Does Water Breathing allow spell casting?

[kreynolds]

Due to the wonders of the "ignore" function

That would be me on his ingore list, I believe.

 

[kreynolds]

Does this mean that my NPC mages can hide in ponds, rivers, lakes, large portable orbs of water (but that's a different story), ect... and fire off spells free from the threats of battle? I know it sounds extreem/silly but it is possible, & if done correctly it's a good tactic.

Sort of. I believe water blocks line of effect.

 

[IceBear]

That would be the magic part of it

So would the changing it to air

They never tell you by what mechanic the magic works so my theory is just as right as yours If they literally wanted you to breathe water then it should have given you gills.

Anyway, this is pointless...you don't want someone to be able to speak underwater with this spell and I don't see the big deal about it (especially since it always did in the past and there isn't any other magic in 3E that would allow it). It won't break the game to allow it, IMHO.

IceBear

 

[Magic Rub]

Sort of. I believe water blocks line of effect.

You mean water breathing doesn't allow me to see do to a thin layer of oxygen that forms over my eyes. Oh & I forgot about the bubble that forms around my spell effects.

Sorry, I wasn't born with the "stupid" filter on my brain that most people have which stops them from saying such things.

 

[IceBear]

The amount of times that a spellcaster will be near a pool of water, could jump into it, remain submerged and still see his opponents fighting onshore (maybe 30 or 40 ft away) would be so few that it isn't even worth worrying over.

I don't think the water itself would block like of sight so much as the angle of sight to your opponents might be blocked by the shoreline.

IceBear

 

[Jeremy]

Heh. Probably banned you way back when when you dared disagree with Caliban. And rudely no less.

I think the rules stated that the surface of water breaks line of effect for fire spells. For instance, a lightning bolt would continue right on through either way, but a fireball cast from shore would detonate on impacting the water as opposed to carrying though it. Check out the web enhancement, it says for sure.

 

[Magic Rub]

So would the changing it to air

IceBear

I know

Sorry I had to jab you I couldn't help it, see my last post about my missing stupid filter.

 

[kreynolds]

Heh. Probably banned you way back when when you dared disagree with Caliban.

Nah. I think it was within the last few months. I can't remember exactly, but me and Pielorinho got into about something or another. I guess I hurt his feelings.

And rudely no less.

That's was happens when a newbie disagrees with an expert. Man, was that a mess.

I think the rules stated that the surface of water breaks line of effect for fire spells. Check out the web enhancement, it says for sure.

Yup. Just checked it.

 

[Pielorinho]

I agree with Icebear: this tactic would be useful VERY rarely. Think back on your last, say, dozen sessions: how many encounters occurred right next to a body of water but not actually in it?

Of my last dozen sessions, there was exactly one encounter next to a body of water. And considering that we were fighting a green dragon, it would've been an exceptionally poor tactic for our party wizard to hop in the water, where the dragon couldn't protect him.

That, I think, is the main danger with the tactic: unless the entire party is waterbreathing, then the underwater wizard will be unprotected from the enemy except by the water. Which isn't the best protection in the world.

Daniel