Swarms (again)


Rules Questions

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm having a little trouble interpreting the rules on swarms; probably still have a little 3.5 stuck in my brain...

So; "A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side". And, "Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares."

Does this mean that only "larger" swarms are shapeable, and then only is whole 10' square chunks? And that "standard" swarms are an UNshapable single 10' square?

I thought that this was the case, until I discovered that Pathfinder Pawns sets produce swarms as four individual 5' bases rather than a single 10' one, and then I started doubting...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically yes. A normal swarm is 10x10. A large swarm is more than one 10x10 swarm added together. However, you can change that up as you will. I wouldn't expect a normal swarm in a hallway to be squeezing; I'd assume it would be 5x20 in order to maintain the same amount of area.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
MurphysParadox wrote:
would be 5x20

Yea you can have the swarm take any shape as long as it is contiguous (all squares adjacent to one other square.)


The idea is that a larger swarm is indistinguishable from two or more separate swarms that happen to be smashed together. In any case, a swarm can fit through spaces smaller than ten feet wide, so realistically even a regular-sized 10'x10' swarm is somewhat shapeable or else this wouldn't be possible. I believe the intent is that the swarm spreads out to cover a 10'x10' area when not forced to do otherwise. It also prevents things like a regular-sized swarm separating into two or more 5' swarms, which would complicate combat considerably. This way, you always have a discrete and unchanging number of "monsters" to process without worrying about rules for splitting and combining swarms.


Yeah, since a swarm is made up of lots of very small things, it can clearly fit through very small areas. So when it says it "occupies a square" that must only mean that this area is its default size and shape.

I would follow that for any encounter where it can remain in its default size and shape but then bear in mind that it is not limited to that size and shape if a specific situation warrants changing it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is looking like one of those odd occasions where 3.5 covered it better; those rules explicitly spelled out that that the four squares of a Large swarm could form into any shape as long as the squares were contiguous. (Which is how I think I'm going to run it.)

Many thanks.


The rules say "A swarm can move through cracks or holes large enough for its component creatures.", so it doesn't need to stay as a 10-by-10 square.

The Exchange

but in the open - if able to - "A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side".

This also prevents someone from stacking several smaller swarms on the same target to double or tripple the damage. For example - when fighting 3 spider swarms, have all three "stack" into the same 10' space so that four PCs take damage (and need to save vs. poison and distraction) for all three.

By braking it into 4 smaller squares & allowing stacking it would be possible to put all 4 small "mini-swarms" into the same 5' square, and do 4 times the damage, right?

the above is sarcasm, really. though I have known judges who would rule this way...

The Exchange

ok, in a 20' by 20' room, a line of PCs from one wall to the other (four PCs in a line), would a swarm of bats shape itself into a line 5' wide and 20' long in order to attack all the PC's in the room? or would it retain it's 10' square shape and only attack 2 PC's?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In that situation the swarm would normally keep it's 10 x 10 form and some of the swarm would have nothing to damage in their square. I do not treat the swarm as having excellent combat tactics enough to spread out and get more targets. In general it is an abstraction and a game mechanic so keep them in 10 x 10 shape when able and allow them to change shape when the conditions present itself.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would have the swarm attack all four PCs.

It's not about tactics. It's about every member of that swarm being hungry.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I understand the thought there but "a single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but its reach is 0 feet, like its component creatures." To me that seems like it should remain in a 10 x 10 unless it needs to pass through some smaller opening.

Grand Lodge

Hendelbolaf wrote:
I understand the thought there but "a single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but its reach is 0 feet, like its component creatures." To me that seems like it should remain in a 10 x 10 unless it needs to pass through some smaller opening.

Why? It consists of hundreds or thousands of hungry creatures. It acts as a mob, and would swarm its targets, meaning it would move up and attack what strikes it as food that it can reach.

I see nothing that prevents it from being any contiguous grouping of 4 5' squares that lets it reach the largest number of food sources.


They can all feed by moving around in their square. No need for them to leave the square form. Taking another form without need would make them (seemingly or real) more attackable. That's the reasons swarms form after all. To be saver.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:
Hendelbolaf wrote:
I understand the thought there but "a single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but its reach is 0 feet, like its component creatures." To me that seems like it should remain in a 10 x 10 unless it needs to pass through some smaller opening.

