Is there any reason a flying creature with the Fly-By Attack feat couldn't move half it's speed, use the attack to initiate a grapple, and carry the victim off with the rest of its move?
The way I played it is this:
Wyvern (fly speed 60) flies 30' into reach and bites.
It hits with the bite and starts a grapple.
Target gets an AoO (because the stupid Wyvern doesn't have improved grab for some reason).
I roll a grapple using its CMB vs target's CMD. It wins.
It uses the remainder of its movement to fly up.
Is that right? Or is there some restriction on moving with a creature in a grapple, if you're the grappler? My rules-lawyer said, "That's not how that's supposed to work." But was otherwise vague.
The Combat Section has grapple. Specifically, you may move your target:
You may move both yourself and your target up to half your move speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any place adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your target over a hazardous location, they get a +4 bonus and a free attempt to break the gapple
This can only be done after you succeed in maintaining the grapple, however. The wyvern must move in, grapple, and next turn fly out with their prey. An interesting note, you may use any of your movement types, including burrow :)
|
Once grappled technically they cant not move, in order to move a grappled creature ie, the bird fly up.
text; 20pfsrd.com
A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.
Move: You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
in a nut shell, the bird would fly down and grapple next round would make a grapple check with +4 to the defender to fly straight up.(if they player can not naturally fly that is.)
Is there any reason a flying creature with the Fly-By Attack feat couldn't move half it's speed, use the attack to initiate a grapple, and carry the victim off with the rest of its move?
The way I played it is this:
Wyvern (fly speed 60) flies 30' into reach and bites.
It hits with the bite and starts a grapple.
Target gets an AoO (because the stupid Wyvern doesn't have improved grab for some reason).
I roll a grapple using its CMB vs target's CMD. It wins.
It uses the remainder of its movement to fly up.Is that right? Or is there some restriction on moving with a creature in a grapple, if you're the grappler? My rules-lawyer said, "That's not how that's supposed to work." But was otherwise vague.
There are a couple of things that if I were GMing this I would want to check on. The first, and foremost is, does the wyvern have the lift capacity (meaning flight lift not bench press) to lift both itself and a combatant off the ground? I'll assume the combatant is a medium size creature. It says in the bestiary that some wyverns are used as mounts for lizardfolk, which would lead one to believe they can in fact lift both themselves and another humanoid creature off of the ground, however, there is a decided difference between a willing mount, lightly burdened, and a combatant struggling to free themselves at the earliest opportunity from the wyverns toothy maw. The struggle itself might throw off the flight so much that both the wyvern and the combatant would fall unceremoniously into the nearby shrubbery. If you are using the STR score of the Wyvern in the bestiary (19) the wyvern suffers movement penalties already at a lift capacity of 117 lbs, and after 234 lbs is heavily encumbered. In my opinion if the combatant and all his attached gear put the wyvern into the medium or heavy encumbrance category I would by no means allow an easy lift off or "successful" flight to the destination of the wyvern's choice. If you were determined to allow the wyvern to remove the combatant from the area of the initial attack, you could move them away but remember to watch your movement decreases, max dex bonus, and check penalty differences. Those differences themselves might affect whether or not the wyvern can continue the grapple. Of course if the combatant is struggling and frees him/herself from the grapple in midair you might get some nice fall damage out of the equation. Just my thoughts, I'm sure others will pipe up with a much more enlightened and experienced answer.
The Combat Section has grapple. Specifically, you may move your target:
You may move both yourself and your target up to half your move speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any place adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your target over a hazardous location, they get a +4 bonus and a free attempt to break the gappleThis can only be done after you succeed in maintaining the grapple, however. The wyvern must move in, grapple, and next turn fly out with their prey. An interesting note, you may use any of your movement types, including burrow :)
Hmmm.... it would definitely seem the RAW had in mind land-based creature vs. land-based character, especially when it comes to the movement limitations. I'd also agree with MendedWall that the size difference between the attacker and the target make a difference -- but for my example, I'd go in the opposite extreme -- say, for example, a fully mature dragon snatching up, oh, a halfling... if I were DM'ing sich a scenario, I'd House Rule that the dragon gould grab-and-go without much more than a temporary and mionor drop in its airspeed.
Thanks, all. I guess I did do it wrong. I do hate when the rules-lawyer is righter than me. Still, it does seem silly that the wyvern's main attack includes a grab and they have fly-by attack. You would think that the system was trying to indicate that this was their standard MO.
I'd also agree with MendedWall that the size difference between the attacker and the target make a difference -- but for my example, I'd go in the opposite extreme -- say, for example, a fully mature dragon snatching up, oh, a halfling... if I were DM'ing sich a scenario, I'd House Rule that the dragon gould grab-and-go without much more than a temporary and mionor drop in its airspeed.
Yes, if the Grapple-er is large enough that they are not considered Grappled themselves, then this is completely possible. That isn't really even a house-rule - Large flying creatures with Grab are clearly supposed to grab creatures and fly around with them - but only of appropriate size. If you not 2+ sizes larger than your target, then no, you can't Grab/Grapple + Fly-By away (with the Grapple target in tow).
The way I played it is this:
Wyvern (fly speed 60) flies 30' into reach and bites.
It hits with the bite and starts a grapple.
Target gets an AoO (because the stupid Wyvern doesn't have improved grab for some reason).
In PFRPG, there's no longer anything called "Improved Grab". It's just called "grab", and wyverns have that ability.
"Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Etc., etc."
