Counterspelled Booming Blade

[JackPhoenix]

Let's just use the damage tables given there for lava, but assume it's actually boiling water as in Blatant Beast's example.

If you are wading through the boiling water, you take an average of 55 damage.

If you are submerged in the boiling water, you take an average of 49 damage (99 average damage cut in half from Resistance).

That's because the scaling in the table is weird. The 2nd and 3rd steps are double of the previous step, the 4th step is MORE than double of the 3rd step, the 5th and 6th steps are LESS than double of the previous steps. If boiling water does less damage than lava (like, say, stumbling into a vat of acid), then if full immersion is the next step up, it does MORE damage even with resistance applied. If proper exponential scaling was followed all through the table, the issue wouldn't exist.

Not that it matters, as other people already explained, the point is that there's a suggestion that the game assumes full immersion is not the same thing as partial immersion in a damaging substance.

[Theodoxus]

I don't have the DMG in front of me... does partial emersion upside-down (so, head, torso and waist are under the liquid) differ in damage than right-side up does? Because it seems to me, burning hot liquid on the face should deal a $#!^ ton more damage than the same liquid burning your feet and ankles... just sayin'.

[Psyren]

I don't have the DMG in front of me... does partial emersion upside-down (so, head, torso and waist are under the liquid) differ in damage than right-side up does? Because it seems to me, burning hot liquid on the face should deal a $#!^ ton more damage than the same liquid burning your feet and ankles... just sayin'.

1) You don't need the DMG, the improvising damage rules are also in the SRD/Basic. The table is in the Traps section for some reason but it's the same table as the one on DMG 249.

2) The entire point of the table is to let you account for things like that yourself If you feel falling in or getting lowered in headfirst should do more damage, you can assign a damage value as normal and then either add a die or two, or automatically make X of the dice roll max damage, or buff the final number by a fixed percentage or something.

[Dr.Samurai]

The core conceptual problem I had with the recent "fix 5e" thread is that the OP is very much a 3.5e vet and that (as with a lot of previous discussions along similar lines detracts from its utility.

For all of the strengths and weaknesses of 5e as an overall system, what I think the team did best was to harvest a lot of the best elements of multiple previous editions and toss in a few new wrinkles.

Hmm... I definitely think we could use more stuff for 5e. Seems pretty spare. Unless you like buying slightly different versions of things you've already purchased .

Korvin, you mentioned Logan's Run in another post. So I watched it, and enjoyed it very much. Had me hooked when Logan 5 says "But I have 4 years left, how can I pretend I'm a Last Year?" and the computer says "Procedure: Retrogram. Identify". I was like... oh boy Logan, your day's about to get ruined lol.

Also, Francis, despite growing up in a very rigid and sanitized society with access to the best weaponry, clearly has the Tavern Brawler feat .

That's because the scaling in the table is weird. The 2nd and 3rd steps are double of the previous step, the 4th step is MORE than double of the 3rd step, the 5th and 6th steps are LESS than double of the previous steps. If boiling water does less damage than lava (like, say, stumbling into a vat of acid), then if full immersion is the next step up, it does MORE damage even with resistance applied. If proper exponential scaling was followed all through the table, the issue wouldn't exist.

Agreed. The guidance can be improved.

Not that it matters, as other people already explained, the point is that there's a suggestion that the game assumes full immersion is not the same thing as partial immersion in a damaging substance.

For lava, as they pointed out.

[KorvinStarmast]

Korvin, you mentioned Logan's Run in another post. So I watched it, and enjoyed it very much. Had me hooked when Logan 5 says "But I have 4 years left, how can I pretend I'm a Last Year?" and the computer says "Procedure: Retrogram. Identify". I was like... oh boy Logan, your day's about to get ruined lol.

While I thought the book was better than the movie, the movie was good enough.

[Psyren]

For lava, as they pointed out.

For immersion differences, as we pointed out.

And if Blatant Beast doesn't want to apply that guidance to boiling water, he's free to go with nothing and keep complaining instead.

[Blatant Beast]

I think that's being uncharitable, since Blatant Beast brought it up as an example of wonky interactions if you go by RAW.
.

