|
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
I see the stirge touch attack as a natural weapon that does 0 HP of damage
...
I see the attach as a 0 HP natural attack
Based on what? How did you come to this conclusion?
I don't know, it just makes sense to me. The stirge stabs its proboscis (a natural weapon of the piercing variety) into its victim and starts sucking blood (draining constitution). No damage is given so 0 HP damage.
Do you think that's really far-fetched?
I mean a tiger's claws (natural weapons, albeit slashing) have to overcome the DR, so does lion's or a dinosaur's. Or a unicorn's horn for that matter. Now granted, I see the difference between stated damage from these attacks and how DR obviously applies. I guess, what's the difference between a proboscis, a horn or a dagger in terms of how they damage somebody?
And, I'm not just being argumentative, Jiggy. That is my RAI of RAW for the stirge's attach ability.
Andy
Andy
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Tips for summoning stirges, from one druid to others.
1. Summon multiple stirges whenever possible. This means SNA II or higher folks! It seems like a waste, but trust me, it's still super effective later on. For example: if you get two stirges out, that's -1 HP per HD on the round they appear, then another -1 HP per HD on subsequent rounds if they maintain. Even at level 11 that's a solid dent every round. Especially for a 2nd or 3rd level spell slot.
2. Summon your buddies into your enemies square. This way, they won't take that AOO as they fly in. Note that doing this is a gray area of the rules, which has been tread before and belongs in a rules question thread, but if your GM allows it then your solid.
3. As with any powerful, time consuming tactic, use your stirge power sparingly. Spammers, spot-light stealers, and PCs that summon often fall into this category. Be a team player, and reserve your cat-sized mosquitos as a great ace-in-the-hole card.
|
|
The problem that you're running up against occurs with this word: "logical." There are two types of logic we can use in the game.
1. Analytical/Comprehension: used to understand what the rules mean or intend;
2. Comparative/Analogous: trying to compare something in one reference frame (our real world) to another reference frame (the game world). <---DON'T DO THIS.
[...]"Logical" arguments based on real world physics or analogies don't work as justification for changing rules in PF/D&D. The game is not a real life simulator, it's a game. The rules are filled with things that don't make sense and PFS GMs can't go cherry-picking. As a GM you need to accept this is game.
Don't mean to lay it on thick, but the sooner you abandon this approach to the rules, the easier it will be to play the game as written.
I like this breakdown, but I would add a 2b:
2b. Comparative/Analogous: trying to compare something in one context of the game to another context within the game.Whether or not this is a valid method depends on how similar the two contexts are.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And, I'm not just being argumentative, Jiggy.
Don't worry, I know you're not being argumentative. :) For the record, neither am I; just trying to "teach a man to fish". ;D
I don't know, it just makes sense to me. The stirge stabs its proboscis (a natural weapon of the piercing variety)
Okay, how did you come to the conclusion that its proboscis is a natural weapon in the first place?
No damage is given so 0 HP damage.
So if you know that it deals no damage, why do you think that an effect called "damage reduction" would affect it? Isn't the stated function of "damage reduction" to, you know, reduce damage? If there's no damage to reduce, what effect is damage reduction supposed to have? Why? How did you come to the conclusion that (even more broadly than the stirge example) damage reduction could do something other than reduce damage?
I guess, what's the difference between a proboscis, a horn or a dagger in terms of how they damage somebody?
In terms of how they damage somebody? Not much. But we're not talking about how a proboscis damages somebody, are we? We're talking about how it performs a touch attack that initiates a non-damage effect. How did you come to the conclusion that a touch which initiates a non-damage effect should be subject to things that affect HP damage?
That is my RAI
Fun fact: You don't get to have an "RAI". Neither do I. "RAI" means "rules as intended", and the only people whose intents matter are the author who wrote the effect and the developer who may have tweaked what the author wrote before it was published. Lucky for us, those who produced this stuff wanted us to know their intent, and so they did their best to communicate it to us. They did so by writing it all down and putting it in a book. ;)
Forgive me if the following sounds patronizing, but lots of people seem to lose sight of this, so maybe we can keep you from being one of them:
The hands-down best way to determine the intent is to read the rule, because that's what the rule is: the designers' written communication of their intent.
--------------------------------------------
There are two ways to make calls as a GM:
1) Go by what the rules say, but if it doesn't cover the situation then make the call that makes sense to you.
2) Make the call that makes sense, but if that still leaves you unsure then consult the rules.
