18

If Water Walk has been cast on someone, can they still choose to submerge themselves or is their buoyancy now determined and final until the spell ends?

NotArch
  • 125,044
  • 39
  • 506
  • 804
  • The question is framed as "either / or" ... but I suppose that any answer could challenge that frame as part of the answer. No worries, I don't have a better answer that what is already there. – KorvinStarmast Apr 16 '18 at 21:09

2 Answers2

14

RAW is Insufficiently Explicit

Water Walk says...

This spell grants the ability to move across any liquid surface [...] as if it were harmless solid ground.

Spells in D&D tend to do only what they say on the tin. At first blush, this one is pretty clear. However, they're also meant to be parsed with normal human language. Having the ability to do something does not explicitly require one to do that thing.

However, it also says...

If you target a creature submerged in a liquid, the spell carries the target to the surface of the liquid at a rate of 60 feet per round.

This part of the spell doesn't use language that introduces the possibility of caveats - if the subject is submerged, they rise. There is no indication it ends after they surface.

Suggested Handling

With the first part being theoretically optional, but the second part clearly mandatory, there are two choices.

  1. Treat the 60 feet as negative downward movement. A sufficiently fast character (able to Swim more than 60 feet in a turn) could choose to dive into the surface, but wouldn't get very far. A slower character couldn't even try to swim down.

  2. Apply the 60 feet upward at the end of each character's turn - a character who could swim 30 would get down 30 feet, then be pushed back to the surface at the end of their turn.

Personally, I've ruled the second without complaint from players, but the first is an equally reasonable approach.

Community
  • 1
T.J.L.
  • 48,527
  • 8
  • 185
  • 233
  • 2
    There is also at least a 3rd choice: use it as it is worded. Which poses no complications whatsoever. – Szega Apr 16 '18 at 18:55
  • 7
    @Szega I disagree with the level of clarity and level of unambiguity you're applying to that wording. – T.J.L. Apr 16 '18 at 19:57
  • 1
    While I am not sure this is RAW I am fairly certain that it is RAI, and makes the most sense to me. – SeriousBri Apr 17 '18 at 08:45
8

Yes you can voluntarily go underwater

First,

This spell grants the ability to move across any liquid surface (PHB 287)

Having an ability does not force you to use it every time when applicable. If they wished for it to be otherwise, they could have worded it differently, like "Creatures affected by the spell do not sink in liquids, but can walk on their surface.".

What might be a source of confusion is that:

If you target a creature submerged in a liquid, the spell carries the target to the surface of the liquid

This applies only when you target a creature submerged in a liquid, i.e. at the time of casting. The creature cannot "opt out" of it, though. The spell explicitly forces it up at the stated rate.

GreySage
  • 21,616
  • 8
  • 77
  • 128
Szega
  • 61,571
  • 9
  • 246
  • 297
  • 2
    Though consistent with the rules as written I cannot help but feel the intent is that Water Walk precludes you voluntarily going under. – Carcer Apr 16 '18 at 18:49
  • 1
    @Carcer Especially given that last paragraph's verbiage. – Slagmoth Apr 16 '18 at 18:49
  • @Carcer Nowhere does the spell say that your buoyancy changes. The last part is a completely separate effect. Not being able to submerge is neither RAW, nor RAI. – Szega Apr 16 '18 at 18:51
  • @Szega Totally get that, but (and I miss when this actually meant something) it is a Transmutation spell. Meaning it changes you/it/etc. I suppose you could argue that it changes your abilities, but I see the interpretation as RAW but I don't know if it is RAI because developer commentary is apparently silent although I am sifting through stuff now, just out of curiosity. – Slagmoth Apr 16 '18 at 19:00
  • @Slagmoth The spell clearly says what it does and what it does not do. This does not cause any problems in gameplay. Why are you guys so fixated on not being able to submerge? – Szega Apr 16 '18 at 19:04
  • 1
    @Szega I just read it differently, I don't see it as two separate effects and I don't see one ending simply because you were brought to the surface. This question was asked to SageAdvice but there has been no reply by anyone of note... yet. – Slagmoth Apr 16 '18 at 19:07
  • @Slagmoth The second part explicitly states when it takes effect. There is no other way to read it. You can rule however you want at your table, but the RAW is clear. – Szega Apr 16 '18 at 19:09
  • @Szega your reading is one I had not thought of, but you do a good thing to point out that the spell can have more than one magical effect. This is not the only spell with more than one different outcomes. example, Glyph of Warding has a standard explosion, or it has another magical effect if the caster uses a different spell option. It might be worth adding another spell that has more than one possible magical effect to support the point that this kind of thing isn't the uncommon in this edition of the game. (Various cantrips also have multiple possible outcomes, like Thaumaturgy, etc. – KorvinStarmast Apr 16 '18 at 19:36
  • @KorvinStarmast The problem there is that these are not separate options to choose from, like in those cases. This is an automatic addition in a certain situation. – Szega Apr 16 '18 at 19:38
  • Are you hinging on the "if" conditional for the second effect you are illustrating? The "If" appears to set up a second magical effect that isn't the same as the first, as you see it, right? – KorvinStarmast Apr 16 '18 at 19:41
  • 1
    @KorvinStarmast Yes. Also, the mention of targeting separates it from the first paragraph/effect. – Szega Apr 16 '18 at 19:46
  • Got it. like the answer. – KorvinStarmast Apr 16 '18 at 19:46