How many attacks do swarms get each round?

Can a swarm just sit on someone, using three actions for three instances of damage? Had a wasp swarm nearly TPK the party doing this a while back, and was wondering if something may have been overlooked.

Yep, so nope, you hadn't.
Just like in the movies, you gotta keep running!

This of course means tight areas, like a pit, should amplify the XP.
Don't know why else somebody wouldn't move rather than take a 3rd swing, since shields & other maneuvers do little if anything.

Yeah, gotta kite swarms or they devour characters.

Don't know why else somebody wouldn't move rather than take a 3rd swing, since shields & other maneuvers do little if anything.

Well, in our case, the wasp swarm had 40 foot speed and a nasty poison rider. The characters would spend an action getting away, then two actions to attack, cast a spell, or heal. Then the swarm would move and force two instances of damage and poison. It was positively devastating. Damn thing even got a crit success on its save against burning hands, taking no damage. Freaked everyone out.

Swarms are no less nasty now than they were in 1st ed. They can still give entire parties nightmares for years because of this.

Castilliano wrote:

Don't know why else somebody wouldn't move rather than take a 3rd swing, since shields & other maneuvers do little if anything.

Well, in our case, the wasp swarm had 40 foot speed and a nasty poison rider. The characters would spend an action getting away, then two actions to attack, cast a spell, or heal. Then the swarm would move and force two instances of damage and poison. It was positively devastating. Damn thing even got a crit success on its save against burning hands, taking no damage. Freaked everyone out.

Stacking poison...yep, that's pretty rough before Master Fortitude kicks in. Hopefully they split up?

Stacking poison...yep, that's pretty rough before Master Fortitude kicks in. Hopefully they split up?

They split so far up that some were off the battle map. The only reason they survived was because the wasps wouldn't fly farther than 60 feet from their nest.

One thing to remember is they're often mindless, so if the toughest PC stayed (perhaps within 30' of a Heal-caster), the swarm would (one would think) remain in place to attack the obvious agitator (seeing as they wouldn't think in term of "enemies").

Of course, hindsight tactics are always superior. :)

Yeah, it pretty much went after the closest moving target each round, though it did chase the party wizard for a bit after that burning hands fiasco.

Well I can tell you that I most CERTAINLY didn't die a horrible, horrible death to a Hive Larva Swarm... nope, absolutely not!

Can a swarm just sit on someone, using three actions for three instances of damage? Had a wasp swarm nearly TPK the party doing this a while back, and was wondering if something may have been overlooked.

Yes, exactly like a goblin next to you can stab you three times.

Having no interaction with MAP does make swarms not having a limit somewhat more significant than the goblin being able to Strike 3 times. It's definitely worth keeping in mind when setting up to run swarms against a party, especially a low level one.

Nothing ambiguous about the swarm being able to do this, though.

Just because you can play a swarm as deadly as possible doesn’t mean as GM you have to.

Having no interaction with MAP does make swarms not having a limit somewhat more significant than the goblin being able to Strike 3 times. It's definitely worth keeping in mind when setting up to run swarms against a party, especially a low level one.

Nothing ambiguous about the swarm being able to do this, though.

Looking into this myself also. I don't see anything in the Swarm trait that would make it not use M.A.P. It doesn't interact with M.A.P because the attack that the swarm uses isn't actually an attack, yes?

For example, the Wasp Swarm doesn't actually have a normal strike. It only has the 'Swarming Stings' action, which technically isn't a strike attack, nor does it have the 'attack' trait.

On the other hand, a Giant Wasp has the 'melee (one action): stinger' line, which is a normal strike, and so uses M.A.P as normal for strikes.

Yes?

Right. I'm not talking about some special rule in the trait, just that the main offensive actions swarms use tends to be something that doesn't involve attack rolls.

Awesome. Just making sure I am reading that right.

Because the difference between a listed attack and an ability that causes damage is rather subtle. I could easily see people thinking that the Swarming Stings action should have M.A.P applied somehow. Wondering if there is some misprint that they are missing and just pulling an attack roll modifier from the enemy build rules. Things like that.

3 action harm sounds like what to do about swarms.

Castilliano wrote:

Don't know why else somebody wouldn't move rather than take a 3rd swing, since shields & other maneuvers do little if anything.

Well, in our case, the wasp swarm had 40 foot speed and a nasty poison rider.

If the party spreads out far enough, problem solved: you just have to run faster than the slowest party member. Slathering them with honey can help attract them on the correct person. ;)

Slathering them with honey can help

Or Grease

Just because you can play a swarm as deadly as possible doesn’t mean as GM you have to.

Absolutely.

But first the GM needs to know what the rules are.

Not having the swarm attack three times because you don't think the rules allow it is different (and worse) than not having the swarm attack three times because you make an informed and deliberate GM decision to create the most fun experience for your players.

Looking into this myself also. I don't see anything in the Swarm trait that would make it not use M.A.P. It doesn't interact with M.A.P because the attack that the swarm uses isn't actually an attack, yes?

Exactly correct.

A newbie GM might miss this because it never states outright that MAP does not increase.

For instance, the Barbarian feat Whirlwind Strike (and many others) say "Each attack counts toward your multiple attack penalty, but do not increase your penalty until you have made all your attacks."

So GMs naturally look for language like this and when they don't find it, they assume three attacks are fine (because of the declining lethality).