If you default to #1, then in every case that's covered by the rules (which is the overwhelming majority of them) you're very likely to make the right call. Not only that, but if you do #1 enough, then when you do have to go with what makes sense, then "what makes sense" will itself be based on the rules, so even that will become more and more likely to be the best call.
If instead you default to #2, then by definition your calls are based on something other than the rules; and they're based on something. That means that you'll be making calls based on personal preference, standard practice (or at least, your standard practice), semi-historical guesswork, or what some doofus named Jiggy told you on the internet. ;) Do any of those sound likely to consistently lead you to the best call?
Sometimes, you'll find gaps in the rules and have to use your best judgment. But your best judgment will be better if it's built on a habit of always starting with the rules.
/soapbox.
|
|
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
I see the stirge touch attack as a natural weapon that does 0 HP of damage
...
I see the attach as a 0 HP natural attack
Based on what? How did you come to this conclusion?
I don't know, it just makes sense to me. The stirge stabs its proboscis (a natural weapon of the piercing variety) into its victim and starts sucking blood (draining constitution). No damage is given so 0 HP damage.
Do you think that's really far-fetched?
I mean a tiger's claws (natural weapons, albeit slashing) have to overcome the DR, so does lion's or a dinosaur's. Or a unicorn's horn for that matter. Now granted, I see the difference between stated damage from these attacks and how DR obviously applies. I guess, what's the difference between a proboscis, a horn or a dagger in terms of how they damage somebody?
And, I'm not just being argumentative, Jiggy. That is my RAI of RAW for the stirge's attach ability.
Andy
Andy
Yes, but Pathfinder is an abstraction. Verisimilitude occasionally suffers. In PFS, you can only fix that if you can do so within the rules.
In this case, you're adding a mechanic that the book doesn't detail--the 0hp natural attack in between "attaching" and "Con damage"--which is fine for a home game but it is very much a step away from RAW.
It's also in conflict with the precedent of natural attacks from weak animals: A snake might do d2-2, but the minimum damage isn't 0, it's 1 non-lethal (with the poison being the real point of the attack).
A stirge doesn't have that mechanic listed. It attaches, then it does Con damage. DR doesn't come into play.
Illogical? Perhaps. But a function of the aforementioned abstraction, which is necessary, because there's no way to encompass all of reality in a ruleset that people can put on their bookshelves.
|
|
1) Watch for how the behavior is negatively impacting the other PFS player character's gaming experience.
2) Discuss with the player using the loophole the effect it's having on overall play, confirm it is a valid use (based on current rules), but explain that it's now impairing the other players fun as it's overshadowing them. Ask for the use to stop, as it's damaging overall fun, a core PFS tenant.
3) If the player tries to keep using the same technique, shut it down, so the other players can engage in defeating enemies as well.
4) If the player gets upset, indicate that this was explained, and invite them to leave if they cannot abide the ruling. If they become extreme enough in their reaction, ban them from the table/event.
Replace 3... money.)
Probably a good point on 3, and I'll take your comments under advisement.
Really looking for feedback from GMs with 1+ stars however. Thanks though!
|
1) Watch for how the behavior is negatively impacting the other PFS player character's gaming experience.
2) Discuss with the player using the loophole the effect it's having on overall play, confirm it is a valid use (based on current rules), but explain that it's now impairing the other players fun as it's overshadowing them. Ask for the use to stop, as it's damaging overall fun, a core PFS tenant.
3) If the player tries to keep using the same technique, shut it down, so the other players can engage in defeating enemies as well.
4) If the player gets upset, indicate that this was explained, and invite them to leave if they cannot abide the ruling. If they become extreme enough in their reaction, ban them from the table/event.
Replace 3... money.)Probably a good point on 3, and I'll take your comments under advisement.
Really looking for feedback from GMs with 1+ stars however. Thanks though!
He is correct. You don't want to just shut someone down unless they are truly and honestly causing a lack of fun at the table.
Its also probably best that you get your game day coordinator (if it isn't you) involved in any discussions about inappropriate behavior. Barring that, your Venture-officer.
The point is, everyone deserves to play the game in their own style up to the point that their style interferes with another person's style.
If compromise cannot be reached, then unfortunately someone has the unenviable task of putting one or both of those people in their place.
Fortunately, I've never had to do this. But the idea is that an ounce of diplomacy goes miles over a mound of intimidation.
|
|
He is correct. You don't want to just shut someone down unless they are truly and honestly causing a lack of fun at the table.
Its also probably best that you get your game day coordinator (if it isn't you) involved in any discussions about inappropriate behavior. Barring that, your Venture-officer.
