Electricity spells + water [3.5]

[SilverLeaf167]

What happens if someone casts a Shocking Grasp, Lightning Bolt etc. into a pool of water,? Would there be some kind area effect, harming those in contact with the pool, and how large would the area be? If there aren't any actual rules about this, what would be a reasonable houserule?

This has come up a few times with my group, but I haven't been able to give a real answer.

[panaikhan]

In 2e, lightning bolts used to go off like fireballs at the point of emination. Now that the point of emination is the caster's finger (not 'at range') that might be problematic.
We just houserule the 'fire underwater' spell rules for all elements. If you pass your CL check, the spell works as intended. If you fail, so does the spell.

[dsmiles]

I believe that there are rules for underwater adventuring, though I'm AFB, and can't remember what book they're in. Though, my group uses realistic rules for this, and turns most electricity effects into a "spread"-type effect underwater, though with slightly reduced damage (-1 point/die; minimum 0 on any given die, but minimum 1 total damage).

[Elemental]

It depends on such a huge number of factors...
Size of the body of water, distance from where the lightning strikes the water and dissolved salts all need to be taken into account.

However, a simple way would be just to assume that the energy of the lightning disperses throughout the water and deals one die less damage per reasonable interval of distance from source. I'm too tired to make an estimate right now, so I'll leave it up to someone who has a better idea of how electricity reacts with water.

[panaikhan]

Lets put it another way.
As a player, you would want to electricute the world by casting Lighning Bolt into the sea.
As a GM, you would want it to do nothing.
Call it 'magic', and have it work as it is supposed to work.

[SilverLeaf167]

Yes, I know about the underwater adventuring rules; I think they can be found either in the DMG, or more likely Stormwrack. Though I guess I could use an adapted version of those, I was actually talking about the caster standing on dry land and firing the spell into a pool, not actually casting underwater.

[Flickerdart]

Just as an instantaneous fire effect does not set things on fire, I would say that an instantaneous lightning effect does not have time to propagate through the water beyond its normal range before the magic supporting it ends and it disperses. Ongoing lightning effects, however, would be able to electrocute people inside water as normal.

[Mystify]

There are rules about fire spells underwater(basically you need a spellcraft check to make it steam instead) in stromwrack and the DMG, but neither mentions electricity. Ergo, it works normally.

[jaybird]

Just as an instantaneous fire effect does not set things on fire, I would say that an instantaneous lightning effect does not have time to propagate through the water beyond its normal range before the magic supporting it ends and it disperses. Ongoing lightning effects, however, would be able to electrocute people inside water as normal.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/fireball

Relevant:


The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.

If Fireball can set things on fire, I see no reason why Lightning Bolt can't deal reduced damage (maybe acting like Chain Lightning?) on everyone within a reasonable distance of the spell ffect.

[Mystify]

If Fireball can set things on fire, I see no reason why Lightning Bolt can't deal reduced damage (maybe acting like Chain Lightning?) on everyone within a reasonable distance of the spell ffect.
Except fireball can set things on fire because the rules say so. There is no rule about acting like chain lightning, which is a reason why it can't.

[jaybird]

Except fireball can set things on fire because the rules say so. There is no rule about acting like chain lightning, which is a reason why it can't.

Flicker's logic was that because instantaneous fire effects don't set things on fire, instantaneous electric effects don't zap things underwater. That's the point I was addressing.

[Mystify]

Flicker's logic was that because instantaneous fire effects don't set things on fire, instantaneous electric effects don't zap things underwater. That's the point I was addressing.

Then you should have said that "that is not a reason why it can't" not "I don't see any reason why it can't"

[Flickerdart]

Flicker's logic was that because instantaneous fire effects don't set things on fire, instantaneous electric effects don't zap things underwater. That's the point I was addressing.
A Fireball is a specific exception to the general rule that "Spells with an instantaneous duration don’t normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash." Curiously, Lightning Bolt also sets things on fire (and thus an argument could be made that its effects persist long enough to electrocute). Shocking Grasp, however, does no such thing.

[CTrees]

I'm fairly certain it wasn't an intended use for the spells. See: I start casting Shocking Grasp into the ocean. How many XP do I get for all the merfolk I'm killing, hundreds of miles away? There aren't good mechanics available for how to adjudicate electrical effects spreading through bodies of water (that I'm aware of).

However, it's one of those things like setting the Grease spell on fire. On a simple reading of just the spells, it seems natural that it should work. Thus, I'm inclined to let it happen to minor effect. For instance, fishing using shocking grasp to electrocute a pond? Sure, I'll allow it (just be careful you aren't in the water!). Grease burning for minor damage? Sure. I think for "combatants in the water," because my players would find it fun, I'd probably allow electrical spells to have their normal effect, and do minimum damage to everything in the water outside their stated area, up to... five or ten feet per spell level. It makes a difference, my players would like it, my players would be disappointed otherwise, and it's not a big enough deal to be gamebreaking. That's all houserule level, though.