I'd also agree with MendedWall that the size difference between the attacker and the target make a difference -- but for my example, I'd go in the opposite extreme -- say, for example, a fully mature dragon snatching up, oh, a halfling... if I were DM'ing sich a scenario, I'd House Rule that the dragon gould grab-and-go without much more than a temporary and mionor drop in its airspeed.Yes, if the Grapple-er is large enough that they are not considered Grappled themselves, then this is completely possible. That isn't really even a house-rule - Large flying creatures with Grab are clearly supposed to grab creatures and fly around with them - but only of appropriate size. If you not 2+ sizes larger than your target, then no, you can't Grab/Grapple + Fly-By away (with the Grapple target in tow).
Quandary, can you point to where this is a rule? I don't see any mention of size under the grappling rules.
As for the wyvern being able to fly away that MendedWall mentioned, that is covered in the fly skill, where they talk about max loads with flight.
The way I played it is this:
Wyvern (fly speed 60) flies 30' into reach and bites.
It hits with the bite and starts a grapple.
Target gets an AoO (because the stupid Wyvern doesn't have improved grab for some reason).In PFRPG, there's no longer anything called "Improved Grab". It's just called "grab", and wyverns have that ability.
"Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Etc., etc."
Yeah, I just noticed that. I don't think it was hyperlinked in my PDF, so I thought it referred to its tactics, not an ability.
I kind of messed that up. Here's the relevant part of *Grab*, indicating the circumstances the Grabber does not become Grappled themselves:Yes, if the Grapple-er is large enough that they are not considered Grappled themselves, then this is completely possible. That isn't really even a house-rule - Large flying creatures with Grab are clearly supposed to grab creatures and fly around with them - but only of appropriate size. If you not 2+ sizes larger than your target, then no, you can't Grab/Grapple + Fly-By away (with the Grapple target in tow).Quandary, can you point to where this is a rule? I don't see any mention of size under the grappling rules.
As for the wyvern being able to fly away that MendedWall mentioned, that is covered in the fly skill, where they talk about max loads with flight.
Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.
I would say if it chooses the latter option it could Grapple a target and move away, since it itself is not subject to the "no movement" restriction of Grappled (or other penalties).
I had been under the impression that there was an AUTOMATIC provision of Grappling where a large enough (vs. it's target) creature would not become grappled itself (e.g. grappling a kitten), but I can't seem to find that anywhere (I think I was just switching around that in 3.5 you can't Grapple a creature 2 sizes larger than you, which is curiously missing from Pathfinder). Grab provides a way to do this and there isn't even a specific "greater size than" restriction, though having a signifigantly greater size is the best way to counter that -20 penalty.On the other hand, I could see somebody still interpreting to say that nothing says you can carry stuff with you (even though you have "Grabbed" it)... But in that case, if a Dragon Grabs a falling humanoid in mid-air, unless the Dragon itself falls with the target the "Grabbed"/Grappled target would immediately move away from the Dragon's adjacent square, ending the Grapple by the same logic. Given it seems very reasonable as well as what the "Grabbing without using entire body" rule seems to be MADE FOR, I think allowing a Dragon to Grab a target @-20 and continue it's Fly-By movement carrying them (within flight encumbrance) is more than reasonable. If anything, I would also say that magical flight bypasses the "no movement" restriction of Grappled for cases where the -20 penalty isn't a viable option.
(Incidentally, it isn't clear if the -4 for only 1 hand free (if humanoid) and the -20 penalty for grabbing without whole body STACK or not. Of course, MOST Grab creatures aren't humanoid, but there are some. IMHO, the -20 penalty is a "Greater" version of the -4 penalty, thus they wouldn't stack with each other. -20 is harsh enough anyways)
Is there any reason a flying creature with the Fly-By Attack feat couldn't move half it's speed, use the attack to initiate a grapple, and carry the victim off with the rest of its move?
The way I played it is this:
Wyvern (fly speed 60) flies 30' into reach and bites.
It hits with the bite and starts a grapple.
Target gets an AoO (because the stupid Wyvern doesn't have improved grab for some reason).
I roll a grapple using its CMB vs target's CMD. It wins.
It uses the remainder of its movement to fly up.Is that right? Or is there some restriction on moving with a creature in a grapple, if you're the grappler? My rules-lawyer said, "That's not how that's supposed to work." But was otherwise vague.
Okay, I'm going to collect here all the pertinent information, and then say that decidedly YES, it is plausible, and possible within the rules system (and common sense would say it is as well) that a large flying creature can "grab" an opponent smaller than it, and with the fly-by ability, take off and go half the remainder of their movement speed, as is discussed under the "Move" rules in the Grapple section.
In order to do this the wyvern first must hit on an attack with the indicated "weapon" in this case the mouth which is the weapon indicated for the grab. Then, if the wyvern wants to not gain the grappled condition itself it must take the aforementioned -20 to its CMB in order to successfully make and maintain the grab. In the case of a wyvern that is very possible because they have a natural +16 to grapple, as listed in the bestiary. This is all of course assuming the wyvern is trying to grab and lift a creature of medium or smaller size, since it is a Large creature itself.
In order to take off again, two things need to be addressed, the encumbrance, and a fly check. I was mistaken with my previous numbers not taking into account the fact that large creatures get a x2 bonus to lift capacity. So the wyvern could easily lift off the ground 232 pounds and still be carrying a light load causing no encumbrance. Once you go above 232 though remember that penalties apply, but a wyvern is still in the medium encumbered condition when lifting up to 466 pounds. If the load is light, there is no penalty to the fly check. If it is medium it takes a -3 to the fly check to take off and maintain flight while grabbing its victim. Also, the wyvern is listed as a "poor" flyer, which means it automatically takes a -4 to fly checks. The DC for the fly check is a bit subjective because there is no table listing DCs for flying while grabbing or grappling. I personally would put the DC at 20.