The point is, everyone deserves to play the game in their own style up to the point that their style interferes with another person's style.
If compromise cannot be reached, then unfortunately someone has the unenviable task of putting one or both of those people in their place.
Fortunately, I've never had to do this. But the idea is that an ounce of diplomacy goes miles over a mound of intimidation.
Sounds good. Thanks!
|
|
There are two ways to make calls as a GM:
1) Go by what the rules say, but if it doesn't cover the situation then make the call that makes sense to you.
2) Make the call that makes sense, but if that still leaves you unsure then consult the rules.If you default to #1, then in every case that's covered by the rules (which is the overwhelming majority of them) you're very likely to make the right call. Not only that, but if you do #1 enough, then when you do have to go with what makes sense, then "what makes sense" will itself be based on the rules, so even that will become more and more likely to be the best call.
If instead you default to #2, then by definition your calls are based on something other than the rules; and they're based on something. That means that you'll be making calls based on personal preference, standard practice (or at least, your standard practice), semi-historical guesswork, or what some doofus named Jiggy told you on the internet. ;) Do any of those sound likely to consistently lead you to the best call?
Sometimes, you'll find gaps in the rules and have to use your best judgment. But your best judgment will be better if it's built on a habit of always starting with the rules.
Uhh, I agree.
Fun fact: You don't get to have an "RAI". Neither do I. "RAI" means "rules as intended"
Should have said "my take on RAI" because I was interpreting what I think is reasonable. If you'll notice, I have been agreement with you for nearly 30 posts! The rest of this is just you and I giving our views on fishing or teaching or being fishers of men or something. ;-)
|
|
andy mcdonald 623 wrote:
I see the stirge touch attack as a natural weapon that does 0 HP of damage
...
I see the attach as a 0 HP natural attack
Based on what? How did you come to this conclusion?
I don't know, it just makes sense to me. The stirge stabs its proboscis (a natural weapon of the piercing variety) into its victim and starts sucking blood (draining constitution). No damage is given so 0 HP damage.
Do you think that's really far-fetched?
I mean a tiger's claws (natural weapons, albeit slashing) have to overcome the DR, so does lion's or a dinosaur's. Or a unicorn's horn for that matter. Now granted, I see the difference between stated damage from these attacks and how DR obviously applies. I guess, what's the difference between a proboscis, a horn or a dagger in terms of how they damage somebody?
And, I'm not just being argumentative, Jiggy. That is my RAI of RAW for the stirge's attach ability.
Andy
Andy
Except that things that do damage always list an amount. 1d3-4, for instance, is a valid amount of damage. A roll that would result in 0 or less would do 1 point of non-lethal, so there is always damage being done, so DR would apply. If no damage is listed, DR doesn't can't apply because there's nothing to reduce.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun fact: You don't get to have an "RAI". Neither do I. "RAI" means "rules as intended", and the only people whose intents matter are the author who wrote the effect and the developer who may have tweaked what the author wrote before it was published.
Yes, you do in fact get to use RAI sometimes. Its why you fall prone when you die, can't make a tree explode into a thousand clubs by using craft: woodworking and the 0 time it would take, can't no save kill chelaxians by using them as a material component for animal messenger, why ride by attack works at all, why you don't need to run on the back of an elephant to use spirited charge, why non rogues need to actively look for traps.....
The authors intent is not always clear. English simply isn't that precise. For example, someone could point out that the stirge isn't actually grappling they're just treated that way. (which is one reason i hate quasi effects like this)
The rules were not all written by the same person
Different rules were not always meant to interact.
The developers don't always agree with each other on what the rules mean.(scent)
|
while I believe English CAN be that precise, most game designers are not also contract lawyers.
quasi effects really are annoying.
but unless there is a rules editor, who makes sure of consistency of rules interactions between all the different designers/writers we're always going to be left some ambiguous things.
|
|
It's quite clear what the rules say (about single stirges at least), but I doubt stirges & DR were considered together during any point in rules development.
I would be happy if one of the PFS GMs stepped in and clarified a position against this, or for GM's call.
It'd be a travesty if an Elder Earth Elemental fell to a swarm of stirges.
Despite its DR 10/- and immunity to bleed effects, this little proboscis draining blood would still, by RAW, work.
As for multiple grapplers, as somebody pointed out, the stirges aren't grappling, they are attaching, then gaining that condition. So you could have four stirges on one medium creature. Walter's example even counts on using multiple stirges on one foe.
