Barbed Vest and Swarms?

Was in a level 1 session this weekend in a guild-style game with no arcane casters present. The adventure in question had 3 swarm encounters, which were...ahem...murder save for the neg energy Cleric and ample resting.

I'm now looking at having a Barbed Vest on my character to deal with this sort of thing, but I'm not exactly sure how it interacts with swarms.

So, the swarms we fought were all Diminuitive, so they were immune to weapon damage. The Barbed Vest does not appear to be a weapon. Would a swarm take damage from it? True, most swarms of that size are going to have a decent save against it in the first place, but still, it seems like it could be a real boon for when the arcane casters aren't around given that I'm wearing light armor anyway.

Bump. Would love some input.

Bump. Would love some input.

My opinion is that the vest wouldn't help you by RAW. The swarm damage isn't a natural or unarmed attack.

I think that "swarm" IS a natural attack, as it is listed in the attack line of the statblock (where only natural attacks and weapon attacks go).

A barbed vest is also not a weapon, but also a defensive device, so I don't think weapon immunity would have any effect against it.

The vest doesn't even trigger from attacks (which would require an attack roll), but from the wearer being damaged (which swarms still do) so one can't even argue that the swarms aren't attacking.

In short, it works on swarms just as much as anyone else.

I believe this to be a strict interpretation of RAW, but not necessarily RAI.

Yeah, I have to agree with RD (which is strange and mind numbing). The swarm attack is listed where it would be for a natural attack. I can't think of anything else a swarm damage could be other than natural (it's not magical, it's not a manufactured weapon).

I also don't have an issue with this, as it kind of makes sense, the swarm getting caught up on the little barbs, killing a few hundred each round they are crawling on you. Of course, they are doing much more damage to you.

The bad thing about a swarm is, they don't avoid damage, so they'd just keep crawling on you until they killed you, and ignore the damage.

Easiest way to deal with swarms at low levels without magic is alchemist fire or jars of oil and a torch.

I was in a game before where the GM ruled a flaming weapon would still do the flame damage to the swarm (the blade was useless, but the flame was magical and so would affect them).

a natural or unarmed attack must make a DC 15 Ref lex save or take 1 point of damage.

A swarm uses neither to deal damage to you.

B p313
"Creatures with the swarm subtype don’t make standard melee attacks. Instead they deal automatic damage"

Serisan wrote:

a natural or unarmed attack must make a DC 15 Ref lex save or take 1 point of damage.

A swarm uses neither to deal damage to you.

So the vest will never trigger.

B p313
"Creatures with the swarm subtype don’t make standard melee attacks. Instead they deal automatic damage"

Your quoted rule doesn't refute that it is a natural attack.

Serisan wrote:

a natural or unarmed attack must make a DC 15 Ref lex save or take 1 point of damage.

A swarm uses neither to deal damage to you.

So the vest will never trigger.

B p313
"Creatures with the swarm subtype don’t make standard melee attacks. Instead they deal automatic damage"

+1

If you do not view the barbed vest as piercing weapon damage, then you should not view the swarm as using natural/unarmed attacks.

How about this, would you allow the vest to do damage to someone with DR 5/magical ?

Would a normal swarm (say wasp swarm) do damage vs someone with dr 5/magical?

Wanted to add (since it would be a better example), how about both vs dr 5/-

I would rule against it effecting swarms. If you're having trouble with them then buy a swarmsuit instead to keep you alive while you throw those alchemist fires.

I think that "swarm" IS a natural attack, as it is listed in the attack line of the statblock (where only natural attacks and weapon attacks go).

A "swarm" attack is its own attack type.

Swarm Attack: Creatures with the swarm subtype don’t make standard melee attacks.

Your quoted rule doesn't refute that it is a natural attack.

Nothing in the rules says that a swarm attack is also treated as a natural attack.

Ravingdork wrote:

Your quoted rule doesn't refute that it is a natural attack.

Nothing in the rules says that a swarm attack is also treated as a natural attack.

Quite true, but it seems to be implied by stat blocks everywhere.