Why? It consists of hundreds or thousands of hungry creatures. It acts as a mob, and would swarm its targets, meaning it would move up and attack what strikes it as food that it can reach.

I see nothing that prevents it from being any contiguous grouping of 4 5' squares that lets it reach the largest number of food sources.

the same statement would allow them to split into more than four pieces - why restrict them to just 4? If there are 5 targets available (just more than 5 feet from each other) why not just go after all of them?

The question is, is it restricted to "... 10 x 10 unless it needs to pass through some smaller opening" like it's write up says?

A large Ooze is also in a 10'x10' base size, would you then feel it is within the rules if we spread the Gelatinous Cube out to 20 foot wide (and only 5 foot thick) so that it can conduct an engulf attack against 4 PCs at once?

A normal swarm is 10' x 10' (x10' if it is of flying creatures). A Large Swarm is made up of more than one normal swarm (each 10' x10') and it is large swarms that can assume different shapes - usually keeping a contiguous grouping of (10') squares.

A normal swarm is not a "large" creature. by allowing it to change it's base shape we would be giving it an ability that it does not have.

Sczarni

Umbranus wrote:
No need for them to leave the square form. Taking another form without need would make them (seemingly or real) more attackable. That's the reasons swarms form after all. To be safer.

Army ants disagree with you.

The Exchange

Nefreet wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
No need for them to leave the square form. Taking another form without need would make them (seemingly or real) more attackable. That's the reasons swarms form after all. To be safer.
Army ants disagree with you.

I do not understand this comment. Please expand on this...

do you mean that Army ants do not swarm into a group for strength and mutual protection? or what?

Sczarni

Creatures will swarm for various reasons (and sometimes for no reason at all). Prey animals generally swarm for protection, but others (such as army ants, or a hive of bees) swarm for increased offensive capabilities. One ant by itself can only overcome the tiniest of prey animals, whereas a swarm can disassemble something a thousand times bigger.

I was simply responding to the notion that all swarms form for one purpose.

But, to get us back on track, swarms in Pathfinder are not limited to the standard 10x10 formation that other "large" creatures are. Some GMs simply run them that way for simplicity, but don't expect all GMs to.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Creatures will swarm for various reasons (and sometimes for no reason at all). Prey animals generally swarm for protection, but others (such as army ants, or a hive of bees) swarm for increased offensive capabilities. One ant by itself can only overcome the tiniest of prey animals, whereas a swarm can disassemble something a thousand times bigger.

I was simply responding to the notion that all swarms form for one purpose.

But, to get us back on track, swarms in Pathfinder are not limited to the standard 10x10 formation that other "large" creatures are. Some GMs simply run them that way for simplicity, but don't expect all GMs to.

swarms are not Large Creatures... for example, a spider swarm is listed as "N Diminutive vermin (swarm)." A Phase Spider (for example) IS a large creature and it says so in it's description: "N Large magical beast".

Swarm Subtype states that: "A single swarm occupies a square (if it made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but it's reach is 0 feet.". It later details "Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares." that would the 10' squares that a Larger Swarm is made up of... otherwise the "usually" would mean that we could split normal swarms into several (why only up to 4?) smaller parts and move them into NON-contiguous shapes...

When talking about a normal swarm, it also states that "Swarms of nonflying creatures include many more creatures than could normally fit in a 10-foot square based on their normal space, because creatures in a swarm are packed tightly together and generally crawl over each other and their prey when moving or attacking."

So, to review... the rules on swarms state the following
A single swarm occupies a space 10 feet on a side....
Larger swarms are made up of more than one normal swarm...
Larger swarms are shapeable...

Really - normal (single base) swarms are 10 foot squares or cubes. Groups of more than one single base are Larger swarms and USUALLY remains in contiguous shapes - but does not have to... Normal Swarms can not split into more than one base. Larger swarms are shapeable, Normal Swarms are not (or at least are never said to BE shapeable, any more than an Ooze is shapeable).

If we shape a single swarm, we are giving the monster an ability that it does not have...

Sczarni

First off, I said "large" (notice the quotation marks?). I realize tone can be lost over this medium. Pretend we were talking face-to-face and I used "air quotes". I'm well aware how swarms operate, I run them fairly often, and have seen others with more experience than I do the same.

