Setting eliminating str based characters

[Dualswinger]

Hi all. Feel free to move this if it’s in the wrong forum.

My setting starting next week is a very “Pirates or the Caribbean” inspired game, meaning lots of time spent on board ships and the like. The gm warns that str based characters, or rather those that rely on armour, are likely in for a bad time if they ever end up going overboard.

I’m wondering how others on this forum would react to learning their own gm wasn’t planning this.

[Sigreid]

Hi all. Feel free to move this if it’s in the wrong forum.

My setting starting next week is a very “Pirates or the Caribbean” inspired game, meaning lots of time spent on board ships and the like. The gm warns that str based characters, or rather those that rely on armour, are likely in for a bad time if they ever end up going overboard.

I’m wondering how others on this forum would react to learning their own gm wasn’t planning this.

I'd make a water gensai or triton and not worry about it. 😁

[Aett_Thorn]

Well, would you rather your DM NOT give you that kind of head's up?

[MaxWilson]

Hi all. Feel free to move this if it’s in the wrong forum.

My setting starting next week is a very “Pirates or the Caribbean” inspired game, meaning lots of time spent on board ships and the like. The gm warns that str based characters, or rather those that rely on armour, are likely in for a bad time if they ever end up going overboard.

I’m wondering how others on this forum would react to learning their own gm wasn’t planning this.

I'd make a Repelling Blast goblin Bardlock to maximize my opportunities to blast things off the side of the ship.

[Blood of Gaea]

The Gift of the Depths invocation would work nicely. The push/pull and Eldritch Spear invocations would be good as well.

Barbarians would also work fine for Str, they don't have any problems with armor, and can have a very high athletics score.

Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with this setting, you can make PCs without heavy armor, or just get around the drowning problem.

[Caelic]

Druids are also a nice work-around. You can be reasonably well armored with absolutely no fear of falling overboard after you acquire the ability to assume a water breathing form.

[Kane0]

I played a Pirate game with a Hobgoblin Conquest Paladin once, did just fine between the Mariner fighting style and an aquatic mount.

Edit: There's also an uncommon magic armor that allows you to swim/float if you're really worried about it, plus water breathing is a ritual affecting multiple targets with a good duration.

[Tiadoppler]

My setting starting next week is a very “Pirates or the Caribbean” inspired game, meaning lots of time spent on board ships and the like. The gm warns that str based characters, or rather those that rely on armour, are likely in for a bad time if they ever end up going overboard.

It's good to get the warning.

You'll want to have good options of Ranged (ship-to-ship combat) and Melee (boarding actions), some ability to work underwater, and decent Athletics (swimming) and Acrobatics (not falling out of the rigging). Are flying races available?

[MxKit]

That sounds perfectly reasonable, and even better that the DM let you know before you built your characters! It doesn't even sound like your DM is eliminating Str-based characters, they're just letting you know that if you build a character that wears heavier armor, they're going to have a problem if they fall overboard. Since it's a game where you'll be spending a lot of time at sea, that makes sense.

There are tons of ways around it, and I'd love to figure out a way to make a great character that either doesn't need those types of armor, or would be fine even with them. Everyone else has already mentioned some great ways around the heavy armor problem, but personally, I think a Pirates of the Caribbean, high seas campaign would be a great excuse to play certain classes and subclasses. Basically any Barbarian, basically any Bard, a Nature Cleric (one that's purely Wis-based) or Tempest Cleric (one that's Wis- and Dex-based), basically any Druid, basically any Dex-based Fighter, basically any Monk... a Swashbuckler Rogue, a Storm Sorcerer, an Archfey Warlock (maybe with a sea hag patron), a Transmutation Wizard...

Okay, those last four could be of any subclass, but come on. :smalltongue:

ETA: Basically, as you might be able to tell, I'd react by being super excited, because I love themed campaigns!

[Laserlight]

Realistically, most armor would have quilted padding or something similar under it, so even if it wasn't "heavy" in the D&D classification, it still would be heavy when it got waterlogged. If you were in any kind of armor and went over the side, I expect it'd be time to roll a new character (unless you had magic for swimming or water breathing). I might petition the DM to have "narrative armor"--the fighter s wearing nothing but a loincloth or chainmail bikini still gets AC18, because that's what goes along with that class.

Of course, the fact that you travel by ship doesn't mean that most of your encounters will be boarding actions. There's not that much you can do to make interesting terrain if it's just you, your ship and the open sea. If I were DMing it, you'd still get a lot of land encounters, and "run away to the ship and leave the island" would always be the reserve backup plan.