A swarm attack, not being a natural attack on the other hand, isn't even implied.

FAQ it and move on. Maybe Paizo will eventually look at the mountain of FAQ flagged threads and realize they need to make it a priority, rather than giving it to people and then telling them it's their low priority. Paizo's pretty good about listening to the customers, so if enough people make noises about the FAQs needing a higher priority, I'm sure they will listen.

Quite true, but it seems to be implied by stat blocks everywhere.

Not sure I buy the argument that melee attacks are either natural, unarmed, or weapons only. A "natural attack" has a very specific definition in game. I think a swarm attack is another type of attack, since it doesn't follow any of the rules for a natural attack.

Natural attacks are primary or secondary, apply strength modifiers, are based on a creature's size, and are a standard attack. Swarm attacks have none of these properties.

Perhaps swarm attacks are to be treated as natural attacks for spell/feat/equipment/effect purposes, but with separate game mechanics. But it says nothing of the sort.

Agreed with mdt. FAQ it and move on. The rules don't say anything about what a swarm attack is, so I think it is a stretch to label them natural attack(other).

Your quoted rule doesn't refute that it is a natural attack.

Well, lets chalk it up to we reach entirely different points of view from reading the quoted rule.

I see that rule as explicitly unambiguously asserting it is not a natural attack. You differ.

if enough people make noises about the FAQs needing a higher priority, I'm sure they will listen.

Key point is "enough".

In short, it is to Paizo's best interest to leave as many rules questions unanswered. If they do so, more tables are left to run the rules they way they want and no tables feel like Paizo nerfed their rule. It's rather depressing for me.

Key point is "enough".

I don't think we are remotely close to "enough", since I came to PaizoCon with 13 rules questions and left with no answers and the assurance that answering the questions would in effect alienate those that reach a different opinion on the rule in question.

Could you tell me which Paizo employee told you they didn't want to answer rules questions or advance the FAQ? Because if it was someone who actually has some pull, then I'm going to cancel my subscription. I don't like that at all.

Could you tell me which Paizo employee told you they didn't want to answer rules questions or advance the FAQ?

It was a conversation with Hyrmm and Mark. They did say my questions were more rules questions and I should post them on the forums. To which I replied, that I've been posting them and FAQ'ing them for years with no result. That then turned to I guess them offering up a reason my questions are as of yet unanswered "it would alienate those that don't agree".

I was rather depressed by the conversation and I didn't do as they suggested:
take my questions to JB/SKR/etc.

But all my questions should in their in-boxes, as they all have been FAQ tagged in the past.

I see the rules as a framework for individual interpretation, not a rigid tax code.

I see the rules as a rigid tax code with absolutely no room to deviate, but with the beginning of the gammastering section in full force:

It goes on to explain that part of a players responsibility by sitting down to the table is to understand that whatever the GM says is how it is. The GM is free to use the rules, deviate from them, change them on the fly in mid stream with no notice. In effect, while there may be "one true RAW" whether or not that RAW is followed in a game is entirely up to the GM and the player has no right to disagree. If he does disagree, his only option is to find another GM.

It was a conversation with Hyrmm and Mark. They did say my questions were more rules questions and I should post them on the forums. To which I replied, that I've been posting them and FAQ'ing them for years with no result. That then turned to I guess them offering up a reason my questions are as of yet unanswered "it would alienate those that don't agree".

I was rather depressed by the conversation and I didn't do as they suggested:
take my questions to JB/SKR/etc.

But all my questions should in their in-boxes, as they all have been FAQ tagged in the past.

I'm rather depressed myself. Especially after SKR flamed me in a thread for not acknowledging his work on the FAQ (I hadn't realized that the update date wasn't updating, so I thought it hadn't been updated in 6 months). If there is a decision at Paizo to not answer FAQs to avoid alienating people, that's actually alienating in itself.

I'm rather depressed myself. Especially after SKR flamed me in a thread for not acknowledging his work on the FAQ (I hadn't realized that the update date wasn't updating, so I thought it hadn't been updated in 6 months). If there is a decision at Paizo to not answer FAQs to avoid alienating people, that's actually alienating in itself.