Second, and I don't know why you're asking this, but if swarms didn't have a limit as to the number of squares they could occupy to be effective, then we'd likely find ourselves with 10,000 squares representing a swarm (one for each bug present).

4 is a nice, easy-to-understand number. Each square has enough critters to cause damage to something. Even after a swarm's hit points have been reduced to zero, it's still there, it's just been "broken up". The concentration of what's left is not dense enough to cause anyone harm, but you might still find a mouse scurrying over there, or a bee flying over there, what have you.

I've never seen anyone suggest that a swarm could be divided up into more than 4 squares before. There is simply no basis in the rules for that.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Swarm Subtype wrote:

A swarm is a collection of Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creatures that acts as a single creature. A swarm has the characteristics of its type, except as noted here. A swarm has a single pool of Hit Dice and hit points, a single initiative modifier, a single speed, and a single Armor Class. A swarm makes saving throws as a single creature. A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but its reach is 0 feet, like its component creatures. In order to attack, it moves into an opponent's space, which provokes an attack of opportunity. It can occupy the same space as a creature of any size, since it crawls all over its prey. A swarm can move through squares occupied by enemies and vice versa without impediment, although the swarm provokes an attack of opportunity if it does so. A swarm can move through cracks or holes large enough for its component creatures.

A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not. Swarms of nonflying creatures include many more creatures than could normally fit in a 10-foot square based on their normal space, because creatures in a swarm are packed tightly together and generally crawl over each other and their prey when moving or attacking. Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares.

Okay, larger swarms are, or are not, equal to large swarms?

A swarm consists of tiny, diminutive or fine creatures, and occupies a large area.

Multiple swarms can be combined into a largeR swarm.

now, is the reference in the final sentence to a large swarm meant to be a reference to a largeR swarm, which breaks down anyhow, since it allows the largeR swarm to be completely malleable, more so than its components parts supposedly are, or did large swarm just refer to the composite of the itsy bitsies, being a large swarm of smaller creatures?

If the second, then each 5' square in a large swarm would be capable of semi-indepent movement.

The Exchange

kinevon, you have the point I am trying to make.

there are normal swarms, which are 10' on a side and are never referred to as "large". They are a collection of smaller creatures (Tiny or smaller) that occupy a square 10' on a side. The only place in the description of swarms where they are referred to as "large" or as "largeR" has been qouted above.

so, to parapharse your statement above...

"...is the reference in the final sentence to a large swarm meant to be a reference to a largeR swarm,..." It is in the same section, in the sentence that follows the first referance to a swarm with the words "LargeR" or "Large"

" ...which breaks down anyhow,..." - but usually tries to remain in a group (one could even say a Large group), thus the line "... though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares" is talking about a LargeR Swarm (which is the only type of "Large Swarm" referenced).

"...since it allows the largeR swarm to be completely malleable, more so than its components parts supposedly are, ..." Exactly! This is correct! The references to changing shape are in the section on LargeR Swarms!

[i]"or did large swarm just refer to the composite of the itsy bitsies, being a large swarm of smaller creatures?" which are referenced several times as "normal swarm" or even just a "swarm" and never as "large swarm". In fact, a large swarm is the composite of normal swarms, and it "... usually remains in contiguous squares." The squares referenced above in the paragraph are 10' to a side.

Look at it from another side... if the term "Large Swarm" referanced a Swarm that was 10' to a side, wouldn't there then be some other size swarm? say a "Huge Swarm" 15' to a side? or a "Medium Swarm" that would be 5' to a side? But there is not, "Larger swarms are made up of more than one normal swarm... " and normal swarms - also called single swarms, or just swarm "...occupies a space 10 feet on a side..."

We are getting hung up on the base size being 10' to a side, which in a single creature would make that creature size "Large", when they also use the same word to reference a group of swarms - a Large or LargeR swarm. It's like using Level to represent the power of a spell, and the floor of a dungeon. Same word, different meaning.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thank you for arguing this so clearly nosig!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nefreet, I rarely disagree with you, but on this one I do.

I think you are correct under 3.5 rules, but not in pathfinder

3.5 wrote:

In order to attack, a single swarm moves into opponents’ spaces, which provokes an attack of opportunity. It can occupy the same space as a creature of any size, since it crawls all over its prey, but remains a creature with a 10-foot space. Swarms never make attacks of opportunity, but they can provoke attacks of opportunity.

