Swimming

[Sundweller]

In keeping with the "simplistic" style of DCC gaming, how have many of you handled rules for swimming, drowning, etc.?

Has anybody come up with any decent guidlines of who can swim? Do you base it off of profession? And what about the effects of heavy armor?

Most rpg's seem to neglect the swimming aspect in their rules set for the most part. Was just curious if anybody has come acrossed it in their DCC play sessions, and how they handled it...

[GnomeBoy]

Haven't had a case of swimming, but I'm sure I would look at Occupation and where the characters started the campaign (near to bodies of water? Sure they can swim).

I'd tend to look fairly realistically at swimming in armor... really, really, really tough to do.

[Sundweller]

I just found this, there is a link to a video in the first post, very interesting...

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=20316

[Rick]

FWIW, there's rules for swimming & drowning in DCC #75 The Sea Queen Escapes! (pages 6-7).

[Sundweller]

FWIW, there's rules for swimming & drowning in DCC #75 The Sea Queen Escapes! (pages 6-7).

Oh nice! I was wondering if any of the modules might have rules for it. I haven't picked that one up yet. That's good to know.

[oncelor]

Our house rule is DC 5 strength check to swim up to half normal speed in calm water, adding the armor penalty to the check. For every 5 by which you beat this check, get 5' additional movement. In rough water, increase the DC to 10. If you miss the check by more than 5, you start drowning. We decide d20 vs. d16 based on character background, but I'm pretty generous in giving people d20's; d16's are for beadles, merchants, scribes, etc.

[Tortog]

****Shameless plug****


Here's what I proposed in Critters, Creatures, & Denizens:

Most creatures have the ability to swim if the need arises. At such times they can make a swim check versus DC= 6 + the physical check penalty for any armor and +1 for every 25lbs of carried equipment. If successful they can move at half their base land speed, but they have no agility bonus to armor class and they cannot run or sprint while swimming. The DC is lowered by 4 if the creature simply treads water.

· A typical creature can hold its breath for a number of minutes equal to its stamina score divided by four.
This means a creature with a stamina score of 18 may hold its breath for up to 4.5 minutes; or 27 rounds.

· Any creature not adapted to an aquatic environment suffers 1 point of damage per round, per 100ft of
depth. There is no save versus this damage and even aquatic creatures are susceptible if not adapted to
deep water environments.

[Skyscraper]

Haven't had a case of swimming, but I'm sure I would look at Occupation and where the characters started the campaign (near to bodies of water? Sure they can swim).

I'd tend to look fairly realistically at swimming in armor... really, really, really tough to do.

I agree with pretty much everything here. I would add that swimming pretty much never requires a skill check, in my opinion.

I would emphasize that there is a basic question to ask here: does the PC know how to swim or not? If he does, no check is required to swim unless the water is turbulent or the PC is loaded or otherwise restrained (e.g. armor is certainly restrictive). I.e. it is not even a DC 2 swim check to swim in calm water for a creature that knows how to swim, because that would mean that on average once every 20 times that creature goes for a swim, it drowns. which is obviously not the case, since he/she learned to swim and consequently swam much more than 20 times I think swim checks (or skill checks in general) only need to be made when it is clear that a creature may fail at what it is attempting. Once you know how to swim, you don't fail at swimming. Like running or riding your bike. You only fail if the task is particularly complex, e.g. long-distince swimming or swimming down rapids.

If the creature does not know how to swim, then the only question that remains is how long it takes before it drowns. So again, no swim check is required.

I would probably let the player decide if his PC knows how to swim. If my player doesn't want his PC to drown, which is likely, he may simply decide that his PC knows how to swim. He'll come up with a short story as to why. I'm happy with that. We're here to have fun, not to look at PCs failing basic stuff such as swimming. However, I suspect some of my players would choose to have their PC not know how to swim, because some of them develop their PCs with a clear idea of background and they stick to it for story purposes more than for game purposes. I'm fine with that also. Once the choice is made, stick to it, that's all I ask of them.

Swimming is like riding a horse for checks. I never ask for horse riding checks unless they want to do something really funky such as jumping over obstacles or the like - which, frankly, just about never happens.