I agree with that being depressing. When they were saying that it was lower priority because clarifying rules didn't earn them money, that was one thing (and another big reason I support some sort of Rules Encyclopedia/Compendium - so these things *would* earn money), but this "Ambiguity makes people happy" thing is assuredly Not Scottish.

It goes on to explain that part of a players responsibility by sitting down to the table is to understand that whatever the GM says is how it is. The GM is free to use the rules, deviate from them, change them on the fly in mid stream with no notice. In effect, while there may be "one true RAW" whether or not that RAW is followed in a game is entirely up to the GM and the player has no right to disagree. If he does disagree, his only option is to find another GM.

Does it really say that? Care to provide a quote and page number?

I don't know very many people who wouldn't immediately stop playing with a GM who changed the rules on them with no advanced notice whatsoever.

GM or no, that's called cheating. Unless stated from the beginning that there are going to be changes, or agreed upon by all present at the table later on, it is generally assumed that everyone is playing by the same rules.

Swarm damage is not explictly a natural attack, but it is reasonable to view it that way implicitly. However, anyone having the contextual understanding of the rules to come to that opinion reasonably would also identify the barbed vest as being an attack to which diminutive swarms are immune to on the basis of why swarms are immune to such damage in the first place. Although, as life shows us repeatedly, what is reasonable to one person is not necessarily reasonable to another, much less to all. :)

Eh swarms are kinda ambiguous, but I mean, why not allow the vest with a million little hooks as a defensive measure deal a little damage to swarms? Seems reasonable to me.

RAW, the swarms have a special attack that they perform automatically and can't be affected by the hooks.

RAI a swarm brushing up against your armor and occupying your space should meet the qualifiers for Barbed Vest. (And I also think it should trigger on an Overrun, but I'm a rebel).

Swarm damage is not explictly a natural attack, but it is reasonable to view it that way implicitly. However, anyone having the contextual understanding of the rules to come to that opinion reasonably would also identify the barbed vest as being an attack to which diminutive swarms are immune to on the basis of why swarms are immune to such damage in the first place. Although, as life shows us repeatedly, what is reasonable to one person is not necessarily reasonable to another, much less to all. :)

Oh, I don't know. I could see a cockroach swarm getting caught up on hooks (I've seen them get caught up on thorns before, when they panic). I also saw one fly into a steel brush and impale itself and leave a trail of gooey bug guts when it ran. Especially with the guy they're crawling on screaming and moving and waving his arms and rolling on the floor, pushing the little hooks into their bodies.

Disclaimer : Where I grew up, cockroaches could fly, and they got as big as your thumb (the whole thumb, not the thumbnail, not the first knuckle).

@the side discussion

I too find Paizo's stance on this very distressing. In my opinion, there are a lot of rules inconsistencies and unnecessary ambiguity which lead to people feel the need to create a bunch of house rules.

I'm not talking about "extras" that may not have been put into the rules, I'm talking about things that actually have to deal with playability.

See: Defending Weapons, Overruning on a Charge, Arrow Deflection, the pre-poison FAQ poison situation and there's more I know.

Then there's the murky rules text situations (see the "Bane" thread from yesterday) which shouldn't be murky, but because of rules language that is very similar to other, existing rules it is quite easy for people get confused. Who can blame them? The language is not explicit enough in some cases.

I would like Paizo to streamline their rules, increase their FAQ responses and ammend the rulebook. The tighter the base rulesets become the easier it will be to start to be creative with Pathfinder and add your own GM flourishes.

I understand their point about alienation, but it makes it harder to bring in new people to pathfinder (for me anyway) when I have to delve into rules caveats immediately.

EDIT: Of course I love Pathfinder, which is why I want it to be the best game it can be.

Here's how I would treat it—the hooks and barbs on such a vest are, essentially, weapons. Count the damage they cause as such when applying it to swarms. That means that in most swarms, they'll not care. Sure, a few bugs here and there will die, but when a swarm's made out of thousands or tens of thousands of creatures, they won't even notice the barbs on a vest.