Unlike other creatures with a 10-foot space, a swarm is shapeable. It can occupy any four contiguous squares, and it can squeeze through any space large enough to contain one of its component creatures.

in PFS, that line has been dropped and replaced with:

pfs wrote:
Creatures with the swarm subtype don't make standard melee attacks. Instead, they deal automatic damage to any creature whose space they occupy at the end of their move, with no attack roll needed. Swarm attacks are not subject to a miss chance for concealment or cover. A swarm's stat block has “swarm” in the Melee entries, with no attack bonus given.

The other line:

3.5 wrote:
For game purposes a swarm is defined as a single creature with a space of 10 feet—gigantic hordes are actually composed of dozens of swarms in close proximity ... Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. A large swarm is completely shapeable, though it usually remains contiguous.
PFS larger swarms wrote:
A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side ... Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares.

is more or less unchanged.

My understanding is that they intended to remove the single swarm's reshaping while allowing swarms that are multiple 10 x 10's to arrange those 10 by 10 areas.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks FLite - that explains the word "completely" being in the text, leftover from 3.5 where it was apropos to the ability.

Grand Lodge

nosig wrote:

kinevon, you have the point I am trying to make.

there are normal swarms, which are 10' on a side and are never referred to as "large". They are a collection of smaller creatures (Tiny or smaller) that occupy a square 10' on a side. The only place in the description of swarms where they are referred to as "large" or as "largeR" has been qouted above.

so, to parapharse your statement above...

"...is the reference in the final sentence to a large swarm meant to be a reference to a largeR swarm,..." It is in the same section, in the sentence that follows the first referance to a swarm with the words "LargeR" or "Large"

" ...which breaks down anyhow,..." - but usually tries to remain in a group (one could even say a Large group), thus the line "... though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares" is talking about a LargeR Swarm (which is the only type of "Large Swarm" referenced).

"...since it allows the largeR swarm to be completely malleable, more so than its components parts supposedly are, ..." Exactly! This is correct! The references to changing shape are in the section on LargeR Swarms!

[i]"or did large swarm just refer to the composite of the itsy bitsies, being a large swarm of smaller creatures?" which are referenced several times as "normal swarm" or even just a "swarm" and never as "large swarm". In fact, a large swarm is the composite of normal swarms, and it "... usually remains in contiguous squares." The squares referenced above in the paragraph are 10' to a side.

Look at it from another side... if the term "Large Swarm" referanced a Swarm that was 10' to a side, wouldn't there then be some other size swarm? say a "Huge Swarm" 15' to a side? or a "Medium Swarm" that would be 5' to a side? But there is not, "Larger swarms are made up of more than one normal swarm... " and normal swarms - also called single swarms, or just swarm "...occupies a space 10 feet on a side..."

We are getting hung up on the base size being 10' to a side, which in a[/i]...

No, actually, I do not have the point you are trying to make, since the only reference to anything but swarm is the larger swarm, which consists of multiple swarms, which are still, according to the rules quoted, more-or-less treated as the component swarms.

There are only two references to size, other than the components of swarms, and one is to "large" swarms, and the other is to "larger" swarms.

Since all swarms are large-sized, wouldn't that what the reference to large swarms is pointing towards? Possibly legacy language that wasn't removed, but swarms are large sized, so they would fall under that language.

I think this is where we are having our communications difficulty.

For some reason, we are defingin large differently.

I am defining large as referring to large size, you are apparently referencing large mean to larger swarm.

And I don't see anything that defines large swarm as being the same as larger swarm. Wouldn't a larger swarm be bigger than a large swarm?

Also, just as something to contemplate: all the Paizo pawn sets contain swarm counters as medium size in quantities of 4...

Anyone know if any of the Paizo pre-paints include pawn minis, and how they are built?

For the Wizards minis, by the way, there are older sets that include a large size mini for a swarm, but later sets included a much flatter set of 4 medium minis to represent a standard swarm.


Last game, the party sorcerer cast mad monkeys on a black dragon.

It was hilarious. When the dragon perished they continued to feed.


kinevon wrote:

For some reason, we are defingin large differently.

I am defining large as referring to large size, you are apparently referencing large mean to larger swarm.