So to answer the OP after having taken into account everyone else's great rules research I believe I can say with some decisiveness that the answer to your question is sort of. ;) The maneuver you describe is possible, but not in the manner that you originally ruled.
Fly skill is for creatures that don't have a natural fly ability.
That isn't true in PRPG, which is the subject of the thread.
That said, making a 45* or at most 90* turn while flying is a very low DC to match.
Fly skill is for creatures that don't have a natural fly ability.
Not true. It is for any creature that can fly by any means. Dragons have the fly skill along with other monsters.
Picture it like this: Could you run at top speed and, without missing a stride, scoop up a rotweiler off the sidewalk? Would it unbalance you? Trip you? Would the fact that your hands suddenly encountered 80 pounds of stationary dead-weight, meaning your hands and arms stopped moving for a very important instant while your legs and body kept moving at high speed, cause you to alter your course, maybe stumble, maybe even fall over? And with all of that, you might have even moved so fast that you never got a good grip on the rottie and you left it where it was (missed your grapple roll - I have to think that full-speed running grapple is harder than it is standing still; I certainly remember it that way from my football days).
Watch slow motion films of eagles and other predator birds as they attack. There is never a flyby grab unless they are grabbing a mouse or something equally tiny, about 2% of the bird's body weight, more or less.
Otherwise, they always fly down and smash into the rabbit (et. al.), then take off and fly away with it in their talons. Sometimes they nail other birds right in the air, but even then, they fold their wings and slam into the bird, then fall for a brief while (no controlled flight) until they spread their wings, put on the air brakes, and begin to fly again.
I think the relevent point here is that you cannot grapple a foe AND move him in the same round. It always takes two rounds to do this, even when using the Grab ability (which doesn't change how grappling works).
So, move up to the foe and grapple him, ending your turn at this point. Next round, roll to maintain the grapple and once you do, use the grappling rules to move with that foe, incorporating the Fly skill into the calculation if the creature is flying off with a victim in its clutches.
Hence, no flyby grab.
Now, arguably, establishing and maintaining the grab seems to take some time (about a half a round, assuming you grab at the end of round 1 and maintain at the beginning of round 2). This means your flying grabber must be able to hover for a few seconds as it grabs, or must land on the ground to grab, then fly away next round.
However, arguably, this could be described cinematically by realizing that combat, and tactical movement, doesn't flow in stops and starats. Nobody moves 30' then waits there, frozen in time, for everyone else to take turns. So applying some cinematics, our flyer flaps up to his foe, grabs him, and flies off, all in one motion, no landing, no hovering. This happens to occur in game terms by taking part of his current round and part of his next round to complete the action, but cinematically, it's one smooth flying grapple, carrying Raquel off to feed the young pterodactyls in the nest.
Picture it like this: Could you run at top speed and, without missing a stride, scoop up a rotweiler off the sidewalk? Would it unbalance you? Trip you? Would the fact that your hands suddenly encountered 80 pounds of stationary dead-weight, meaning your hands and arms stopped moving for a very important instant while your legs and body kept moving at high speed, cause you to alter your course, maybe stumble, maybe even fall over? And with all of that, you might have even moved so fast that you never got a good grip on the rottie and you left it where it was (missed your grapple roll - I have to think that full-speed running grapple is harder than it is standing still; I certainly remember it that way from my football days).
Watch slow motion films of eagles and other predator birds as they attack. There is never a flyby grab unless they are grabbing a mouse or something equally tiny, about 2% of the bird's body weight, more or less.
Otherwise, they always fly down and smash into the rabbit (et. al.), then take off and fly away with it in their talons. Sometimes they nail other birds right in the air, but even then, they fold their wings and slam into the bird, then fall for a brief while (no controlled flight) until they spread their wings, put on the air brakes, and begin to fly again.
I think the relevent point here is that you cannot grapple a foe AND move him in the same round. It always takes two rounds to do this, even when using the Grab ability (which doesn't change how grappling works).
So, move up to the foe and grapple him, ending your turn at this point. Next round, roll to maintain the grapple and once you do, use the grappling rules to move with that foe, incorporating the Fly skill into the calculation if the creature is flying off with a victim in its clutches.
Hence, no flyby grab.
Now, arguably, establishing and maintaining the grab seems to take some time (about a half a round, assuming you grab at the end of round 1 and maintain at the beginning of round 2). This means your...
Wow, an eagle can't fly-by grab anything bigger than a mouse? Wow, that must come as a relief to this salmon. Admittedly, it's still significantly smaller than the eagle, but 2%? Nope. Average weight of a blad eagle is 10-14 lbs, average weight of a Coho, the smallest Pacific salmon species, is 3.5 lbs (that's 25% of the eagle's weight). EDIT: Sorry, I meant chinook, not coho.
Nope, no fly-by grab there, the DM shouldn't have allowed the eagle to do that.
As for your example, Rottweilers average 90-110 lbs, depending on gender. That's a significant percentage of the weight of a human, even a big guy like me. Plus I don't have the advantage of a powerful set of wings holding me aloft, nor of a physical build that puts my center of balance below me, close to where my target is. the comparison is badly flawed.
|
I agree with MultiClassClown -- I've seen birds of prey (not a reference to Star Trek) snap up some pretty large creatures. There's an owl that can lift 300% it's body weight. So that doesn't pass the "sniff test".