Yeah, I was going to respond to them, but there is not point.
Jack seems bitter. Cogent points, made by a devilishly handsome, modest and humble person, such as myself can do that. ;)

Psyren, despite a few weeks of general agreement between us, seems to want to pick a fight. If Psyren wants to vent, and potentially try to provoke responses, let them. 🤷

Boiling Water, firstly is not doing 18d10 damage for full immersion, to my mind, because generally speaking Lava is considered a more damaging threat than boiling water.

A DM needs to determine what damage boiling water does in the first place. Let us say for example a DM decides a cauldron of boiling water does damage similar to acid and decides to peg the damage to being a Deadly Threat for T1 characters at 4d10 damage.

The DM then needs to decide if that 4d10 is for full immersion, or the amount of damage they are going to roll for partial immersion.

Once that aspect is determined, then the immersion rule comes into effect.

This does not strike me as controversial in the slightest, nor is pointing out the underwater rules do not seem to have been written with considering boiling water to be the source of the fire damage. The rules seem written, with the expectation the fire damage is coming from a source separate from the water itself.

If full immersion in boiling water is ruled to do an average of 26 points of fire damage per turn as a base, that damage would by RAW, be reduced to 13 points of damage.

In the case of the poor unfortunate having their head out of the water, the DM needs to decide the reduction in the base amount of damage. A DM could decide having one’s head out of the boiling water reduces the base damage by 6, (-1d10), in which case, by RAW, full Immersion at 13 points of fire damage is doing less than partial immersion at 20 points of fire damage.

If a DM decides partial immersion, results in half the base damage as full immersion, then being in a cauldron of boiling water, wether fully immersed or not yields the same result of 13 points of damage per turn. The last sentence from the Underwater Combat section in the PHB is essentially moot.

It seems clear to me, the intention of full immersion in water granting resistance to fire damage, was to model the effects of an external source of fire damage being buffered by the full immersion in water.

This would be the case of someone’s shooting a Firebolt and trying to hit a fish, for example.

Resistance against fire damage due to immersion in water, as a rule is wonky, when the water itself is the source of fire damage. Again, this does not strike me as a controversial observation. It strikes me as obvious.

[Christew]

In the case of the poor unfortunate having their head out of the water, the DM needs to decide the reduction in the base amount of damage. A DM could decide having one’s head out of the boiling water reduces the base damage by 6, (-1d10), in which case, by RAW, full Immersion at 13 points of fire damage is doing less than partial immersion at 20 points of fire damage.

Okay, but in this hypothetical it is the DM's decision that has yielded the nonsensical result, not the rule.

It seems clear to me, the intention of full immersion in water granting resistance to fire damage, was to model the effects of an external source of fire damage being buffered by the full immersion in water.

This would be the case of someone’s shooting a Firebolt and trying to hit a fish, for example.

It seems pretty clear to me too. See earlier comment about edge cases. The rules are finite and cannot contemplate all potential edge cases. The rules are also pretty upfront and explicit about this fact. As a solution, the rules assume common sense and good faith on the part of the DM adjudicating such edge cases with the guidance the rules do provide. Seems pretty obvious to me, really.

[Psyren]

Okay, but in this hypothetical it is the DM's decision that has yielded the nonsensical result, not the rule.

Indeed, and I truly don't understand what's so difficult to grasp about this concept. Nothing to do but move on from all the martyrdom/void-shouting though.

[Dr.Samurai]

While I thought the book was better than the movie, the movie was good enough.

I'd never read it or watched it. It was fun. Very chill movie. May be weird to say but movies were different back then it seems, in tone.

For immersion differences, as we pointed out.

Lava immersion guidance extends to boiling water, but lava damage increase guidance doesn't, because it's not boiling water.

Right...

And if Blatant Beast doesn't want to apply that guidance to boiling water, he's free to go with nothing and keep complaining instead.

You continue to be uncharitable.

Yeah, I was going to respond to them, but there is not point.

*strenuous disagreement noises* Duh, what you're saying is so obvious, we agree! *strenuous disagreement noises*

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd never read it or watched it. It was fun. Very chill movie. May be weird to say but movies were different back then it seems, in tone.

Yes, very much so.

[Psyren]

Lava immersion guidance extends to boiling water, but lava damage increase guidance doesn't, because it's not boiling water.

Right...