And I don't see anything that defines large swarm as being the same as larger swarm. Wouldn't a larger swarm be bigger than a large swarm?

Whenever the rules refer to a size category, the first word is always capitalized (as can be seen by the words "Tiny", "Diminutive" and "Fine" using that form throughout the swarm subtype listing). However, the only references to "large" in the same text don't have the first word capitalized (except for the one instance of "Larger" that begins a sentence), meaning they don't reference the size category, but rather the normal usage of the word.

Grand Lodge

Are wrote:
kinevon wrote:

For some reason, we are defingin large differently.

I am defining large as referring to large size, you are apparently referencing large mean to larger swarm.

And I don't see anything that defines large swarm as being the same as larger swarm. Wouldn't a larger swarm be bigger than a large swarm?

Whenever the rules refer to a size category, the first word is always capitalized (as can be seen by the words "Tiny", "Diminutive" and "Fine" using that form throughout the swarm subtype listing). However, the only references to "large" in the same text don't have the first word capitalized (except for the one instance of "Larger" that begins a sentence), meaning they don't reference the size category, but rather the normal usage of the word.

And A swarm is large. Multiple swarms are larger: huge, gargantuan, etc.

So, explain the counters, please.

The Exchange

First - creature sizes...

ok, let's check the PRD to see what size a swarm is...

Spider Swarm CR 1
XP 400
N Diminutive vermin (swarm)...

this compares to

Giant Spider CR 1
XP 400
N Medium vermin ...

and
Scarlet spider 1/4 Tiny 1d8
Giant crab spider 1/2 Small 2d8
Giant black widow 3 Large 5d8
Ogre spider 5 Huge 7d8
Giant tarantula 8 Gargantuan 10d8
Goliath spider 11 Colossal 14d8

and

Dire Rat CR 1/3
XP 135
N Small animal

and
Rat Swarm CR 2
XP 600
N Tiny animal (swarm)

If a swarm is always Large, why is the size given wrong in the Bestiary in all cases?

and in fact, the only time a swarm is listed as Large is when the Bestiary is refering to a swarm made up of more than one normal swarm?

The Exchange

kinevon wrote:
Are wrote:
kinevon wrote:

For some reason, we are defingin large differently.

I am defining large as referring to large size, you are apparently referencing large mean to larger swarm.

And I don't see anything that defines large swarm as being the same as larger swarm. Wouldn't a larger swarm be bigger than a large swarm?

Whenever the rules refer to a size category, the first word is always capitalized (as can be seen by the words "Tiny", "Diminutive" and "Fine" using that form throughout the swarm subtype listing). However, the only references to "large" in the same text don't have the first word capitalized (except for the one instance of "Larger" that begins a sentence), meaning they don't reference the size category, but rather the normal usage of the word.

And A swarm is large. Multiple swarms are larger: huge, gargantuan, etc.

So, explain the counters, please.

Because this is a common error, left over from the days of 3.5?

Realizing I can pull minitures of swarms that are on a 2" by 2" base also...

It will not be the first time minitures have been wrong...

The Exchange

if the two lines...
"Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares."

are split apart and taken out of context, then you could use the line ...

"...The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares."

...to split the swarm into 4 "Medium" swarms that could all move about NOT in contiguous squares. "usually" would mean "not always".

A judge could have each 1/4 swarm attack PCs separated by more than 30' each. How will we track HP for each piece? Esp. if you have more than one of these "split swarms"... 8 or 12 or 16 little 1/4 swarms attacking in different locations - which ones connect with which other ones?

(I am not even going to talk about the judges who stack swarms in the same spot... I fear seeing 4 quarter swarms all stacking in the same 5' square to do 4 times the damage and 4 distraction rolls...)

The Exchange

I just thought of something...

Maybe I should start using the spell Vomit Swarm, which produces a swarm under the control of the caster - that way I for judges who rule a swarm is completely shape I could brake it up into smaller 1/4 swarms and send it after more than one bad guy!

Grand Lodge

nosig wrote:

First - creature sizes...

ok, let's check the PRD to see what size a swarm is...