The human running past also doesn't pass that test for me, for all the reasons MCC mentioned.
What you're looking for is the Snatch Monster Feat.
I've never built a dragon for an encounter and given it the Snatch feat. It's patently useless in most cases and I wouldn't use it as a base to form opinions on other areas of the rules either. Of course, that's just my opinion regarding one specific case.
We ended a session tonight with a bbn grappling an invisible flying creature. Part way into this encounter I was trying to figure out if the flying creature could just take off and leave the bbn dangling! Based on what I've read here, I'm beginning to think it could.
But it brings up another question. Let's say a creature on the ground makes a grapple attack at a flying creature and succeeds. Is there anything that forces (or prevents) me from saying the wings are not involved in the grapple? The salient points: the flying creature is Large and the attacker is Medium, the flyer is directly above the attacker (elevation of 5 feet), the flyer is invisible (so no frame of reference for the attacker, who does have blind-fight and blind-sense though), and the attacker weighs 520# or so. If the Str score is high enough that the attacker is a Light Load (since it's x2, that would be a Str of 25), can the flyer gain altitude?
But it brings up another question. Let's say a creature on the ground makes a grapple attack at a flying creature and succeeds. Is there anything that forces (or prevents) me from saying the wings are not involved in the grapple? The salient points: the flying creature is Large and the attacker is Medium, the flyer is directly above the attacker (elevation of 5 feet), the flyer is invisible (so no frame of reference for the attacker, who does have blind-fight and blind-sense though), and the attacker weighs 520# or so. If the Str score is high enough that the attacker is a Light Load (since it's x2, that would be a Str of 25), can the flyer gain altitude?
As I read this since the scenario you describe is a "stop and start" meaning it is taking place over subsequent rounds. It is most definitely possible just come up with an appropriate DC for the fly check. Again this is kind of subjective because the PRD says:
Attacked While Flying: You are not considered flat-footed while flying. If you are flying using wings and you take damage while flying, you must make a DC 10 Fly check to avoid losing 10 feet of altitude. This descent does not provoke an attack of opportunity and does not count against a creature's movement.
But it also has a table showing various maneuvers and their DC's. Hovering is a DC 10, but trying to gain altitude at greater than a 45 degree angle is listed as a DC 20. I'm assuming trying to lift off with something in tow is not the easiest of tasks, but is probably done by just about every flying creature on a regular basis. So you don't want the DC too challenging that it can't be done, but also not so easy that it compares to an eagle lifting a mouse.
Eagle: small str 10, weight = 7-15 lbs, Fly +8, carrying capacity: ~22 lbs light load, Heavy load 75 lbs... I think it can easily pick up a salmon by the rules. If its larger than diminutive though, it will stall out for a couple seconds while it tries to pick it up. I have seen videos of birds stalling out when they grab large fish, so this makes sense to me.
Eagle: small str 10, weight = 7-15 lbs, Fly +8, carrying capacity: ~22 lbs light load, Heavy load 75 lbs... I think it can easily pick up a salmon by the rules. If its larger than diminutive though, it will stall out for a couple seconds while it tries to pick it up. I have seen videos of birds stalling out when they grab large fish, so this makes sense to me.
Go back and watch the video I linked to -- The eagle in no way stalls out whatsoever. The birds you saw stall out in the videos were probably osprey -- significantly smaller than eagles, and attacking from a dive, not a gliding swoop. They "Land" in the water to catch the fish, then have to take off again.
A lot of the confusion that arises when using birds of prey as your point of reference is that different birds of prey use different types of attacks, and the type of attack itself has a great deal to do with whether the bird then immediately flies off/keeps on flying or has to struggle back into the air. Diving raptors sacrifice altitude for speed, and the steeper the diive, the less likely they are to be able to remain in flight after the hit. raptors that attack from a glide, especially owls, are more likely to keep fliyng after the hit, ESPECIALLY with much smaller prey (but by no means limited to "2% of their body weight" as was suggested).
As for size categories for fling creatures, is wingspan taken into account, or just head-to-tail body size? A Golden Eagle has a wingspan of around 7 ft.
Not true. It is for any creature that can fly by any means. Dragons have the fly skill along with other monsters.Fly skill is for creatures that don't have a natural fly ability.
In fact, the Fly skill is nor for simple flying, no roll is necessary for that. The Fly skill is for performing certain more of less difficult maneuvers while flying. There is a similar skill, by the way, for performing more or less difficult maneuvers while walking. It is called Acrobatics.
|
|
Just as a by to the video you posted -- one example does not a basis for fact make.
That particular eagle might not have problems, but maybe it's a raging barbarian eagle with max stats in strength. Maybe the dm gave it a roll to see if it could succeed without stalling and it rolled a n20.
Hmm... wonder if I could talk an old friend into running an evil barbarian eagle as a bbeg... :D
There are plenty of videos there where you see eagles stalling, so having one exception doesn't make it the average. And the bestiary deals with averages.
Plus, you know, game is meant to *simulate* life in general, and breaks down in close examination.
But, in general, I don't think real life examples are generally that relevant to the game since we're looking for, among other things, balance.
The pathfinder wyvern is a cr 6, 2000 pound, 16 ft long creature with this ability:
Benefit: When flying, the creature can take a move
action and another standard action at any point during
the move. The creature cannot take a second move action
during a round when it makes a flyby attack.