[Kane0]

I might petition the DM to have "narrative armor"--the fighter s wearing nothing but a loincloth or chainmail bikini still gets AC18, because that's what goes along with that class.


Lizardfolk, barbarians and monks are alternative options.

[BW022]

Hi all. Feel free to move this if it’s in the wrong forum.

My setting starting next week is a very “Pirates or the Caribbean” inspired game, meaning lots of time spent on board ships and the like. The gm warns that str based characters, or rather those that rely on armour, are likely in for a bad time if they ever end up going overboard.

I’m wondering how others on this forum would react to learning their own gm wasn’t planning this.

Few things...

I think it would be better if your DM asked the group if they wanted to do a water-borne adventure rather than just dictating it. I don't know the dynamics of the group, but generally unless it is a short fill-in game or something, I generally like to get an agreement with the group before dictating.

Next, I'd ask the DM for their swimming rules. Nothing in the PHB prevents swimming in heavy armor. You can see videos of people on YouTube swimming in chainmail and even plate. It is exhausting, but possible. However, it certainly isn't a straight trip to the bottom.

Finally, it can easily be possible to avoid drowning in heavy armor -- if you take precautions. It is extremely hard in 5e to push people overboard -- especially if they have a high strength and stay away from an edge. You can also use ropes and tie yourself to something. There is magic -- fly, levitate, water breathing, waterwalking, etc. You can carry an extra set of light armor with you and only put on the heavy when you are on land, near shore, etc. You might be able to fashion some type of floatation device.

Overall.. sounds fun and there is nothing wrong with giving a warning like that.

[Falcon X]

Ask to see if he can start with, or soon acquire, a ring of Water Walking.

Now you can jump off the deck and start hacking away at the enemies Hull with your adamantine great sword. Good times.

It could be a family heirloom or something. If he has to be delayed in getting it, maybe someone mails it to him at the right time, or maybe he is on a quest to retrieve it.

[Greywander]

First, Strength, and particularly Athletics, is used for swimming and climbing (ropes and rigging). There's a reason that the image of the burly sailor became the stereotype that it is. Strength is still fairly important, perhaps even more so than in a "standard" campaign. It's just armor that you might want to be careful of, and other people here have already given you some tips on how to play an armored character without drowning.

Second, you might want to take a look at these articles, or direct your DM to them:

Drowning in Armor Systems, Part 1 (http://theangrygm.com/drowning-in-armor-systems-part-1/)

Drowning in Armor Systems, Part 2 (http://theangrygm.com/drowning-in-armor-systems-part-2/)

[Merudo]

Historically, most sailors did not know how to swim.

The truth is that if you are thrown overboard during a storm or while the ship is under attack, you are almost certainly ending up dead, regardless of your swimming abilities.

[Blood of Gaea]

Historically, most sailors did not know how to swim.

The truth is that if you are thrown overboard during a storm or while the ship is under attack, you are almost certainly ending up dead, regardless of your swimming abilities.
Yep, either they threw a rope fast enough that your frantic paddling was enough, or you died.

Doesn't apply too well to a D&D campaign though.

[Merudo]

Yep, either they threw a rope fast enough that your frantic paddling was enough, or you died.

Doesn't apply too well to a D&D campaign though.

Why shouldn't D&D boats behave like the ones of the past?

[Blood of Gaea]

Why shouldn't D&D boats behave like the ones of the past?
Becuase the main characters are exceptional examples of their races and professions. Things like your average sailor having bad swimming skills on average are much less broadly applicable.

[ImproperJustice]

An Eldritch Knight using shape water could conceivably create ice floes to stand on and change water flow to move about.

At least that’s what my GM allows as we have been sailing about the Isle of Dread.

[smcmike]

Why shouldn't D&D boats behave like the ones of the past?

Because it’s hard to have a heroic adventure when death is that easy.

To put it another way: yes, falling overboard is exceptionally deadly in real life. So are getting stabbed by a sword, shot with an arrow, set on fire, or falling any significant distance. All of those things are less deadly for a D&D hero than they are in real life. Why should falling overboard be the exception?

[CharonsHelper]

Wear water wings?

In seriousness - you could wear armor & just get mithril ASAP.

[WickerNipple]

This setting by no means eliminates strength based characters, it just requires a bit of adaptation and problem solving by the players.

Cheers to the DM for informing you ahead of time so you can think about it.

[MaxWilson]

Historically, most sailors did not know how to swim.

Also, historically, most sailors did NOT know how to wield greatswords while wearing plate armor.

[Dudewithknives]

I would so play a paladin 2 sea sorcerer x triton in plate in that game.