Spider Swarm CR 1
XP 400
N Diminutive vermin (swarm)...

this compares to

Giant Spider CR 1
XP 400
N Medium vermin ...

and
Scarlet spider 1/4 Tiny 1d8
Giant crab spider 1/2 Small 2d8
Giant black widow 3 Large 5d8
Ogre spider 5 Huge 7d8
Giant tarantula 8 Gargantuan 10d8
Goliath spider 11 Colossal 14d8

and

Dire Rat CR 1/3
XP 135
N Small animal

and
Rat Swarm CR 2
XP 600
N Tiny animal (swarm)

If a swarm is always Large, why is the size given wrong in the Bestiary in all cases?

and in fact, the only time a swarm is listed as Large is when the Bestiary is refering to a swarm made up of more than one normal swarm?

Can you show me where you see "Large", rather than larger as a size applied to swarms in any case?

The problem is that the Bestiary has a legacy of only one size being shown for pretty much anything, and the "important" size factor for swarms is not the size oit the swarm , which is Large, but the size of the swarm component creatures, as that affects weapon damage.

Also, contiguous.

Do you rule that your standard swarm must occupy a 2x2 square area, or 4 squares, as long as they are contiguous, orthogonally, or orthogonally and/or diagonally?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

crud... lost my big reply... trying this again.

I do not think I fully understand what you are trying to say... let me try to provide an answer to each of the parts, I'm sorry if I do not answer your questions.

1) "Can you show me where you see "Large", rather than larger as a size applied to swarms in any case? "

the only case I know that use the words large or larger in relation to swarms is in the Bestiary write up. Here's the entire paragraph...

A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not. Swarms of nonflying creatures include many more creatures than could normally fit in a 10-foot square based on their normal space, because creatures in a swarm are packed tightly together and generally crawl over each other and their prey when moving or attacking. Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares.

If we take the last sentence out of context (as I think you are doing), we could assume that a swarm that is 10' to a side (as all normal swarms are) is being referenced, and is being called a "large swarm". The problem with this, is the little "l" in the sentence. It is the same little "l" that we would refer to a Dire rat as a large rat (which is size Small) rather than a Large rat (which would be a creature 10' to a side). It would also imply that there are such things as Huge swarms and Medium swarms and even Small swarms.

If we take the last two sentences together we can see that a large swarm is represented by multiple single swarms (all 10' to a side), and that this larger swarm is completely shapeable, though the larger swarm usually remains in contiguous squares (squares that are 10' to a side and are the multiple single swarms that it is made up of).

2) "The problem is that the Bestiary has a legacy of only one size being shown for pretty much anything, and the "important" size factor for swarms is not the size oit the swarm , which is Large, but the size of the swarm component creatures, as that affects weapon damage."

Swarms are not Large. They are never references that way. All other creatures in the Bestiary are referenced by the size they are - why do you think Swarms are an exception? An exception that never is called out? Swarms are referenced by the size of the component creatures - thus a swarm is "a swarm of Tiny creatures" or "a swarm of Diminutive creatures". Swarms are a group of creatures of a size Tiny or smaller grouped into an area 10' to a side. There are large swarms - "Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms." but there are no Large swarms.

3) "Also, contiguous.
Do you rule that your standard swarm must occupy a 2x2 square area, or 4 squares, as long as they are contiguous, orthogonally, or orthogonally and/or diagonally?"

I rule (when I am a judge) that a swarm is "A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but its reach is 0 feet, like its component creatures."

Swarm Subtype: A swarm is a collection of Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creatures that acts as a single creature. A swarm has the characteristics of its type, except as noted here. A swarm has a single pool of Hit Dice and hit points, a single initiative modifier, a single speed, and a single Armor Class. A swarm makes saving throws as a single creature. A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but its reach is 0 feet, like its component creatures. In order to attack, it moves into an opponent's space, which provokes an attack of opportunity. It can occupy the same space as a creature of any size, since it crawls all over its prey. A swarm can move through squares occupied by enemies and vice versa without impediment, although the swarm provokes an attack of opportunity if it does so. A swarm can move through cracks or holes large enough for its component creatures.

A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not. Swarms of nonflying creatures include many more creatures than could normally fit in a 10-foot square based on their normal space, because creatures in a swarm are packed tightly together and generally crawl over each other and their prey when moving or attacking. Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares.

so I try to rule that a swarm occupies a square or cube 10' to as side. That's what the rule says right? if you wish to intrepret this as "a 2x2 square area, or 4 squares," that would be fine. I rule it as a 10' square... much as I would rule the area occupied by a Gelatinous Cube to be a 10' square or cube. I guess we could say the G-Cube occupies "a 2x2 square area, or 4 squares,"...