Then this ability:
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits
with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it
deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a
free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
So the wyvern flys by, makes a bite attack, hits and uses the free grapple action. Succeeds on the grapple.
The question then becomes whether the wyvern can use flyby attack to keep going, or whether grapple rules keep the wyvern from moving on this round.
IMO, the grapple rules are the more specific ones, and thus the wyvern stops until his next initiative, where he can roll to keep control of the grapple and fly away with his prey.
The video I linked to is one example, there are plenty of others, of eagles and other birds of prey attacking prey of various sizes and not having to pause.
But you miss my point, and I'm afraid I'm letting myself get distracted from it -- to refute the assertion that a raptor can only do that to something "about 2% its own bodyweight" -- a claim that is patently false, given epmpirical evidence.
As for your argument that the grapple rules are adequate to cover the scenario, you're also relying on what was given as an example, and is anecdotal in terms of game play: Specifically, a Wyvern. a Wyvern is one of many flying creatures, nowhere near the largest, not necessarily the best flyer, and the range of targets varies just as greatly. To simply stick to the RAW and not allow a fly-by grab without pausing for ANY flying creature, against ANY target, is perhaps correct legalistically, but not very realistic.
The video I linked to is one example, there are plenty of others, of eagles and other birds of prey attacking prey of various sizes and not having to pause.
But you miss my point, and I'm afraid I'm letting myself get distracted from it -- to refute the assertion that a raptor can only do that to something "about 2% its own bodyweight" -- a claim that is patently false, given epmpirical evidence.
Oh, no, your point is well made. I was foolish to say 2%. Clearly that was an exaggeration and I have been duly chastised for my indiscretion.
You may note, however, that the fish in your video is only a fraction of the size of the eagle. I'll grant that this fraction is significantly greater than 2%.
YOu may note, also, that the eagle slows way down, using his wings as brakes, to such an extent that at the moment he snatches the fish his forward momentum is very slight. Not so slight as to call it a hover, but his speed is, at the point of the snatch, drastically less than his comfortable cruising/flying speed. Then he furiously beats his wings trying to regain momentum and altitude, almost as if he is "taking off" from his near-stall.
And this is a perfectly designed predator, a good flyer, built for this very maneuver, snatching a fish that is at least one order of magnitude smaller than the predator.
This is very much the point I was trying to make. It's a very difficult maneuver, involving slowing down to a speed that, at the instant of the attack, is clost to a hover, or at least close to a stall speed that cannot maintain flight. And that the maneuver at its best only works on prey significantly smaller than the attacking flyer. And that the flyer in no way simply buzzes by, snatching up prey without any alteration of its course or velocity.
All of which supports the existing game system that grappling and moving away with the grappled prety requires at least two separate actions, and requires the grappler to remain in the vicinity of the prey for both of those actions (hence no flyby attack).
I apologize if my careless exaggeration at using "2%" derailed the intent of this thread into a discussion of what size creature a bald eagle can snatch. That was indiscrete of me.
IMO, the grapple rules are the more specific ones, and thus the wyvern stops until his next initiative, where he can roll to keep control of the grapple and fly away with his prey.I agree, hence the reason I referenced the Snatch feat which was built to accomplish what the OP desires. Azhrei might never use it, but it has its purpose to accomplish what other rules do not.
Unfortunately, it's poorly written and a little confusing in itself.
R.
I think the only problem with the feat is the prereq. It should work on anyone 2 sizes smaller, and anyone should be able to take it. Relative size is what matters, so the Huge requirement is bad IMO.
*sigh*
I tried to reply, but the electrons ate my post. I'll just drop it, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
@Rezdave: As far as I can tell, Snatch's only other features are flinging*, no save vs. breath weapon in mouth, and essentially constrict damage on targets 3+ sizes smaller. Everything else is identical between Snatch/Grab, so for the scope of this subject (Fly-By Attack), I don't see what bringing up Snatch accomplishes, besides a means for non-Grab creatures to do what Grab creatures can (but it seems to be intimated that Snatch but not Grab can accomplish this - excuse me if you meant it otherwise)
@DMBlake: I think there's a certain amount of ambiguity and that the rules could probably be better written here, but an important point is that the only movement restriction from Grappling comes from the Grappled condition, which can be avoided by Grab/Snatch creatures who take the -20 penalty. The Grapple 'option' to move your opponent needs to be seen in the light that it also is over-coming the restriction on your OWN movement that the Grappled condition carries (). But there is no reason you cannot Grab a suitable creature and then continue moving yourself if you are not Grappled yourself.
The only question, which is unanswered by the rules directly, is whether the target follows along with you when you do that. But if you're going to go by a very strict reading of the rules, there's nothing that says a Grapple is broken by one of the targets moving away (which a Fly-By-er can do if they take the -20 penalty), even out of threat range... Saying that the Grapplee IS carried along by this action (according to encumbered move speed) seems the most reasonable explanation to explain the continuing Grappled condition.
The only rules-supported way for this to happen is with Snatch/Grab and taking the -20 penalty, which is a serious penalty that effectively imposing a multiple size category difference to pull off with any chance of success: even Wyverns are going to fail a good amount of the time against even gimpy Halflings. But it seems very enabling of 'cinematic experiences': Otherwise it is impossible for an invisible dragon to swoop down and grab somebody and move out of the surrounding thugs/allies' reach before they can react.