Also, remember Great Cleave. :)
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
It's quite clear what the rules say (about single stirges at least), but I doubt stirges & DR were considered together during any point in rules development.
I would be happy if one of the PFS GMs stepped in and clarified a position against this, or for GM's call.
It'd be a travesty if an Elder Earth Elemental fell to a swarm of stirges.
Despite its DR 10/- and immunity to bleed effects, this little proboscis draining blood would still, by RAW, work.As for multiple grapplers, as somebody pointed out, the stirges aren't grappling, they are attaching, then gaining that condition. So you could have four stirges on one medium creature. Walter's example even counts on using multiple stirges on one foe.
Also, remember Great Cleave. :)
Immunity to bleed at my table would negate stirge drain.
It's not rocket science to know that they're draining blood, and a creature without blood or CON is going to be unaffected by their attach effects.
|
|
Stirges cannot attatch. No grapple allowed per freedom of movement.
I refuse to die by stirges Like I would just sit there and keep taking it, if it was allowed. I have ways to deal with them.
Sadly Freedom of movement don't make you immune to attach or similar abilities.
This is what it do:
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. (1)All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. (2)The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.[b]
(1) will not protect you against the attach ability at it [b]don't require a combat maneuver checks.
(2) will allow you to free yourself from 1 stirge at the expense of 1 standard action. Again, not very useful against multiple stirges.Even worse, as the stirges don't make a grapple attempt you can have several stirges attached to you, with each one requiring a different escape artist/CMB check to remove it.
You aren't the target of a single grapple from multiple opponents.
|
|
(1) will not protect you against the attach ability at it don't require a combat maneuver checks.
I think that's correct, but on subsequent rounds the Stirge will have to make a Grapple check to maintain (with a +8 racial bonus to maintain) which will automatically fail, breaking the grapple.
So worst case, you have 4 points of Con damage before you are able to 5 ft step and get rid of them.
|
|
The authors intent is not always clear. English simply isn't that precise. For example, someone could point out that the stirge isn't actually grappling they're just treated that way. (which is one reason i hate quasi effects like this)
The rules were not all written by the same person
Different rules were not always meant to interact.
The developers don't always agree with each other on what the rules mean.(scent)
I agree with the spirit of the post and dislike the "quasi effects" too, but the rule is fairly clear. It isn't a grapple check.
(1) will not protect you against the attach ability at it don't require a combat maneuver checks.I think that's correct, but on subsequent rounds the Stirge will have to make a Grapple check to maintain (with a +8 racial bonus to maintain) which will automatically fail, breaking the grapple.
So worst case, you have 4 points of Con damage before you are able to 5 ft step and get rid of them.
But then they take a 5' step (and are subject to AoOs) and re-attach.
Even something like fire shield would not really help, as they get to make their attack (hence attach and drain) before the shield will fry them.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Boy howdy this is a lot of disagreement happening here.
Seems like a perfect question for your table GM before you cast the spell, so you know how it's going to effect the target and can decide if it's really the best action.
Luckily, SNA has a huge amount of versatility so if you can't summon stirges, you can always find something else exciting to grab :)
I'm assuming the target would do something after that 5ft step. Like any kind of AoE, or Wind Wall, or a Full Attack or Cleave.
I am assuming that as well. But I suspect that the caster of SNA will simply cast another 3rd level spell to get more stirges, who will appear in the target's hex.
|
|
Immunity to bleed at my table would negate stirge drain.
It's not rocket science to know that they're draining blood, and a creature without blood or CON is going to be unaffected by their attach effects.
How much higher of a leap of logic would it be to say that a stirge can't get its proboscis through the skin to find an unprotected vein on a character under the effect of stoneskin?
@Jiggy: would you agree with Walter's table ruling. I would. But bleed is a HP loss not CON damage? That's another area that I would consider "unclear" per our previous exchanges.
Andy
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Immunity to bleed at my table would negate stirge drain.
It's not rocket science to know that they're draining blood, and a creature without blood or CON is going to be unaffected by their attach effects.
How much higher of a leap of logic would it be to say that a stirge can't get its proboscis through the skin to find an unprotected vein on a character under the effect of stoneskin?
@Jiggy: would you agree with Walter's table ruling. I would. But bleed is a HP loss not CON damage? That's another area that I would consider "unclear" per our previous exchanges.
Andy
For what it's worth, I'd say the flavor of stoneskin would prevent it as well--both as the character summoning the stirges and as the GM with the protected NPC. But the flat existence of damage reduction wouldn't negate the effect. It's the form that DR takes, which is well within the realm of table variation for a group of mature players.