[NBooms06]

I played a Pirate game with a Hobgoblin Conquest Paladin once, did just fine between the Mariner fighting style and an aquatic mount.

Not to derail the thread, but I just wanted to point out that I love this character concept, like how the PHB has a half(?)-orc as the illustrated paladin.

How did you play this character flavor-wise?

[Talamare]

I would just refluff the standard armors into gamefication...

Strong pirates were common, and it's not like STR based builds are dominant...

[Angelalex242]

So, don't roll a Fighter/Paladin/Cleric with heavy armor. Rangers, Barbarians, and Druids will get you by fine.

[Tanarii]

I'd ask for details about how the house rule for Heavy Armor penalizing swimming is going to work.

[Nifft]

Hi all. Feel free to move this if it’s in the wrong forum.

My setting starting next week is a very “Pirates or the Caribbean” inspired game, meaning lots of time spent on board ships and the like. The gm warns that str based characters, or rather those that rely on armour, are likely in for a bad time if they ever end up going overboard.

I’m wondering how others on this forum would react to learning their own gm wasn’t planning this.

"Sounds awesome."

Seriously, that sounds awesome.



Why shouldn't D&D boats behave like the ones of the past?

Because sailors on D&D boats face challenges that their counterparts on real boats did not face, such as the expectation of underwater combat with giant monsters, or airborne combat with giant monsters (often resulting in swimming back to the boat after you stab a mother-feather in mid-air).

[SirGraystone]

As silly as it sound, there's no rule in 5e that stop you from swimming in plate armor.

[Greywander]

The gm warns that str based characters, or rather those that rely on armour, are likely in for a bad time if they ever end up going overboard.
Actually, has the DM clarified what he means here? Are they just going to sink or what?

Probably the easiest and most straightforward way to handle this is for any armor that gives disadvantage on Stealth checks to also give disadvantage on Athletics checks, and possibly all Strength and Dexterity checks. At the very least, disadvantage on Athletics checks to swim. That way you still have a chance, but it's still a risk.

[Tanarii]

As silly as it sound, there's no rule in 5e that stop you from swimming in plate armor.
Yeah, swimming just counts as difficulty terrain.

But rough waters are given as an example of a Athletics check, so obviously you're supposed to use your judgement on when to call for a check when it's not simple. Personally I wouldn't object if a DM called for a Athletics check to keep afloat while wearing heavy armor, or while encumbered, especially in a Variant Encumberance campaign.

But I'd want to know how it worked before a Nautical campaign, where it's going to matter all the time. Various forum member's attitude towards 5e ability checks and DC setting have made me more ... aware that there are times when you're going to need to know well in advance exactly how some things work. :smallamused:

[Dualswinger]

Just to clarify, this thread wasn’t made to complain. I’m super hyped for this campaign, I was just wondering how’d people react to “armour = bad”

The dm is saying that a high dc disadvantage swim check would be the case for people doing overboard mid battle.

[Lombra]

Just to clarify, this thread wasn’t made to complain. I’m super hyped for this campaign, I was just wondering how’d people react to “armour = bad”

The dm is saying that a high dc disadvantage swim check would be the case for people doing overboard mid battle.

Nothing to react to really. The DM did his job well by telling you in advance his setting and rulings. I personally find them a bit harsh, but by no means boring. You're gonna have good fun with it.

[Saiga]

I am kind of curious as to how you'd handle armour types in that kind of game. Like, I think even Medium Armor would be pretty hard to swim in, so I wonder what you'd do to replace traditional armours?

[Throne12]

Well divers that are going around sharks wear Chain meash.

But for op question. I'll say you can play a tortle that's a 17 AC. Then with a shield 19AC. Then there are things like shield, shield of faith, cloak/ring of protection, other class abilities.

[Tanarii]

Just to clarify, this thread wasn’t made to complain. I’m super hyped for this campaign, I was just wondering how’d people react to “armour = bad”

The dm is saying that a high dc disadvantage swim check would be the case for people doing overboard mid battle.
So far so good. Well, bad for HA wearers, but a good DM giving you fairly specific knowledge.

Recommend the follow up questions:
1) does everyone make a swim check for going overboard mid battle? (The default expected here should be "no" for calm waters. So it's an important question.)
2) If so, what are the effects on swimming of medium & light armor? Encumberance? Being clothed?

It's worth knowing if your traditional heavily robed Str 8 wizard will be going down to the deeps, while your Barbarian who likes to show off his bare-chested high Str muscles will have it easy. :smallamused:

Edit: if swim checks for just swimming were a thing, including higher DCs for wearing any armor or even heavier clothing, I'd definitely play a Barbarian with Athletics.