This general principle applies, therefore this specific mathematical percentage is the only possible way I can think of to apply it, even when doing so yields a result I find objectionable. Better bellyache about the rules! (Guidelines you say? Never heard of them.)

Right...

You continue to be uncharitable.

Your opinion is noted.

[Theodoxus]

What I find particularly funny is using things like the massive amount of damage lava (and to a lesser extent, boiling water) and squaring them to HP is meat/not meat/luck/vitality/whatever.

Like, that first round walking across lava in a HP <> meat world, you're burning luck? "I'm not actually walking on lava, I'm just unlucky and fell into a pool... of lava."

"Don't worry, I have like 200 points of vitality. You'll know when I run out when it starts smelling like pork brisket around here."

Some things just really shouldn't be HP damage. Walking on lava at best, should invoke 1 level of exhaustion per round. You have 5 rounds of reducing effectiveness to get out of the way, or you die of exhaustion. I've never been close to lava, but I've watched documentaries (no, Dante's Peak doesn't count) - and without a heat suit, it's pretty impossible to even breathe, the air is so hot. Exhaustion mimics that perfectly.

Maybe boiling water isn't quite so bad, so 1 level exhaustion per 2 rounds is the way I'd go.

Well, my prediction was only partially correct... still arguing RAW/RAG, just over environmental rules, not spells. I guess that's a step in the right direction.

[Dr.Samurai]

What I find particularly funny is using things like the massive amount of damage lava (and to a lesser extent, boiling water) and squaring them to HP is meat/not meat/luck/vitality/whatever.

Like, that first round walking across lava in a HP <> meat world, you're burning luck? "I'm not actually walking on lava, I'm just unlucky and fell into a pool... of lava."

"Don't worry, I have like 200 points of vitality. You'll know when I run out when it starts smelling like pork brisket around here."

Some things just really shouldn't be HP damage. Walking on lava at best, should invoke 1 level of exhaustion per round. You have 5 rounds of reducing effectiveness to get out of the way, or you die of exhaustion. I've never been close to lava, but I've watched documentaries (no, Dante's Peak doesn't count) - and without a heat suit, it's pretty impossible to even breathe, the air is so hot. Exhaustion mimics that perfectly.

Maybe boiling water isn't quite so bad, so 1 level exhaustion per 2 rounds is the way I'd go.

Well, my prediction was only partially correct... still arguing RAW/RAG, just over environmental rules, not spells. I guess that's a step in the right direction.

I agree. It really strains "it's an abstraction" when you're straight up swimming through lava lol.

I do like the idea of environmental hazards doing something other than hp damage. I mean... you can drown or suffocate, so that's a start.

[Keltest]

I really love how people can handle a wizard learning how to set fires by thinking about it hard enough, or a monk straight up turning off physics with practice, but a fighter being able to survive contact with lava? Nope, line drawn.

More generally, the fully realistic way to run a lava flow is a little bit beyond the scope of the improvised damage section. There are already rules for suffocation and toxic fumes, so I think expecting a table giving guidance on how to make up damage numbers in a pinch to go into detail about how to run dropping someone into a volcano is a little unfair.

[Psyren]

Well yes, wading and swimming through lava isn't realistic long before we get to considerations like figuring out how much damage that would deal and how that translates to hit points. It's literally rocks after all. But lava working like other liquids is cool and easier for writers to wrap their heads around, so we end up with the unrealistic interpretation.

Apparently in 4e, contact with lava just instakills you if you're not fire immune. No reason you can't do that in 5e too.

[Theodoxus]

I really love how people can handle a wizard learning how to set fires by thinking about it hard enough, or a monk straight up turning off physics with practice, but a fighter being able to survive contact with lava? Nope, line drawn.

More generally, the fully realistic way to run a lava flow is a little bit beyond the scope of the improvised damage section. There are already rules for suffocation and toxic fumes, so I think expecting a table giving guidance on how to make up damage numbers in a pinch to go into detail about how to run dropping someone into a volcano is a little unfair.

I get that, though, 'magic' is given a massive amount of latitude in what it can accomplish; basically being the limit of imagination. Monk's defying physics (and really, just gravity) is nearly superhuman, but we have real life examples of people doing nearly wireless wuxia. A D&D monk isn't much removed from the tricks done by Cirque de Solei performers...