[dsmiles]

There is no rule about acting like chain lightning, which is a reason why it can't.Not true. There is also no rule stating that it doesn't, which is a reason why it can. Quite a little paradox there. When something's not covered at all by the rules, the DM must adjudicate it somehow. And it could go either way.

[Spacewolf]

well if you start off at however many Ds it uses then reduce by 1 per 10 feet or so would seem reasonable e.g for level 3 lightning bolt would be 3d6 at point of impact 2d6 for 10 feet from that 1d6 for 10 feet from the previous

[Flickerdart]

Not true. There is also no rule stating that it doesn't, which is a reason why it can. Quite a little paradox there. When something's not covered at all by the rules, the DM must adjudicate it somehow. And it could go either way.
That isn't how rules work. You are only allowed to do things allowed by the system, so a lack of rule does not mean that you can do a thing.

[Mystify]

That isn't how rules work. You are only allowed to do things allowed by the system, so a lack of rule does not mean that you can do a thing.

Exactly. There is no rule saying that you can't explode the planet by spitting at it, but there is no reason to imply that the lack of a rule preventing it means you can. If you want to do something outside of the system, you need homebrew.

[Flickerdart]

I contend that it doesn't "need" homebrew. The world is perfectly fine being unexploded.

[Varil]

"If there's no rule it's impossible" sounds boring to me. Half the fun of playing D&D is finding unusual ways to achieve an effect.

Calling underwater lightning a "spread" instead of a "bolt" seems pretty reasonable. Reduce its range to say, a third, and turn it into a sphere. If your lightning bolt has already traveled some distance before it hits water(IE your "firing into the water" example), reduce the remaining distance appropriately and use that as the sphere's area instead.

It does mean that underwater lightning is a hilariously bad idea, since it immediately becomes a sphere at the point of emanation(meaning the caster) but that seems pretty fair to me. Lightning is awesome underwater, but using it without some preparation is suicide.

Don't change the damage any, just treat it as normal aside from the area change. Reflex for half, 1d6 per cl to everything in the area.

[FMArthur]

I'm fairly certain it wasn't an intended use for the spells. See: I start casting Shocking Grasp into the ocean. How many XP do I get for all the merfolk I'm killing, hundreds of miles away? There aren't good mechanics available for how to adjudicate electrical effects spreading through bodies of water (that I'm aware of).

However, it's one of those things like setting the Grease spell on fire. On a simple reading of just the spells, it seems natural that it should work. Thus, I'm inclined to let it happen to minor effect. For instance, fishing using shocking grasp to electrocute a pond? Sure, I'll allow it (just be careful you aren't in the water!). Grease burning for minor damage? Sure. I think for "combatants in the water," because my players would find it fun, I'd probably allow electrical spells to have their normal effect, and do minimum damage to everything in the water outside their stated area, up to... five or ten feet per spell level. It makes a difference, my players would like it, my players would be disappointed otherwise, and it's not a big enough deal to be gamebreaking. That's all houserule level, though.

Just FYI there's a 2nd-level spell called Incendiary Slime in Complete Mage whose only effect is "like Grease, but flammable", dealing 4d6 (Reflex half) when ignited in some way. So Grease probably can't ignite normally.

[Mystify]

"If there's no rule it's impossible" sounds boring to me. Half the fun of playing D&D is finding unusual ways to achieve an effect.

Calling underwater lightning a "spread" instead of a "bolt" seems pretty reasonable. Reduce its range to say, a third, and turn it into a sphere. If your lightning bolt has already traveled some distance before it hits water(IE your "firing into the water" example), reduce the remaining distance appropriately and use that as the sphere's area instead.

It does mean that underwater lightning is a hilariously bad idea, since it immediately becomes a sphere at the point of emanation(meaning the caster) but that seems pretty fair to me. Lightning is awesome underwater, but using it without some preparation is suicide.

Don't change the damage any, just treat it as normal aside from the area change. Reflex for half, 1d6 per cl to everything in the area.
As I said, you need homebrew to step outside the rules. That is homebrew. If that is what you like, thats fine. But acknowledge that it is homebrew, not "The rules don't say I can't, therefore I can".

[Evard]

If you choose to let it deal dmg to things in water please please use it against themsometime...

Will Save DC: whatever you want it to be
Situation: Party walks into a room and it is difficukt terrain. Will Negates the illusion that is hiding the the fact that they are standing in ankle deep water. Then whatever enemy you have in there... Aquatic enemy so they think it is a landshark! And if someone shoots lightning they get hurt by it too :p

Or maybe a caster enemy ;)

Remind them that any rule out there is fair game. Hey it isn't as evil as using disarm against your melee types.

[CTrees]

Just FYI there's a 2nd-level spell called Incendiary Slime in Complete Mage whose only effect is "like Grease, but flammable", dealing 4d6 (Reflex half) when ignited in some way. So Grease probably can't ignite normally.

Three things: 1) I do know of that spell, and why it is further evidence of Grease's fire lack of flammability, RAW 2) I usually let it do like 1d4 damage, making the higher level version still an upgrade 3) I normally play PF, which lacks Incendiary Slime.