cast *through* something and either grapple a target (with, say, an animated rope), or cast into a door, then slam the door into a target?

Snake-Aes
2010-06-18, 10:12 AM
To be incredibly pedantic, 'water' is not conductive. Since there is no overall rule about it, I'd say don't bother unless the effect has a specific reaction described for water immersion.

Another_Poet
2010-06-18, 10:17 AM
I would say if it is an Evocation spell then the lightning is not mundane electricity, it is magical energy acting as electrical damage in the specified area. In other words I would not allow it to conduct through things or affect any area other than the area specified by the spell.

I suggest that this is attested already by the fact that you can use Call Lightning whoile underground and it will come right through the ceiling without dropping the roof on your head.

I can't think of any Conjuration (Creation) spells that make electricity, but if there is one, I would consider a player's case for having it behave like normal electricity in water, on metal, etc.

In your particular case I would have told the player that rope does not conduct electricity (true) and that he just used his spell to fry a piece of rope. It would not conduct it down into the water because that is ridiculous.

ap

unre9istered
2010-06-18, 10:27 AM
In your particular case I would have told the player that rope does not conduct electricity (true) and that he just used his spell to fry a piece of rope. It would not conduct it down into the water because that is ridiculous.

I think he was using the duskblade's channel spell ability to channel the lightning bolt through the rope. It kind of sounded that way reading it anyway. I'm not sure if that ability even works that way though.

Ernir
2010-06-18, 10:35 AM
I'd not have it conduct. Physics and D&D make a bad mix.


I can't think of any Conjuration (Creation) spells that make electricity, but if there is one, I would consider a player's case for having it behave like normal electricity in water, on metal, etc.

Orb of Electricity (Complete Arcane, Spell Compendium) and its lesser version do just that.

MariettaGecko
2010-06-18, 10:51 AM
I think he was using the duskblade's channel spell ability to channel the lightning bolt through the rope. It kind of sounded that way reading it anyway. I'm not sure if that ability even works that way though.

That's exactly what he was doing with it. His assertion was that he could do it because he is allowed to channel a spell through any non-living object in his hand.

deuxhero
2010-06-18, 10:54 AM
Wait! That's the wording?

*does handstand*

HAHAHAHA!

Escheton
2010-06-18, 10:59 AM
Wait! That's the wording?

*does handstand*

HAHAHAHA!

thats one way of stabbing someone in the face over the internet.
Just channel a face stabbing spell through the ground.

Gruffard
2010-06-18, 10:59 AM
Water itself does not conduct water (very well) because basic pure water has a very high resistance (compared to metals), but when salt or minerals are dissolved in water it can, and often does. The salt lowers the resistance. Plus things that are normally resistant to allowing electricity to build up or pass through on a large enough voltage will anyhow.

But any electricity loses amps passing through a non conductive material. so if you wanted to be nice and let electricity pass through, it will would hit less. so I don't know why you just wouldn't throw the spell directly at the dragon.

DoodlesD
2010-06-18, 11:09 AM
In the Advanced DnD Dungeon Master's Guide, A specific example was given about the effects an environment could have on the outcome of an encounter. The specific encounter was between a blue dragon and a fighter standing in a pool of water. The Implication was that The fighter was more likely to be zapped by the dragon's breath because he was in the water, thereby suggesting that water WOULD conduct electrical discharges, including those of magical origins.

In the real world, pure water doesn't collect electricity. However, water can conduct electricity if a high enough concentration of ions is present. You could rule that salt water could conduct electricity while fresh water would not.

As far as using a rope to ct the spell, that's kind of ridiculous. A rope is non-conductive and would need to make a check to not be destroyed by the spell.

tyckspoon
2010-06-18, 11:11 AM
That's exactly what he was doing with it. His assertion was that he could do it because he is allowed to channel a spell through any non-living object in his hand.

Duskblade lets you channel:
A: a touch spell
B: through a weapon
C: into a target that you successfully hit with a melee attack using said weapon.

You can generally get a pass on the weapon part, because anything you can successfully carry in 2 hands can be an improvised weapon, but you still have to be using a touch spell (so no Lightning Bolt, but he could try the trick with Shocking Grasp) and you have to actually attack something to channel the spell. I don't believe Artificer actually provides any abilities or infusions that operate the way you've described either, so no, by RAW it would appear your player was not able to do that.

Another_Poet
2010-06-18, 11:13 AM
Orb of Electricity (Complete Arcane, Spell Compendium)

Stupid awesome orb spells!

Okay for such effects I would allow this:
-If a targeted effect e.g. the orb, it instead effects four squares of water (2x2) for half damage to all creatures in the squares
-If an area spell its radius is doubled but it deals half damage

That should solve conjuration effects.