I don't know very many people who wouldn't immediately stop playing with a GM who changed the rules on them with no advanced notice whatsoever.

GM or no, that's called cheating. Unless stated from the beginning that there are going to be changes, or agreed upon by all present at the table later on, it is generally assumed that everyone is playing by the same rules.

A GM's job is to interpret the rules. He is required to be reasonable when making such calls, but he's not required to be right 100% of the time. If I'm running a table and one of my players disagrees with a rule interpretation, he's welcome to quickly explain his viewpoint. I'll consider the information, adjusting my decision if warranted, and the game will keep moving. If it turns out later that my call was wrong/bad/unfun, I'll try to make up for it somehow. None of that is "cheating".

Sometimes the available rules don't accurately model the PCs' situation. (This may be due to a flaw in the rules, but is often the result of inspired play.) In such situations, I'll step clear of the RAW and try to reach consensus with my players about the rules' intent. That isn't cheating: That's my right as a GM.

As far as the original poster's dilemma is concerned, I would tend to rule that a barbed vest's hooks would harm tiny creatures, but fine creatures would pass among the hooks unscathed. Erring on the side of generosity, I'd be willing to rule that diminutive creatures (bat, crab, or spider swarms), could suffer damage from the vest as they engulf its wearer. (I guess that makes me a nasty, dirty cheater. Anyone who has a beef with me can consider themselves the beneficiary of a hearty bronx cheer.)

mdt wrote:

Could you tell me which Paizo employee told you they didn't want to answer rules questions or advance the FAQ?

It was a conversation with Hyrmm and Mark. They did say my questions were more rules questions and I should post them on the forums.

Hyrum and Mark can make calls for PFS as needed, but they're not the game's developers; their primary need is keeping play going *right now*, not making sure that their ruling will be the same thing that the developers would say given time to consider all the potential ramifications of making such a call. I get the sense that you're looking for an absolute ruling, and that can only come from Jason and Sean, and the proper way to get that type of question to them is via the FAQ system on the boards.

Jason and Sean have been looking in on the FAQ now and then, but we've been keeping them very busy with a bunch of things; we've finally got them to a point where we can increase the priority of answering FAQ questions for a little while before we have to have them focus on Bestiary 3, so expect to see some new FAQ stuff added in the coming weeks.

In regards to the original question i think per RAW the vest doesnt help. However i think it should really be a 'depends'

the thing is there are different Types of Swarms i think Bugs wouldn't care.

But i think the vest should affect a Rat swarm or larger types.

but this is just my interpetation.

I don't think you can effectively argue that the vest is a weapon and that the swarm attack isn't, or that the vest isn't a weapon yet the swarm attack is.

If they are both weapons, or if they are both not weapons, then both cases result in no damage to the swarm.

Especially after SKR flamed me in a thread for not acknowledging his work on the FAQ (I hadn't realized that the update date wasn't updating, so I thought it hadn't been updated in 6 months).

[really stupid tangent]

Is there an actual rules FAQ?
[/really stupid tangent]

Is there an actual rules FAQ?

Yep, the Core rules, Bestiary, Advanced Players Guide, etc feature FAQ tabs like this on their product pages.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj/faq#tabs

Set wrote:

Is there an actual rules FAQ?

Yep, the Core rules, Bestiary, Advanced Players Guide, etc feature FAQ tabs like this on their product pages.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj/faq#tabs

Awesome! Thanks! The Search feature didn't even find the two I linked to, just some miniatures, for some unfathomable reason...

James Risner wrote:

It was a conversation with Hyrmm and Mark. They did say my questions were more rules questions and I should post them on the forums. To which I replied, that I've been posting them and FAQ'ing them for years with no result. That then turned to I guess them offering up a reason my questions are as of yet unanswered "it would alienate those that don't agree".

I was rather depressed by the conversation and I didn't do as they suggested:
take my questions to JB/SKR/etc.

But all my questions should in their in-boxes, as they all have been FAQ tagged in the past.