What we don't have are obviously 10+ level people. Folks just capable of out right ignoring damage (gun shots, sword attacks, walking on lava) for a period of time. No matter how you want to slice/represent HP, we just don't have anything like levels in real life that utilizes HP the way it is in game.

So, you take a real world object interaction like a human and a river of lava, and we know what happens. We can visualize the affect.

Now, I have no qualms making the 10th+ level Fighter superhuman. I'm perfectly fine with a non-magical fighting man being able to just will up whatever he needs to overcome whatever obstacle is in his way. But I've certainly see a LOT of pushback on these forums that a 20th level Fighter is just as mundanely common without their gear as a 1st level Fighter, and should only be able to do as much as a 1st level Fighter when it comes to feats of the supernatural.

Solve that divide, and walking on lava becomes simple HP damage. But as long as the 20th level Fighter is Guy at the Gym, things stay weird.

[Dr.Samurai]

This general principle applies, therefore this specific mathematical percentage is the only possible way I can think of to apply it, even when doing so yields a result I find objectionable.

It's amusing that you think you can decide what is and isn't a general principle, from the same line of text, in the same table.

Better bellyache about the rules!

I wonder what pact you made to be protected by the mods...

I really love how people can handle a wizard learning how to set fires by thinking about it hard enough, or a monk straight up turning off physics with practice, but a fighter being able to survive contact with lava? Nope, line drawn.

Yikes.

What do you describe happening to your fighter when he is immersed in lava?

More generally, the fully realistic way to run a lava flow is a little bit beyond the scope of the improvised damage section. There are already rules for suffocation and toxic fumes, so I think expecting a table giving guidance on how to make up damage numbers in a pinch to go into detail about how to run dropping someone into a volcano is a little unfair.

I think Theodoxus was giving an opinion that some things should be better handled in a way other than HP damage, not that he expected a table of improvised damage to explain how to run lava differently.

I do wonder how all of these things are being misconstrued consistently...

[Theodoxus]

I think Theodoxus was giving an opinion that some things should be better handled in a way other than HP damage, not that he expected a table of improvised damage to explain how to run lava differently.

I do wonder how all of these things are being misconstrued consistently...

Correct. I would ignore the RAW table and rule that some/most environmental damage should use the exhaustion rules. I guess if my table had a huge stink about it, I'd follow the table and let their characters die to massive damage...

Regarding misconstruction... nature of the beast. I know I'll refresh the page a couple times before I start replying and I tend to get ninja'd or at least stepped on regardless... so sometimes I'm replying to something that had been resolved, which makes me probably look foolish. It doesn't help that I'm posting from work, so get interrupted a lot - and sometimes completely lose my own thread of thought halfway through a reply...

[Psyren]

More generally, the fully realistic way to run a lava flow is a little bit beyond the scope of the improvised damage section. There are already rules for suffocation and toxic fumes, so I think expecting a table giving guidance on how to make up damage numbers in a pinch to go into detail about how to run dropping someone into a volcano is a little unfair.

Agreed, and you can easily do both. In fact, separating them makes sense, because some characters might be resistant to the heat but susceptible to the fumes, or vice-versa, or both, or neither.

It's amusing that you think you can decide what is and isn't a general principle, from the same line of text, in the same table.

But you have that power too. All you have to do is decide to not subject yourself to an incongruous reading, as Christew said.

I get that, though, 'magic' is given a massive amount of latitude in what it can accomplish; basically being the limit of imagination. Monk's defying physics (and really, just gravity) is nearly superhuman, but we have real life examples of people doing nearly wireless wuxia. A D&D monk isn't much removed from the tricks done by Cirque de Solei performers...

Maybe at low levels this is true, but Monks end up pretty far removed I'd say, even before 10th level. Certainly I can't imagine a Cirque du Soleil performer running up a waterfall, or catching an arrow out of the air to throw it back with lethal force, or dodging a lightning bolt, and that's just the base stuff before subclasses.

What we don't have are obviously 10+ level people. Folks just capable of out right ignoring damage (gun shots, sword attacks, walking on lava) for a period of time. No matter how you want to slice/represent HP, we just don't have anything like levels in real life that utilizes HP the way it is in game.

So, you take a real world object interaction like a human and a river of lava, and we know what happens. We can visualize the affect.