For the OP's question with the Duskblade channel clarification, then I would rule that the evocation effect goes off with its normal area and damage at the far end of the rope. So yes you can channel through rope but no the water doesn't change the effect.

ap

balistafreak
2010-06-18, 11:17 AM
Actually, the ion-to-water threshold of water conductivity is ridiculously low.

If you had a pool of distilled water, and a freshly showered (with distilled water!) man jumped into it, he would introduce enough ions into the water for him to die if you conducted a lethal current through it.

To say nothing of a hot and sweaty fighter.

Then again defining "lethal current" is a preposterous goal in D&D.

Don't remember the source for this conclusion, but yeah, there you go.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 11:20 AM
Now, if you're immersed in water, and the water has much lower resistance than your body (I assume; we're talking about water with sufficient ions in it, not distilled water), wouldn't your body not not conduct much electricity at all? After all, electricity generally takes the path of least resistance (erk, ok, not exactly), and if you're immersed the relative voltage between any two points on your body should be pretty low, since most of the current is traveling through the water and not your body, and the low resistance of the water means the voltage drop is not so significant, right?

In other words, shouldn't the water act like a Faraday cage?

Toliudar
2010-06-18, 11:29 AM
Or we could take the following rule on underwater combat at face value:


Magical effects are unaffected except for those that require attack rolls (which are treated like any other effects) and fire effects.

Think of the catgirls, folks.

Another_Poet
2010-06-18, 11:33 AM
Or we could take the following rule on underwater combat at face value:



Think of the catgirls, folks.


GOOD CALL. Three cheers for RAW!

Killer Angel
2010-06-18, 11:36 AM
Or we could take the following rule on underwater combat at face value:



Think of the catgirls, folks.


Usually, we treat the spells in this way:
Fireball: it damages only the single square
Lighning bolt: underwater, it does damage but it became a lightning ball (same AoE as normal fireball).
It has no real scientific support, but it has flavour and makes catgirls live. :smallwink:

(edit: it's an heritage from AD&D)

2xMachina
2010-06-18, 11:37 AM
Or Acid into water?

Lin Bayaseda
2010-06-18, 11:38 AM
In 3E, the Lightning Bolt became Lightning Ball underwater (area of effect as Fireball, but still does electrical damage). It was, however, removed for 3.5.

DarkEternal
2010-06-18, 12:04 PM
I remember one published campaign that actually dealt with the bad guy casting Lightning bolt on the players that were supposed to be in the water. I think it did damage as if the players had a weakness to it, meaning 50 percent more or something like that.

Kylarra
2010-06-18, 12:07 PM
Orb of Electricity (Complete Arcane, Spell Compendium) and its lesser version do just that.Technically they create acid that does electric damage.

2xMachina
2010-06-18, 12:10 PM
Technically they create acid that does electric damage.

Does the acid dissolve?

Does this make Orb of Fire viable?

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 12:10 PM
(no, it wasn't Eberron, but I didn't at the time know that I shouldn't allow Eberron flavor into my non-Eberron game)
I just noticed this: Why not? There's absolutely nothing wrong with Eberron's stuff; a lot of it is pretty setting-specific, but you can totally just refluff it, or introduce those elements into your setting. And Artificers fit pretty much anywhere there are magic items. Warforged are really the tricky ones.

Kylarra
2010-06-18, 12:16 PM
Does the acid dissolve?

Does this make Orb of Fire viable?My guess is that it dissolves after hitting. :smalltongue:

Rixx
2010-06-18, 12:17 PM
Having the lightning bolt disperse and lose potency in the water was a great way to handle it. For casting it through a wet rope, though, I've got nothing. In any case, player cleverness should trump the rules when it is cool.

2xMachina
2010-06-18, 12:19 PM
My guess is that it dissolves after hitting. :smalltongue:

And it does continuous damage afterwards!

MariettaGecko
2010-06-18, 12:39 PM
I just noticed this: Why not? There's absolutely nothing wrong with Eberron's stuff; a lot of it is pretty setting-specific, but you can totally just refluff it, or introduce those elements into your setting. And Artificers fit pretty much anywhere there are magic items. Warforged are really the tricky ones.

The problem here was that the player was playing his duskblade/artificer and a warforged/dragon shaman. All of it was dual classed (not Gestalt), but it got really nasty, mostly because of how much higher the power level of such characters is.

Yuki Akuma
2010-06-18, 12:46 PM
A bolt of electricity introduced to a wide, grounded conductive surface would actually deal less damage.

Electricity tends to follow the path of least resistance - the human body does not conduct electricity particularly well.

DanReiv
2010-06-18, 12:59 PM
I don't get it either, Dusk/Art isn't really powerfull...at ECl 10 a Dusk5/Art5 is a pretty subpar build...

As for your earlier inquiries.