* dropping things (and releasing your grapple opponent if you are the controller) is always available as a free action - note this DOES imply the grapplee is CARRIED by the grappler if you can drop them - this is not something exclusive to snatch as opposed to normal grab/grapple. For example, if an airborne NORMAL grappler chooses to release their target, the target would also drop to the ground (though they should probably get an AoO since the grappler/dropper is from their frame of reference moving out of their threatened square).
If the Grappler/Grabber/Snatcher is effectively carrying their opponent, since they are in a position to drop them at will, that to me suggests that the grapplee SHOULD in fact move with them (if the Grappler has some way to bypass the no-move restriction of the Grappled condition, e.g. by taking the -20 penalty to not be Grappled themselves).
I fully concur.As far as I can tell, Snatch's only other features are flinging, no save vs. breath weapon in mouth, and essentially constrict damage on targets 3+ sizes smaller. Everything else is identical between Snatch/Grab, so for the scope of this subject (Fly-By Attack), I don't see what bringing up Snatch accomplishes, besides a means for non-Grab creatures to do what Grab creatures can (but it seems to be intimated that Snatch but not Grab can accomplish this)
@DMBlake: I think there's a certain amount of ambiguity and that the rules could probably be better written here, but an important point is that the only movement restriction from Grappling comes from the Grappled condition, which can be avoided by Grab/Snatch creatures who take the -20 penalty. The Grapple 'option' to move your opponent needs to be seen in the light that it also is over-coming the restriction on your OWN movement that the Grappled condition carries. But there is no reason you cannot Grab a suitable creature and then continue moving yourself. The only question, which is unanswered by the rules directly, is if the target follows along with you when you do that. But if you're going to go by a very strict reading of the rules, there's nothing that says a Grapple is broken by one of the targets moving away (which a Fly-By-er can do if they take the -20 penalty), even out of threat range... Saying that the Grapplee IS carried along by this (according to encumbered move speed) seems the most reasonable explanation to explain this state of affairs (the continuing Grappled condition).
The only rules-supported way for this to happen is with Snatch/Grab and taking the -20 penalty, which is a serious penalty. But it seems enabling of 'cinematic experiences', other wise it is impossible for an invisible dragon to swoop down and grab somebody and move out of the surrounding thugs/allies' reach before they can react.
When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move.Meanwhile
Add inGrab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits
with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it
deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a
free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against
opponents at least one size category smaller than the
creature. The creature has the option to conduct the
grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it
used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to
do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check
to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain
the grappled condition itself.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one swift action and one or more free actions.
In the end you get a wyvern with an ability that states it can grab an enemy (as a free action) as part of a standard action in the middle of its move action. A move action, standard action, and free action, are all allowable by the rules, and the flyby attack allows for the standard action to be taken in the middle of the move action (while it is in flight). Strictly from a rules perspective after factoring in the -20 penalty I don't think there's any way you can make a case that the wyvern can't grab and continue flying as part of a standard action and a free action during part of its move action.
Correct, you only have to make a Fly Check if you do somthing SPECIAL, according the Skill Description:
Flying Maneuver Fly DC
Move less than half speed and remain flying 10
Hover 15
Turn greater than 45° by spending 5 feet of movement 15
Turn 180° by spending 10 feet of movement 20
Fly up at greater than 45° angle 20
Any Encumbrance penalties apply to this (which is the only difference to flying normally without 'cargo'), but if you're making a shallow approach/departure you don't have to make a check in the first place. On the other hand, turning by more than 45° or ascending steeper than 45° is probably not that un-common an occurence, either.
an important point is that the only movement restriction from Grappling comes from the Grappled condition, which can be avoided by Grab/Snatch creatures who take the -20 penalty.
Yeah, from the citations and quotes, this seems to be the crucial piece I was missing. I can't recall how much he made his CM roll by, but I doubt it was 20. So I guess strictly speaking, it shouldn't have happened. But now I know for next time. He could secure his hold next round by accepting the grappled condition, but flying at half speed, also something I missed.
Re: Snatch vs Grab: None of those benefits would have really been relevant here. The wyvern wasn't planning on flinging the target. He was going to hold on and continue to fly upwards, raking every turn, doing damage, distancing himself from the target's allies, and disinclining the target toward killing him by the increasing distance to the ground. If he got too far down in HP, he'd have dropped the target rather than let himself be killed.
At least, that was his plan. Turned out there was an invisible rogue flying around. Who knew?
Good points, and good discussion, all. Thanks for your input.
Correct, you only have to make a Fly Check if you do somthing SPECIAL, according the Skill Description:
Any Encumbrance penalties apply to this (which is the only difference to flying normally without 'cargo'), but if you're making a shallow approach/departure you don't have to make a check in the first place. On the other hand, turning by more than 45° or ascending steeper than 45° is probably not that un-common an occurence, either.Flying Maneuver Fly DC
Move less than half speed and remain flying 10
Hover 15
Turn greater than 45° by spending 5 feet of movement 15
Turn 180° by spending 10 feet of movement 20
Fly up at greater than 45° angle 20
So do you think they should make a fly check or not? My only point to the fly check was that grabbing mid-flight while not terribly uncommon is also not resolutely easy, and a check should apply to it. If a half-orc had dropped his weapon and needed to run and pick it up on the fly, I would most definitely make them make an acrobatics check to see if they actually fully grasped and controlled the weapon mid-run. Maybe a DC 20 is a bit harsh, but some type of check should apply, shouldn't it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see what the problem is with this setup, even if the creature doing the grapple has to 'pause' for a round. In my mind, it still ends up being that youtube video with the eagle.