I'm rather depressed myself. Especially after SKR flamed me in a thread for not acknowledging his work on the FAQ (I hadn't realized that the update date wasn't updating, so I thought it hadn't been updated in 6 months). If there is a decision at Paizo to not answer FAQs to avoid alienating people, that's actually alienating in itself.

Take it easy guys, no need to get "depressed". Are you dating Pathfinder or playing it? ;)

For what it's worth, I'm generally a "strict constructionist" when I respond to RAW questions on the board. In my games though, I'm more interpretive if it helps advance the story or increase player enjoyment.

In this case, I'd probably allow it for two reasons. First, swarms don't tend to be a recurring encounter theme in most adventures, so it's not likely to have a significant impact in the future. And second, it helps with character development that the cleric is now wearing a barbed vest as a result of in-game experiences. Might lead to fun roleplaying opportunities, when the town drunk calls out the cleric as a follower of "Babe Winkelman", patron deity of Fishermen. :-).

For what it's worth, I'm generally a "strict constructionist" when I respond to RAW questions on the board. In my games though, I'm more interpretive if it helps advance the story or increase player enjoyment.

In this case, I'd probably allow it for two reasons. First, swarms don't tend to be a recurring encounter theme in most adventures, so it's not likely to have a significant impact in the future. And second, it helps with character development that the cleric is now wearing a barbed vest as a result of in-game experiences. Might lead to fun roleplaying opportunities, when the town drunk calls out the cleric as a follower of "Babe Winkelman", patron deity of Fishermen. :-).

I'm Stynkk and I agree with this message.

As long as you have a good handle on the rules beforehand you can gauge the impact if you decide to fudge with things here and there.

Ravingdork wrote:

I don't know very many people who wouldn't immediately stop playing with a GM who changed the rules on them with no advanced notice whatsoever.

GM or no, that's called cheating. Unless stated from the beginning that there are going to be changes, or agreed upon by all present at the table later on, it is generally assumed that everyone is playing by the same rules.

A GM's job is to interpret the rules. He is required to be reasonable when making such calls, but he's not required to be right 100% of the time. If I'm running a table and one of my players disagrees with a rule interpretation, he's welcome to quickly explain his viewpoint. I'll consider the information, adjusting my decision if warranted, and the game will keep moving. If it turns out later that my call was wrong/bad/unfun, I'll try to make up for it somehow. None of that is "cheating".

Sometimes the available rules don't accurately model the PCs' situation. (This may be due to a flaw in the rules, but is often the result of inspired play.) In such situations, I'll step clear of the RAW and try to reach consensus with my players about the rules' intent. That isn't cheating: That's my right as a GM.

As far as the original poster's dilemma is concerned, I would tend to rule that a barbed vest's hooks would harm tiny creatures, but fine creatures would pass among the hooks unscathed. Erring on the side of generosity, I'd be willing to rule that diminutive creatures (bat, crab, or spider swarms), could suffer damage from the vest as they engulf its wearer. (I guess that makes me a nasty, dirty cheater. Anyone who has a beef with me can consider themselves the beneficiary of a hearty bronx cheer.)

Nice strawman.

I never said there was anything wrong with a GM making a ruling. Only that changing the rules without player notification and/or agreement was wrong.

They are two completely different things.

James Risner wrote:

mdt wrote:

Could you tell me which Paizo employee told you they didn't want to answer rules questions or advance the FAQ?

It was a conversation with Hyrmm and Mark. They did say my questions were more rules questions and I should post them on the forums.

Hyrum and Mark can make calls for PFS as needed, but they're not the game's developers; their primary need is keeping play going *right now*, not making sure that their ruling will be the same thing that the developers would say given time to consider all the potential ramifications of making such a call. I get the sense that you're looking for an absolute ruling, and that can only come from Jason and Sean, and the proper way to get that type of question to them is via the FAQ system on the boards.

Jason and Sean have been looking in on the FAQ now and then, but we've been keeping them very busy with a bunch of things; we've finally got them to a point where we can increase the priority of answering FAQ questions for a little while before we have to have them focus on Bestiary 3, so expect to see some new FAQ stuff added in the coming weeks.