1/ Don't. RAW rules the cool, just let it work. In fact let it all work unless it's fire-based.

2/ I'd allow, awesome use of arcane strike. Pretty sure it's legit too, or at least debatable. A duskblade need not to be proficient with a weapon to use arcane strike. By RAW pretty much everything can be used as an improvised weapon.

Edit : You made several mistakes in these events tho...

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateRope.htm

1/ The rope must be thrown at the target.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm#underwaterCombat

2/ Thrown weapons are ineffective underwater, even launched from land.

So there, basically, he can't do what he did.

BUT THEN


Arcane Channeling (Su):
Beginning at 3rd level, you can use a standard action to cast any touch spell you know and deliver the spell through your weapon with a melee attack.

Since when Lightning bolt is a touch spell ? :smallsigh: (edit 2: and since when is it on the Duskblade spell list ? :smallsigh: He has to know to spell to channel it, it can't come from an Artificed-UMDed infusion/wand/scroll)

I think I begin to grasp why you feel that PC what a tad too powerfull :smallamused:

G3N3R3L GHOST
2010-06-18, 01:04 PM
In the end result its up to you how you want to treat such instances. I personally would let it work in the players favour for such interesting takes on combat. I almost will always give a favorable nod towards players who step out side the *rolls die* ok I hit *rolls die* ok I do 10 damage thing. To say ok I am going to throw this rope down into the dragons den and put a shock to his system. To me thats when players are really being good players. I once had a player use the fling enemy feat to huck a fire memphit into a well. I let the little joker drown in there for the ingenuity...but that's just me.

MariettaGecko
2010-06-18, 02:13 PM
Apologies. I didn't remember the spell he had used, but I just saw the spell mentioned elsewhere. He basically tossed one end of the rope out into the lake and then channeled shocking grasp through it into the water. As I recall, he likewise, when the green dragon got close enough to the rope, caused the rope to animate, wrapping itself around the dragon, and then channeled shocking grasp through the rope.

As for Dbl/Art being overpowered, I think the main reason I was seeing it as overpowered because it was a player really making use of cheese.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 02:18 PM
As for Dbl/Art being overpowered, I think the main reason I was seeing it as overpowered because it was a player really making use of cheese.
I find this hard to believe. A Duskblade/Artificer is such a weak platform to start from... they really don't combine well at all. Going into Artificer costs your Duskblade spellcasting (which is obscenely slow to begin with), and delays (or eliminates) his Channel abilities (which are really the only reason the Duskblade is worth playing to begin with). Going into Duskblade costs your Artificer item creation feats, his bonus craft XP, his Infusions...

Heliomance
2010-06-18, 02:41 PM
I suggest that this is attested already by the fact that you can use Call Lightning whoile underground and it will come right through the ceiling without dropping the roof on your head.


Nothing wrong with that. Artificially creating a sufficient charge differential between the cavern roof and the victim's head will cause lightning to jump from the cavern roof to the victim's head. Or vice-versa, depending on which way you do the polarities.

2xMachina
2010-06-18, 02:52 PM
Nothing wrong with that. Artificially creating a sufficient charge differential between the cavern roof and the victim's head will cause lightning to jump from the cavern roof to the victim's head. Or vice-versa, depending on which way you do the polarities.

Or we can have 1 of them zap the other!

lsfreak
2010-06-18, 02:53 PM
I find this hard to believe. A Duskblade/Artificer is such a weak platform to start from... they really don't combine well at all.

I could see it appearing that way in a really low-optimization campaign. Like the ranger is TWF, the barbarian never uses Power Attack, and so on. Even with that though, I can't see how they appear overly powerful compared even to an unoptimized blaster sorcerer.

DragoonWraith
2010-06-18, 02:53 PM
Zapping should be basically identically painful/damaging as being zapped...

Susano-wo
2010-06-18, 03:16 PM
I like what someone said about treating evoc spells as maaaagical, and thus don't do a lot of physics things unless the spell/monster description says they do, while Conj energy spells create actual 'things' and thus they do, for better or worse (though, of course, not to Catgirl Killing levels).

It helps to make sense of the Conj vs Evoc wierdness (though I always used to think it was just so people might actually ban Evocation from their spec wizards. Cause, you know, evoc is the most popular, right. Y'know, cause it has all the damaging spells...:smallredface:)

Another_Poet
2010-06-19, 01:24 PM
Nothing wrong with that. Artificially creating a sufficient charge differential between the cavern roof and the victim's head will cause lightning to jump from the cavern roof to the victim's head.

Except it doesn't:



Effect: One or more 30-ft.-long vertical lines of lightning

It start 30' above the victim whether that's the roof, or somewhere in the middle of the thick roof, or the floor above, or the sky. Also you got catgirl blood on me. You owe me for the dry cleaning!