5
\$\begingroup\$

There's an Archer in my party, and I'm playing the party Wizard. It's likely going to come up that there will be a time when an enemy ends up behind the 10' diameter sphere of churning water made by Aqueous Orb and the archer will want to attack through it. Or a Fighter who's Enlarged might want to use his reach weapon through it.

The spell states that "[Victims inside] gain cover against attacks from outside the aqueous orb..." and I was wondering if the orb itself would provide cover from ranged or reach attacks to creatures on the other side of it.

Would

Ranged Attacks Underwater: Thrown weapons are ineffective underwater, even when launched from land. Attacks with other ranged weapons take a –2 penalty on attack rolls for every 5 feet of water they pass through, in addition to the normal penalties for range.

from Aquatic Terrain apply? However, it still doesn't clear up the issue for reach weapons.

\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

By the RAW the spell has only its listed effects and therefore it would only provide cover for the creatures inside of it. I generally recommend against house ruling other effects into spells but you could apply cover or aquatic terrain rules if you desire. If you are concerned about the realism of the spell remember that it is magic, perhaps the currents of the sphere are such that an arrow shot through it swerves around inside of it (thus granting cover inside of it) but then comes out true to its original direction (thus not granting cover on the other side of it).

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ By RAW, the spell creates a rolling sphere of churning water ten feet in diameter. That is one of the effects of the spell. Do you have any reference to support your assertion that a non-porous sphere of water (magical or otherwise) does not affect the movement of objects passing through it? \$\endgroup\$ – GMJoe Apr 15 '16 at 0:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ The spell says that the orb provides cover specifically to creatures inside of it. If it granted cover generally it could say that instead. \$\endgroup\$ – Nickmagus Apr 15 '16 at 0:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.