As a player, I admit that skill checks often frustrate me. We need to get on with a game here. Why am I rolling a swim check if I can swim, or a ride check if I can ride? I had a DM once ask me to roll a search check when I was searching a single pocket in someone's coat. I was like: "why? This is only a pocket. Either there is something in it, or there isn't." the judge replies "maybe you move your hand too quickly in the pocket and do not find an item located in it." Sigh. Really? I've never "not found" anything in my pockets in my entire life if I put my hand in it and thoroughly search the pocket, ala "where the heck are my car keys". I'm not searching a bunch of coats here, I am searching one pocket. In another game, I had to roll a check when I was walking in the forest. I fumbled, , and broke an arm (with the bone sticking out, DM's description). While the idea was temporarily entertaining (for like, 5 seconds), the game came to a halt and the DM had to come up with an unbelievable solution (to me, anyway), as to how I managed to still fire my bow with a broken arm and the bone sticking out after tons of roleplaying having to find a place where I could get some first aid. I was like "there is no way I can fire a bow a day after this accident, even with the first aid I got" and he was like "yes, you've had first aid, they put on a piece of wood along your bandages to set the bone straight, etc...", I'm like "bud, there is no way I could take that kind of pain, even if my arm were to miraculously be operable to fire a bow", he finally said "you have a 10% penalty", I went "Ok, I don't believe this at all, but it's your game", and I went one with my open fractured arm to fire the bow. The alternative would have been to have me re-roll a new PC. Both solutions share the same problem: useless loss of time. The most absurd thing, to me, in this incredible situation was not that I was able to fire my bow after having suffered the fracture, it was the fumbled "hiking skill check". Suuuure, it can happen. I've been a mountain guide for years. People get hurt. But I'm playing a game here, please let's skip to the interesting part and let's leave the blisters or the month-long readaptation after my broken leg for another time, and delve into the fantasy world that we're supposed to be exploring. That, and let's also avoid having me re-roll a new PC because I rolled a 1 on my swim check, even though I knew how to swim.

Okay, I'll quit my ramblings on skill checks.

What happens to a PC who weas armor: well, assuming heavy armor (chainmain, plate mail), I don't think it's possible to swim with that. At all. Drowning is pretty much the only solution here.

Assuming heavy gear in a packsacK: I don't think it's possible to swim with that, but the PC can remove it in the water to avoid drowning, it takes a round or two to remove a packsack or other heavy gear (not amor, that's longer).

Assuming leather armor, or light gear: I would simply allow swimming.

Assuming an unclear situation, in-between light gear and heavy gear, I'd give a DC 10 STR or AGI check (player's choice), or other value depending on how I see things. This is likely not to happen, but if I'm hesitant or the player strongly disagrees with me, this is likely to be the tiebreaker.

As for drowning, you can wing that the PC can hold his breath for a number of rounds equal to his STA value. Quick and simple rules are the most useful IMO.

Have fun swimming!

[Tortog]

@ Skyscraper> Love your post. I agree entirely. Knowing when and where to use a skill check is mostly an art learned through trial and error for most GM's (myself included). I blame 3.x, there were skill checks in the other versions of D&D, but they never seemed to be such a big deal until the d20 revolution. Since 10-11 is average on a d20; I figure that when the DC for something would be less than 7, I generally don't bother with the roll unless (as you correctly pointed out) there is some drastic or dire consequence of failure, or if it is of critical importance to the story, &c.

I would however like to point out that (with the pockets thing at least) you shouldn't be so quick to assume your GM is an idiot... maybe there were extenuating circumstances. "What does the Bagginses have in its pockets?" In LotR, the one true ring demonstrates clearly that it has the power to 'not-be-found' when it chooses.

-or-

Maybe the coat or what ever had been used as the focus for a Deep Pockets spell, and it really was a question of what you would find as opposed to if you would find something.

-or-

Maybe the pocket is trapped and he was giving you the chance to detect the trap before killing yourself. An old friend of mine used to like playing wizards, and as soon as he got the chance he would use his spells to create traps for all of his pockets, openings for tents and backpacks that would only allow him to enter or reach into them. We usually played in Krynn, and that guy really, hated Kenders. And, of course, the guy that liked playing Kenders always took this as a personal challenge... made for some really odd group dynamics sometimes.

As for the bow thing, well yes, that definitely strains the bonds of credulity a bit... but it reminded me of a game a ran back in high school where I'd worked the game to a climax in the abandoned levels of a Dwarven Hold, and most of the party were dead, bleeding out, or running away. The last one standing was the wood elf (11th level archer class... the one that could do all the trick shots and stuff back in 2nd ed) and I'd just used the breathe weapon on a demon-type-thing I'd made for the occasion to melt one of his arms off. I turned to him and said "Now what do you do?" expecting him to run. Instead, he dropped to the ground in front of this thing, braced the bow with his feet, knocked 2 arrows (a +1 arrow and a +3 arrow... and he only had one more +1 magic arrow, the rest were normal and useless) declared that he was aiming for the critter's eyes, and proceeded to roll a nat 20 for each shot... The +3 arrow definitely pierced the thing's brain, but the +1 arrows were also technically useless, but on a nat 20, through the eye... I just didn't have the heart to take that one away from him... I didn't want to spoil his moment of glory.