Once the notion of "players against the GM" evaporates from a table, all that's left is a group of people trying to have a good time and collectively find the best way to adjudicate a set of rules that are never defined enough to hedge out specific cases. And in that example, it's never difficult to deal with these sorts of questions.
|
|
I'm assuming the target would do something after that 5ft step. Like any kind of AoE, or Wind Wall, or a Full Attack or Cleave.I am assuming that as well. But I suspect that the caster of SNA will simply cast another 3rd level spell to get more stirges, who will appear in the target's hex.
I'm not convinced that's a legal location for them to be placed.
In the case of the BBEG cited at the beginning of the thread, I can think of several ways for him to take care of this, mostly by moving and outright killing the summoner.
In the case of the Elder Earth Elemental, burrowing should work.
I'm not saying it's not an effective tactic, but there are certain limitations that the player summoning should be applying and enforcing rather than blindsiding an unprepared GM.
If a player is selectively applying rules and hoping I don't know well enough to correct him, that's the same as cheating as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Once the notion of "players against the GM" evaporates from a table, all that's left is a group of people trying to have a good time and collectively find the best way to adjudicate a set of rules that are never defined enough to hedge out specific cases. And in that example, it's never difficult to deal with these sorts of questions.
Very true. Whether we agree or disagree on a ruling, dealing with it maturely ensures a good time can be had by all.
But the flat existence of damage reduction wouldn't negate the effect. It's the form that DR takes, which is well within the realm of table variation for a group of mature players.
I agree here too, but I would find some similarities between the nature of the effects in question and other, better defined effects. For example, DR/piercing would work on a tiger's rake attack but would not stop the stirge as it's proboscis (I love that word) pierces the skin, blah, blah, blah. But, on an outsider with DR/cold iron or DR/silver, they would stop both the tiger and the stirge in my opinion. I know that is not what RAW says for the stirge. But, I'm looking at the big picture and trying to discern "is this how it was intended to be" as several stirges fly towards the pit fiend!
By the way, I'm not claiming that my interpretation is RAW, I'm saying that there is an amount of murkiness here and this is how I would typically rule on it. But, if all the other PFS GM's said, "No Mac, you're wrong" as many have, I'd reconsider.
Andy
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the stirge is delivering a 0HP attack and DR somehow reduces that to zero (... which I'm still not clear on) and thus negates the attack, anyone with any DR is immune to stirges unless it's DR/piercing. In fact a zero-level spell--Haunted Fey Aspect--can shut down a single stirge FOREVER.
Using this approach, mites are immune to stirges.
Come on, folks. The game only works if we respect the fact that there are going to be the occasional oddity. The stirge attack doesn't deal damage. It doesn't even invoke damage the damage rules. There's no damage because there's no attack roll. There's no grapple check, either. A stirge would have a CMB in the negatives.
The stirge's attack roll is "surviving the AOO it provokes as it moves into your square," which is why its attach/drain is automatic after that. Can we really not let this pathetic little 5hp creature do its only thing?
|
|
(1) will not protect you against the attach ability at it don't require a combat maneuver checks.I think that's correct, but on subsequent rounds the Stirge will have to make a Grapple check to maintain (with a +8 racial bonus to maintain) which will automatically fail, breaking the grapple.
So worst case, you have 4 points of Con damage before you are able to 5 ft step and get rid of them.
But then they take a 5' step (and are subject to AoOs) and re-attach.
Even something like fire shield would not really help, as they get to make their attack (hence attach and drain) before the shield will fry them.
fire shield will work, it damage the attacking creature when it attack, but the stirge drain your constitution at the end of its turn.
BTW, the stirge deal constitution damage through its blood drain ability.
Blood Drain (Ex) The creature drains blood at the end of its turn if it grapples a foe, inflicting Constitution damage.
so creatures without blood (like the elementals cited some post ago) should be immune.
Elemental immunities:
Immunity to bleed, paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and stunning.
Bleed and not blood drain. Again, an example of "almost like" things.
sigh.
|
** spoiler omitted **So, we're all in agreement:
If someone summons stirges on Krune, Krune will then...
** spoiler omitted **
Nonono.
Some people are so unoriginal with wishes. ;)
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16
|
Fun fact: You don't get to have an "RAI". Neither do I. "RAI" means "rules as intended", and the only people whose intents matter are the author who wrote the effect and the developer who may have tweaked what the author wrote before it was published. Lucky for us, those who produced this stuff wanted us to know their intent, and so they did their best to communicate it to us. They did so by writing it all down and putting it in a book. ;)
Forgive me if the following sounds patronizing, but lots of people seem to lose sight of this, so maybe we can keep you from being one of them:
The hands-down best way to determine the intent is to read the rule, because that's what the rule is: the designers' written communication of their intent.