Now, I have no qualms making the 10th+ level Fighter superhuman. I'm perfectly fine with a non-magical fighting man being able to just will up whatever he needs to overcome whatever obstacle is in his way. But I've certainly see a LOT of pushback on these forums that a 20th level Fighter is just as mundanely common without their gear as a 1st level Fighter, and should only be able to do as much as a 1st level Fighter when it comes to feats of the supernatural.

Solve that divide, and walking on lava becomes simple HP damage. But as long as the 20th level Fighter is Guy at the Gym, things stay weird.

I'd argue that the lava thing isn't quite as weird as it seems (other than what should be a solid in terms of viscosity, but as I linked above, that's hardly unique to D&D). Putting aside that the damage value is just a guideline that you should tailor to your own table's conception of "Dangerous" and "Deadly"... 10d10 might not seem like much, but that's just for a few seconds of partial exposure - so it's not like you can, say, climb a lava flow unaided.

[KorvinStarmast]

Apparently in 4e, contact with lava just instakills you if you're not fire immune. No reason you can't do that in 5e too.

My champion shoved a troll into lava (Giants adventure, TftYP) and the DM simply narrated a troll burning up. Didn't even roll dice.

[Psyren]

My champion shoved a troll into lava (Giants adventure, TftYP) and the DM simply narrated a troll burning up. Didn't even roll dice.

For a monster that would be an awesome environmental kill! But for a PC, I could easily see that approach ruffling some feathers at the table.

[Dr.Samurai]

But you have that power too.

Yep, Blatant Beast acknowledged this from the beginning. Not relevant.

My champion shoved a troll into lava (Giants adventure, TftYP) and the DM simply narrated a troll burning up. Didn't even roll dice.

My DM had the lava deal damage on approach (I think 1d10 if you're within 5ft), then with the initial entry, then at the start of their turns. And was concerned that he maybe played it too much in my favor .

[Witty Username]

For a monster that would be an awesome environmental kill! But for a PC, I could easily see that approach ruffling some feathers at the table.

Lava is already 18d10 damage off the books, most PCs are going to be killed by that damage anyway.

Frankly a DM just narrating my death rather than giving me false hope with a bunch of dice is preferable.

[Dr.Samurai]

Lava is already 18d10 damage off the books, most PCs are going to be killed by that damage anyway.

My 200hp barbarian with fire resistance: Am I a joke to you??

[Keltest]

For a monster that would be an awesome environmental kill! But for a PC, I could easily see that approach ruffling some feathers at the table.

Yeah, I usually avoid lava for that reason. It's all well and good as an environmental hazard as such, but is a lot of power. If I had to do it, the air would be unbreathable and inflict the poisoned condition as soon as they entered the area. Extreme heat rules would apply if they were to set up camp there somehow, and then I would run the contact damage if they entered the lava and stood on it (I have a geologist in the group. Lava is dense).

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah, I usually avoid lava for that reason. It's all well and good as an environmental hazard as such, but is a lot of power. If I had to do it, the air would be unbreathable and inflict the poisoned condition as soon as they entered the area. Extreme heat rules would apply if they were to set up camp there somehow, and then I would run the contact damage if they entered the lava and stood on it (I have a geologist in the group. Lava is dense).

That all sounds awesome!

When I dunked a couple of drow I asked the DM like... do they submerge, are they just sort of plopped down on the surface? But he treated it like it had the same viscosity as water.

[Keltest]

On consideration, "the air isn't breathable" is one of the harder things to circumvent. Water? Sure. Deadly gas? Uhhh... I think there's one magic item that let's you not need air and that might be it.

[Dr.Samurai]

On consideration, "the air isn't breathable" is one of the harder things to circumvent. Water? Sure. Deadly gas? Uhhh... I think there's one magic item that let's you not need air and that might be it.

True (my artificer currently wears it as he's supposed to be a sort of astronaut).

But PCs can hold their breath for a few minutes, so you could have an encounter in that type of environment to kill some guardians or disarm a trap or open the way, etc.

[Keltest]

True (my artificer currently wears it as he's supposed to be a sort of astronaut).

But PCs can hold their breath for a few minutes, so you could have an encounter in that type of environment to kill some guardians or disarm a trap or open the way, etc.

Oh sure. "Here's a harmless meat wall, cut through it before you suffocate" is a cool encounter.