Still the spookiest thing I've ever seen at the table.

The player grinned looked at me and said, "I really didn't expect that to work, I just wanted to die in a blaze of glory..."

[Skyscraper]

Superb story about the one-armed archer Tortog! I would definitely have allowed the kill also with the +1 arrow on a double natural 20.

About the pocket, maybe you're right. The DM was a skill check freak though, so I couldn't really be apologetic about that one. In that same game, we had a horse chase going on, and he had us roll ride checks every single round. If we failed, we fell off. I mean, having us roll every round, what do you think happened?

About the pocket search, I was telling him "look, I'm only looking into his pocket, not looking for false pockets, not looking for secret coat areas, nothing. Just tell me if there is something in that area I am putting my hand into. If something is concealed, I won't find it. I'm fine with that". To me, that was like looking at a tabletop to see if there is anything there, and having to roll a skill check for that. I was essentiallyl begging him to not roll anything

Anyway, the pocket was empty

[Tortog]

@ Skyscraper> Thanx. I actually prefer it when players tell me things like; "I pat down the guys pocket from the outside." or "I ransack the bedroom starting by turning over the mattress." Or "I start my search by tapping on the walls looking for any hollow spots."

Makes life so much easier for me... if their activity comes anywhere close to where something is hidden then it gets revealed by their actions and not a skill check. This style of immersion play is much more rewarding to me than simply having the character's poke their head into a room roll a search check and then move on. Like they were some kind of Treasure Vultures

I feel your pain on the whole horse riding/chase thing... Its the same sort of thing as when your GM insists on rolling encounter checks for every hour of the 500 mile road trip that the character have to take to get to the next part of the adventure.

My solution for the whole thing was to start really paying attention to the dramatic flow of the story... Will a skill check kill the suspense and drama of the moment? Or will it enhance the moment? If it's a chase scene on horses and the characters have a few levels of experience, then I'd only make folks check their riding skill if they get close enough to either engage in combat, conversation, or the one being chased starts doing things like tossing things in the way. If it is just a matter of the players needing to get through the forest as fast as possible, then I have each of them make one ride check, and I'll make 1 encounter check for the entire trip if it is something they can do in less than a day's hard riding. I figure that in an FRPG setting horse riding (like swimming) is a ubiquitous skill that everyone has some experience with; like driving cars in a modern setting.

Back to the topic at hand...
I seem to recall a documentary I watched some time ago that mentioned the fact that part of the training for Roman soldiers was that they had to be able to swim something like 200 meters in full armor and kit (sword shield, &c.) Because they were expected to fight in naval battles and that means swimming quietly from one ship to board another. In FRPG terms that's medium armor and unencumbered, so I use that as my reference point on swim checks.

Using the rule I posted earlier, a humanoid with a Strength of 9 - 12, wearing scale-mail, shield, and equipment totaling about 20lbs. has a swim check DC of 11, or 12 if they take the equipment weight up to 50lbs (which would be too much weight for the guy with STR 9). And I don't count the weight of armor or shield as equipment because they have a fixed penalty as part of their composition. If they were just treading water the DCs would be 7 & 8, respectively. The way I run my games, I ignore DC's of 7 or less so long as things are calm and peaceful.

If the Character in question has STR18, then their DC's for the situation above would be: 8, if all they had was armor, shield and a sword; and this would let them move at 15ft/ round. If they were carrying up to 90lbs in equipment their swim check DC's would be 11.

[oncelor]

I require skill checks for swimming in still water on the presumption that characters are jumping in with their normal clothes and gear. Someone with swimming in his background in ideal conditions wouldn't need a check. I can swim, but I've been through training that involved jumping into water in street clothes; trying to swim just with jeans and tennis shoes is not so easy, and I can only imagine what it would be like with boots and a backpack filled with silver pieces. In my rules, low rolls only indicate no progress; only characters who have strength penalties can begin to drown in still water. Drowning unto death is three-strikes-and-you're-dead, so even for low-strength characters the chance of death is still fairly low. When "no progress" and rescuing drowning comrades isn't an issue (such as outside of combat, when characters have buddies with rope nearby, or when there is no time pressure), I don't call for checks.

As for swimming in armor: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/s ... -1.1178426
This guy swam in 33 lbs. of armor. I've seen weights for chain-mail anywhere from 25-60 lbs., so swimming in chain seems plausible. Plate is about 60lbs... maybe plausible for a few rounds for a hero?