I agree, aaaand I disagree. I've seen some people make absurd claims based on "Rules as Written" AND I've encountered some unreasonable rule interpretations imposed as "Rules as Intended". In the end, players and GMs need to keep an open mind when they encounter the corner cases and weird situations that lead to such arguments.
Even something like fire shield would not really help, as they get to make their attack (hence attach and drain) before the shield will fry them.fire shield will work, it damage the attacking creature when it attack, but the stirge drain your constitution at the end of its turn.
BTW, the stirge deal constitution damage through its blood drain ability.
Blood Drain (Ex) The creature drains blood at the end of its turn if it grapples a foe, inflicting Constitution damage.
I am not sure that I agree.
Any creature striking you with its body or a handheld weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes 1d6 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +15).
I am reading that the attacker get's their attack and that attack's result, then the fire shield damages them.
I am willing to be convinced that I am incorrect, but reading the quotes above aren't doing it at the moment.
|
|
If the stirge is delivering a 0HP attack and DR somehow reduces that to zero (... which I'm still not clear on) and thus negates the attack, anyone with any DR is immune to stirges unless it's DR/piercing. In fact a zero-level spell--Haunted Fey Aspect--can shut down a single stirge FOREVER.
Using this approach, mites are immune to stirges.
Come on, folks. The game only works if we respect the fact that there are going to be the occasional oddity. The stirge attack doesn't deal damage. It doesn't even invoke damage the damage rules. There's no damage because there's no attack roll. There's no grapple check, either. A stirge would have a CMB in the negatives.
The stirge's attack roll is "surviving the AOO it provokes as it moves into your square," which is why its attach/drain is automatic after that. Can we really not let this pathetic little 5hp creature do its only thing?
Patrick,
Stirges do have to make an attack roll, they don't get it automatically:
Melee touch +7 (attach)
Of course, even (or especially?) at high levels, that might mean that anything but a 1 is a success. Anyone remember our non-mythical Huge Ancient dragon, whose AC is 39, but has a Touch AC of 5, which is cited in soooo many of the GUnslinger debates.
And, given its size, it wouldn't take long for it to see significant effects from those multiple stirge attachs....
Also note that, unless the target has Combat Reflexes, it would only get a single AoO against one of the stirges, not the pack.
And, of course, Summon Swarm might be another way to go...
|
|
Sadly Freedom of movement don't make you immune to attach or similar abilities.
This is what it do:
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web. (1)All combat maneuver checks made to grapple the target automatically fail. (2)The subject automatically succeeds on any combat maneuver checks and Escape Artist checks made to escape a grapple or a pin.[b](1) will not protect you against the attach ability at it [b]don't require a combat maneuver checks.
(2) will allow you to free yourself from 1 stirge at the expense of 1 standard action. Again, not very useful against multiple stirges.
You are overlooking the first part of the spell. You are immune to effects which impede your movement. Attach imposes the grappled condition which certainly impedes movement. I wouldnt allow a stirge to attach to someone with FoM up. The very first sentence is:
This spell enables you or a creature you touch to move and attack normally for the duration of the spellThe latter part specifically addresses certain comabt manouver checks but doesnt invalidate the first.
And the first part doesn't apply, since the attach applies the grappled condition only to the stirge, not its target. The attached stirge doesn't impede the target's movement in any way, other than not being able to take 10 for things like acrobatics or climb checks.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Also doesnt SNA have a 1 round casting time? By the time they arrive the whole place should probably be covered in Cloudkill/Stinking Cloud which will pretty much disable or outright kill the Stirges with their +2 (or 4 with augment) Fortitude save and prevent them from seeing Krune in any event.
Or alternatively just disrupt the Druid while casting. I dont think there is an archetype that will let you summon stirges as a standard action.
The only way I could think to summon stirges as a standard would be to be a First-Worlder Summoner, using the variant summon monster ability.
Or I guess you could dip a level of wizard for Acadame Graduate, and then the rest into druid.. but that just seems tedious.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, it just makes sense to me. The stirge stabs its proboscis (a natural weapon of the piercing variety)Okay, how did you come to the conclusion that its proboscis is a natural weapon in the first place?
Okay, I just have to share that googling: proboscis "natural weapon"
turns up some pretty interesting results.