I hope this helps...


Quote:
I would rule the area occupied by a Gelatinous Cube to be a 10' square or cube. I guess we could say the G-Cube occupies "a 2x2 square area, or 4 squares,"...

I imagine oozes, in particular Gelatinous Cubes, to be of a consistency greatly different from a swarm of individual creatures -- firmer, rubbery perhaps. It is called a cube for a reason, after all. Now a Gelatinous Rectangle, as someone above suggested, is a pretty cool idea ... or how about a Gelatinous Cylinder lying on its side at the top of a sloped corridor? Sorry for the tangent, the idea just tickles my fancy.

The Exchange

Thread Necro!

floating this to the top of the heap so that people can kick it around again for a while.

This subject came up again over on the PFS board, and it appears to be still a subject in need of an FAQ.

Can a normal (single) swarm assume a shape other than "...a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side..."?

feel free to FAQ ... maybe we can get some input?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'd be curious to know how paizo staff run swarms in their home games. I usually keep them to 10x10 squares.

The Exchange

KingOfAnything wrote:
I'd be curious to know how paizo staff run swarms in their home games. I usually keep them to 10x10 squares.

does your use of the word "usually" mean that you sometimes DON'T keep them in 10x10 squares?

If/When you don't, do you allow the 5'x5' "swarmlets" to move about independently (non-contiguous)?

(and thanks for chiming in with a response).


Put me in the 'shape-able but contiguous' group. I'll admit a bit of bias in my reading of the rules as even if FAQ'd to 10'square I would houserule it away as it makes more sense to me that way.

The Exchange

dragonhunterq wrote:

Put me in the 'shape-able but contiguous' group. I'll admit a bit of bias in my reading of the rules as even if FAQ'd to 10'square I would houserule it away as it makes more sense to me that way.

Just to check, you are stating that (for you) Swarms are able to split into different 5' squares ("swarmlets"? Or "Medium Swarms" ?), but that the sub-swarms MUST remain contiguous?

Do/Would you allow flying swarms to assume a form only 5' tall, but 10'x20' otherwise? (Occupying the same volume as the original swarm?)

Do you do the same for Large (or larger) Oozes? That is, do you also allow them to assume "shapeable but contiguous" forms?

And these rules would apply for swarms summoned by PCs - say with the spell Vomit Swarm?

And why are you bias one way or another?

(And thanks for chiming in! "We learn things best when we listen to other opinions")


Why would you include oozes? Completely different thing, with no rules support for allowing it.

Mostly my bias is probably because it actually makes sense to me that swarms can move in that way. And the wording for swarms, as written, can support that interpretation. I read "usually" pretty stringently, I would be reluctant to divide a swarm into non-contiguous 5'swarmlets.

I will say your reading is pretty solid, and may otherwise have swayed me - hence the admission to bias. I suspect if we do get it FAQ'd it will fall your side of the line. The change from the 3.5 wording seems deliberate.

related aside: stacking swarms always seemed like a really bad idea to me, swarms are not immune to swarm damage, most swarms will kill each other pretty damn quickly.
.

The Exchange

dragonhunterq wrote:

Why would you include oozes? Completely different thing, with no rules support for allowing it.

Mostly my bias is probably because it actually makes sense to me that swarms can move in that way. And the wording for swarms, as written, can support that interpretation. I read "usually" pretty stringently, I would be reluctant to divide a swarm into non-contiguous 5'swarmlets.

I will say your reading is pretty solid, and may otherwise have swayed me - hence the admission to bias. I suspect if we do get it FAQ'd it will fall your side of the line. The change from the 3.5 wording seems deliberate.

related aside: stacking swarms always seemed like a really bad idea to me, swarms are not immune to swarm damage, most swarms will kill each other pretty damn quickly.

Actually - I don't think one CAN stack swarms of the same type of creature - because two "normal" swarms would just make a large swarm (two squares that usually remain touching - I.e. "contiguous"). It would only be when two swarms of different types of creature (say rats and bats) move into the same area that they "stack" and eat each other. More than one normal swarm moving together just forms a larger swarm.