Thanks for clearing that up Vic, it means a lot, honestly. For a bit, I thought company policy was different internally than what was posted. I don't like that in a business, and I'm glad to hear it was just PFS related.

I'm thrilled to hear more time is going to free up for FAQs. Honestly, I don't mind ruling things in my own game, but I like to know that I'm houseruling them, not interpreting things wrong. Makes things so much smoother in games, especially when you've got people in your game you haven't played with for 10 years. :)

Here's how I would treat it—the hooks and barbs on such a vest are, essentially, weapons. Count the damage they cause as such when applying it to swarms. That means that in most swarms, they'll not care. Sure, a few bugs here and there will die, but when a swarm's made out of thousands or tens of thousands of creatures, they won't even notice the barbs on a vest.

My bigger concern is not with insect swarms (typically Fine sized), but Diminuitive swarms like Bat Swarm. Conceptually to me, bats fly in, several get downed each attack due to fishhooking themselves, while many more are still around (which is why they have a relatively high amount of HP compared to the damage from the vest).

Maybe I should get a butterfly net while I'm at it...

Does it really say that?

You got my paraphrase of what it says and you got a little of my hyperbole mixed into it to make a point.

PHB p396
"The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law. He must not antagonize the players or work to impede their ability to enjoy the game, yet neither should he favor them and coddle them. He should be impartial, fair, and consistent in his administration of the rules."

An example of the quickest way to fix arguments over the rules (that I regularly use in my games) is this:
1) A rule is adjudicated in one way.
2) A player asserts the rule works differently.
3) A GM examines the player's theory of operation and asserts the rule works as he originally used.
4) The player disagrees.
5) The GM then in essence says "well now it works differently, it works my way."

If I don't go to step 5, we waste far too much time arguing over how it works. So this is what I mean by "change on the fly."

so expect to see some new FAQ stuff added in the coming weeks.

Should I post new threads with the 13 questions I've compiled over the years, and click FAQ on those again? All these have had FAQ clicked on them in the past, some many times.

Ravingdork wrote:

Does it really say that?

You got my paraphrase of what it says and you got a little of my hyperbole mixed into it to make a point.

PHB p396
"The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law. He must not antagonize the players or work to impede their ability to enjoy the game, yet neither should he favor them and coddle them. He should be impartial, fair, and consistent in his administration of the rules."

An example of the quickest way to fix arguments over the rules (that I regularly use in my games) is this:
1) A rule is adjudicated in one way.
2) A player asserts the rule works differently.
3) A GM examines the player's theory of operation and asserts the rule works as he originally used.
4) The player disagrees.
5) The GM then in essence says "well now it works differently, it works my way."

If I don't go to step 5, we waste far too much time arguing over how it works. So this is what I mean by "change on the fly."

Thank you for the clarification. I understand and agree.

I never said there was anything wrong with a GM making a ruling. Only that changing the rules without player notification and/or agreement was wrong.

They are two completely different things.

I didn't intend to distort your point into a strawman: I'm just coming at it from a different perspective. You specifically objected to GMs arbitrarily changing the rules on the fly, but I would argue that the GM potentially has that authority. He's a fool if he fails to listen to and respect his players' opinions, but the difference between "interpreting the rules" and "making things up on the fly" can become a matter of degree. If the GM knows that something's going to produce a train wreck, he may need to step clear of the RAW to protect what he sees as the rules' intent.

In my experience, the most frustrating rule disagreements arise from situations where a GM and player each "know" they are right, so they don't even think to discuss the issue ahead of time.

In the end, I think we can agree that nobody wants to play with a GM who makes decisions capriciously or arbitrarily.

Should I post new threads with the 13 questions I've compiled over the years, and click FAQ on those again? All these have had FAQ clicked on them in the past, some many times.

Nope. Re-FAQing things that have already been FAQd just adds to the difficulty of clearing the queue.

Continuing the off-topic discussion:

Looking at the link that Stynnk posted (thanks, Stynnk!) some of the answers are dated this month- so it is being actively worked on now. (Although, as MDT mentioned, the "last update" date is not being changed.)