Think about this. I'll use a Roc for an example. Said roc takes its first turn to fly out of the sky and attack a player with their talons, getting the free grapple out of it (and likely succeeding). No need to take the -20, the roc can pause where it is. After all, it's not 'hovering', it flew as part of its move, so no fly check is necessary yet.
Now the players get their turn of actions, so it may *seem* like the Roc has stopped. But this is just the nature of D&D. In reality, on its next turn, that Roc is going to make the second grapple check to move with its prey (which it will almost assuredly succeed on) and keep flying. So to the person watching from a distance, this Roc flew down, snatched someone up, and kept going. And even though its 'stuck' for a round, it still isn't vulnerable. This thing has a 15 ft. reach and can be 15 ft. off the ground when it grabbed this player.
Very fluid, very what the OP wants.
And if it somehow fails that second grapple check to move with the player? Well it either keeps flying off as part of the swoop without the guy (drops him) or it pauses to hover and try to snatch him again before flying off. Still, from a distance and not in initiative mode, it looks fluid.
Remember, just because you end your turn doesn't mean the action stops happening. :)
So do you think they should make a fly check or not? My only point to the fly check was that grabbing mid-flight while not terribly uncommon is also not resolutely easy, and a check should apply to it.
If Paizo thought it was especially difficult so as to call for a Fly check, the probably would have included it within the Fly-By description, or just a check for attacking period while Flying. Like I said, it only depends on the direction of movement/ maneuvering per the rules. (of course, you can add on to this, but this is the assumption the core rules are designed around)
Do remember that Encumbrance/Armor Check DOES apply to Fly and if the Fly-By-er wants to avoid any AoO's they will need to Tumble, which they can't normally do while encumbered thru armor or encumbrance (fighters excepted, cue flying dwarf imagery...). IF you're wanting more realism, I thinks it's reasonable to double Encumbrance/ACP for Flying as well as Swimming, but you should do it for both to be fair. (well, Swimming really should just use buoyancy more than Encumbrance but you get the idea)
I don't see what the problem is with this setup, even if the creature doing the grapple has to 'pause' for a round. In my mind, it still ends up being that youtube video with the eagle.
Think about this. I'll use a Roc for an example. Said roc takes its first turn to fly out of the sky and attack a player with their talons, getting the free grapple out of it (and likely succeeding). No need to take the -20, the roc can pause where it is. After all, it's not 'hovering', it flew as part of its move, so no fly check is necessary yet.
Now the players get their turn of actions, so it may *seem* like the Roc has stopped. But this is just the nature of D&D. In reality, on its next turn, that Roc is going to make the second grapple check to move with its prey (which it will almost assuredly succeed on) and keep flying. So to the person watching from a distance, this Roc flew down, snatched someone up, and kept going. And even though its 'stuck' for a round, it still isn't vulnerable. This thing has a 15 ft. reach and can be 15 ft. off the ground when it grabbed this player.
Very fluid, very what the OP wants.
And if it somehow fails that second grapple check to move with the player? Well it either keeps flying off as part of the swoop without the guy (drops him) or it pauses to hover and try to snatch him again before flying off. Still, from a distance and not in initiative mode, it looks fluid.
Remember, just because you end your turn doesn't mean the action stops happening. :)
I totally agree Karui. My arguments above were to try and back up the OP that he made a quasi-correct ruling in that the wyvern could move, attack (simultaneously grab) and continue the move via the flyby attack feat. Though he did fail to use the -20 to CMB for not being considered grappled himself. Were I running this and hell bent on having the flying creature fly down and pick up a PC and fly off with him/her I'd run it as you stated, and describe that in "realistic" story terms it all happened in the same "instant."
I don't see what the problem is with this setup, even if the creature doing the grapple has to 'pause' for a round. In my mind, it still ends up being that youtube video with the eagle.
Think about this. I'll use a Roc for an example. Said roc takes its first turn to fly out of the sky and attack a player with their talons, getting the free grapple out of it (and likely succeeding). No need to take the -20, the roc can pause where it is. After all, it's not 'hovering', it flew as part of its move, so no fly check is necessary yet.
Now the players get their turn of actions, so it may *seem* like the Roc has stopped. But this is just the nature of D&D. In reality, on its next turn, that Roc is going to make the second grapple check to move with its prey (which it will almost assuredly succeed on) and keep flying. So to the person watching from a distance, this Roc flew down, snatched someone up, and kept going. And even though its 'stuck' for a round, it still isn't vulnerable. This thing has a 15 ft. reach and can be 15 ft. off the ground when it grabbed this player.
Very fluid, very what the OP wants.
And if it somehow fails that second grapple check to move with the player? Well it either keeps flying off as part of the swoop without the guy (drops him) or it pauses to hover and try to snatch him again before flying off. Still, from a distance and not in initiative mode, it looks fluid.
Remember, just because you end your turn doesn't mean the action stops happening. :)
Bingo!
(though I do believe I ninja'd you)
|
|
I don't see what the problem is with this setup, even if the creature doing the grapple has to 'pause' for a round. In my mind, it still ends up being that youtube video with the eagle.
Think about this. I'll use a Roc for an example. Said roc takes its first turn to fly out of the sky and attack a player with their talons, getting the free grapple out of it (and likely succeeding). No need to take the -20, the roc can pause where it is. After all, it's not 'hovering', it flew as part of its move, so no fly check is necessary yet.