Thanks for the pointer on the differences in the wording from 3.5. I dug out my old Monster Manual and found the sections you are talking about that were deleted. This also explains why people keep insisting that you can fight swarms with torches and flaming/frost weapons - because in 3.5 there were rules in the Swarm write up that talks about them being harmed by these weapons (as well as rules that list lit lanterns as doing a d4 to any creature in adjacent squares - which would make lanterns as being slightly better than Alchemist Fire as a splash weapon). So it appears that at least part of the reason people keep saying that normal swarms are shapeable, is because 3.5 had a special rule to allow them to be. This rule, along with the Torch doing 1d3, energy enhancements on weapons doing damage to them and lanterns being used as splash weapons did not make it in the transfer to PFS.

Sovereign Court

Put me down in the non-shapeable camp.

PRD > Bestiary > Types wrote:

Swarm Subtype: A swarm is a collection of Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creatures that acts as a single creature. A swarm has the characteristics of its type, except as noted here. A swarm has a single pool of Hit Dice and hit points, a single initiative modifier, a single speed, and a single Armor Class. A swarm makes saving throws as a single creature. A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side, but its reach is 0 feet, like its component creatures.In order to attack, it moves into an opponent's space, which provokes an attack of opportunity. It can occupy the same space as a creature of any size, since it crawls all over its prey. A swarm can move through squares occupied by enemies and vice versa without impediment, although the swarm provokes an attack of opportunity if it does so.A swarm can move through cracks or holes large enough for its component creatures.

A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not. Swarms of nonflying creatures include many more creatures than could normally fit in a 10-foot square based on their normal space, because creatures in a swarm are packed tightly together and generally crawl over each other and their prey when moving or attacking. Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares.

A normal swarm occupies a 10x10 ft square. Not "4 5x5 ft squares, usually contiguous". The text is quite clear.

Swarms don't use the normal size categories; they are collections of fine--tiny critters that occupy a 10x10ft square. "Larger" and "large" refers to being bigger than a basic swarm, not the Large size category. And clearly, it's only swarms consisting of multiple sub-swarms that are shapeable. Presumably in increments of 10 ft squares.

As for the 3.5 argument: what does that matter? This text is clear: it's a 10x10 square. Pathfinder shouldn't have to include a footnote next to every change from 3.5 with "yes, we really mean it".

As for the "but it makes sense to spread out" argument: you're mixing "realism" into rules again. You could just as well argue the reverse: by spreading out over a larger area the swarm becomes less concentrated that it'd be by balling together in a square. And when spread out, it's no longer able to attack as effectively.

Point being, the rules are clear, just maybe not what you're used to.

The Exchange

for those people who feel that a Swarm can be broken into smaller 5'x5' squares - is it ok if we take the top 5 foot of a flying swarms height and brake it into more 5'x5'x5' pieces?

so: "A single swarm occupies a square (if it is made up of nonflying creatures) or a cube (of flying creatures) 10 feet on a side,... "

braking the swarm into squares would produce eight 5'x5'x5' pieces right? so we could string these out in a row 5' wide, 5' tall and 40' long? and have it snake around the room, say in all 8 squares around a summoning creature...

Or are we required to keep the smaller swarm pieces 10' tall? so we'd have only four pieces, each 5'x5'x10'?

The Exchange

If I am in a game with a judge who rules that a normal swarm is shapeable (5' pieces), and I use the spell

Vomit Swarm:

School conjuration (summoning); Level alchemist 2, witch 2

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components S

Range personal

Effect one swarm of spiders

Duration 1 round/level

You vomit forth a swarm of spiders that attacks all other creatures within its area. The swarm begins adjacent to you, but if no living creatures are within its area, it moves in one direction of your choosing at its normal speed. You can move the swarm or change the swarm's direction by spending a standard action to concentrate on the swarm, otherwise it continues moving in its current direction. If your caster level is at least 7th, you can vomit forth a swarm of wasps instead. Finally, if your caster level is at least 13th, you can vomit forth a swarm of army ants.

would I be able to "shape" the swarm when I "...move the swarm or change the swarm's direction by spending a standard action to concentrate on the swarm..."? Shape it into a line of 5' squares, and then move it, sweeping a larger area? Could I change a wasp swarm into eight 5'x5'x5' pieces?

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Swarms (again) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.