Now the players get their turn of actions, so it may *seem* like the Roc has stopped. But this is just the nature of D&D. In reality, on its next turn, that Roc is going to make the second grapple check to move with its prey (which it will almost assuredly succeed on) and keep flying. So to the person watching from a distance, this Roc flew down, snatched someone up, and kept going. And even though its 'stuck' for a round, it still isn't vulnerable. This thing has a 15 ft. reach and can be 15 ft. off the ground when it grabbed this player.
Very fluid, very what the OP wants.
And if it somehow fails that second grapple check to move with the player? Well it either keeps flying off as part of the swoop without the guy (drops him) or it pauses to hover and try to snatch him again before flying off. Still, from a distance and not in initiative mode, it looks fluid.
Remember, just because you end your turn doesn't mean the action stops happening. :)
Bingo!
(though I do believe I ninja'd you)
Indeed you did, I just wanted to explain it a different thing. Great Blakes think alike!
Think about this. I'll use a Roc for an example. Said roc takes its first turn to fly out of the sky and attack a player with their talons, getting the free grapple out of it (and likely succeeding). No need to take the -20, the roc can pause where it is. After all, it's not 'hovering', it flew as part of its move, so no fly check is necessary yet.
Now the players get their turn of actions, so it may *seem* like the Roc has stopped. But this is just the nature of D&D.
Absolutely, I agree with your logic, but the question was more about whether it was possible with a use of the fly-by attack feat, which would require either the -20, making it extremely unreliable, or ending his turn at the grab (as you say), negating the feat entirely. If I'd done it as actions over two rounds, my way would have been perfectly all right, although I'd have had to make another grapple check to keep the grapple in place, and then fly off at half speed.
And honestly, I thought that the creatures abilities indicated that this would be its normal MO, and it might well be against much smaller prey. As a large creature against a medium creature (Tiefling), it doesn't work as well.
Or, to paraphrase Arthur Carlson, "As God is my witness... I swear I thought Wyvern could flyby."
Absolutely, I agree with your logic, but the question was more about whether it was possible with a use of the fly-by attack feat, which would require either the -20, making it extremely unreliable, or ending his turn at the grab (as you say), negating the feat entirely. If I'd done it as actions over two rounds, my way would have been perfectly all right, although I'd have had to make another grapple check to keep the grapple in place, and then fly off at half speed.
And honestly, I thought that the creatures abilities indicated that this would be its normal MO, and it might well be against much smaller prey. As a large creature against a medium creature (Tiefling), it doesn't work as well.
Or, to paraphrase Arthur Carlson, "As God is my witness... I swear I thought Wyvern could flyby."
Negating the feat entirely?
I hardly think so. The Flyby Attack feat lets the wyvern fly past someone, lashing out with a claw or bite or sting, and yet still ending its turn out of melee reach. Meaning the entire party will have to resort to ranged attacks to beat a wyvern (or anything else with the Flyby Attack feat).
That's a pretty big advantage. All those Power-Attacking 2H-wielding, itarative destruction machines-of-melee are greatly undermined by this tactic.
Just because it can't snatch a human and fly off, rending, stinging, and dropping him to his distant death, an almost certain player-killing tactic unless it's used on someone with a great CMD, doesn't mean the the Flyby Attack feat is "negated entirely".
I swear, the wyvern can flyby, and gains more benefit from this one feat than it does from all the rest of his feats together.
I hardly think so. The Flyby Attack feat lets the wyvern fly past someone, lashing out with a claw or bite or sting, and yet still ending its turn out of melee reach.
... unless he grapples... which he did... negating the feat.
I hardly think so. The Flyby Attack feat lets the wyvern fly past someone, lashing out with a claw or bite or sting, and yet still ending its turn out of melee reach.... unless he grapples... which he did... negating the feat.
I should say she, that was the female.
Just because it can't snatch a human and fly off, rending, stinging, and dropping him to his distant death, an almost certain player-killing tactic unless it's used on someone with a great CMD,...
It's not player-killing, but it could be character killing, but I think that IS the goal of the creature, after all. As a DM, I do try to think like the monster. It's a CR6 creature against an 8th level party. (There were 3 wyverns in the encounter, making the whole encounter slightly tougher than a straight-up CR8 fight. It was supposed to be a challenge.) The wyvern doesn't know she's a bag of hit points for them to knock around. The party was a threat in their territory first, and the wyvern has three goals: defend its lair, survive the fight, and eat the loser. She'll want to use her flight to gain whatever advantage she can; it's how I imagine a wyvern thinks. It seemed a fair move to me. I'm not grousing that I couldn't kill a player. I was just asking for the rule. And when I said "negating the feat entirely," I meant in that round of that fight, for that maneuver.
I hardly think so. The Flyby Attack feat lets the wyvern fly past someone, lashing out with a claw or bite or sting, and yet still ending its turn out of melee reach.... unless he grapples... which he did... negating the feat.
Well, yeah, but that's like saying a fighter having iterative attacks negates the Cleave feat, since cleave can't be used with iterative attacks. Which is true. But sometimes you want to do one thing, other times you want to do something else. Sometimes, the situation calls for a certain tactic, or prevents a certain other tactic.
Having options is never a bad feat.
The wyvern is not a one-trick pony. It's entire combat sequence is not geared around doing one thing with dazzling brilliance but lacking the ability to do anything else.
Have it use Flyby Attack. Have it grapple. Have it land and do a claw/claw/bite/sting full-attack next round. Any of these tactics is a valid use of the wyvern's abilities, and it is fortunate to have the capacity to decide between multiple useful tactics.