--

But the rulebook don't say this and can't say this because attacks aren't involved, and because Paizo can't very well fill the book with a lot of words discussing what ISN'T happening.

In a Beginner's Box type of product, however, it would be entirely reasonable to have a warning message "remember that swarms can cause damage three times, each attempt just as deadly as the first one, because they aren't attacks, they trigger saves, and so MAP isn't involved".

Just because you're not able to outrun the swarm doesn't mean you shouldn't run. I mean, if you're not expecting great value from your third action (MAP, spells cost 2 actions..) then spending the third action moving is the obvious thing to do, because it means the swarm can attack you 33% less.

Looking at it from a MAP lens: normal monsters, their third attack is the weakest one, and backing off means they lose their weakest attack. With swarms, forcing them to chase you means they lose one of their strongest attacks.

Also feel free to chide any party members that end movement adjacent to each other. No need to give the swarm more than one target at a time.

The challenge of the wasp swarm in particular is that, as a level +2 enemy, it’s damage is enough to drop players with 2 actions. It’s poison is a seriously high DC causing on going damage, and if a party member returns to a dying PC to try to help them in any way, there is a strong possibility the swarm kills both of them.

Not being the slowest might prevent you from getting dropped first, but it’s movement is double some characters. A three action harm spell or 2 action burning hands spell, cast at first level is very unlikely to kill the swarm and then you have a caster, possibly your party healer, dropping next round.

Ironically, the alchemist is probably the best character for handling higher level swarms, since they can throw a bomb as one action and still move twice/ throw three bombs and still possibly connect with splash damage each time.

Not being the slowest might prevent you from getting dropped first, but it’s movement is double some characters.

Wasp swarms, bane of Dwarven company picnics since time immemorial.

Did I get the encounter design right?

A) a difficult or possibly deadly swarm

B) it wouldn’t attack anyone who moved away 60 feet From the nest

Even a dwarf moves 60 feet in 3 actions. So as long as you run you are fine as long as you stay alive in round 1 / win initiative and use your actions to get the hell out of there.

Off course I have seen groups act very different and then it can become deadly fast.

Did I get the encounter design right?

A) a difficult or possibly deadly swarm

B) it wouldn’t attack anyone who moved away 60 feet From the nest

Even a dwarf moves 60 feet in 3 actions. So as long as you run you are fine as long as you stay alive in round 1 / win initiative and use your actions to get the hell out of there.

Off course I have seen groups act very different and then it can become deadly fast.

It gets increasingly complex when running away means your friends die, and staying to help them means a not insignificant chance that everyone dies.

In the end the party survived by sneaking about. While one character was getting torn up, another was sneaking around a building to destroy the nest. When the immediate threat appeared to be dealt with, the wasps returned to their nest. The conscious party members would then sneak around from the cover of the building and pull their comrades away for healing.

They never did a single point of damage to it. Just destroyed the nest then fled.

I ruled that with no more threats and no more nest the swarm left to find a safer place to build a new nest.

Pyrrhic victory with no damage to the swarm.

It also isn't necessarily obvious that an enemy won't pursue, or how far it will.

It also isn't necessarily obvious that an enemy won't pursue, or how far it will.

At least this issue is pretty clearly not part of the rules.

Whether you always have monsters pursue fleeing heroes, or never, or anything between, you're still running the game according to the rules.

(Many groups HATE it when fleeing monsters get away and create fast characters for the express purpose of being able to catch anyone. But I'd wager far fewer groups like it when the monsters do the same to them...)

Many groups HATE it when fleeing monsters get away and create fast characters for the express purpose of being able to catch anyone. But I'd wager far fewer groups like it when the monsters do the same to them...

I was recently chastised by my fellow players for chasing a monster after we got the upper hand in a fight. It was flying away, the GM asked if we wanted to continue the encounter, and I said "yes, we don't need it returning later with friends while our characters are sleeping and vulnerable." So I gave chase to the faster creature hoping to drop it with a couple more rounds of magic missile before it got out of my spell range. Seemed a perfectly logical course of action to me. We weren't even terribly beat up or anything.

Seems it was perfectly logical to the other players that I would drag us into another encounter, which is what happened. A hundred feet away the monster found two more allies and they mounted a counter offensive. The GM called it for the night on that cliff hanger and, much to my surprise, the others laid into me for my actions. I was blindsided and bewildered, and am now second guessing everything I do.

I wonder if it's because of the difficulty level of 2e that players are wound up so tight that they believe any encounter that doesn't begin with the PCs topped off with HP and spells could spell disaster for the party.

Heck, one of my parties had two characters with Continual Recovery, a third with Battle Medicine, and two more with magical healing.

It also isn't necessarily obvious that an enemy won't pursue, or how far it will.

In my opinion, this is the kind of information a Recall Knowledge check should give.

I wonder if it's because of the difficulty level of 2e that players are wound up so tight that they believe any encounter that doesn't begin with the PCs topped off with HP and spells could spell disaster for the party.

I TPKed a party on such a chase. They triggered a second encounter with a bit of extras from the first one and no rest inbetween => 5 kills.

Well, but even if you didn't chase it, wouldn't it find reinforcements and come back anyway?

On the topic, I remember when our group was treading in a forest and the GM told us that he was rolling for random encounters, and that they weren't guaranteed to be things we could beat.
Something very nasty assaulted us, we quickly realized it was out of our league, and we tried to escape several times only to have that thing pop up again in front of us somehow. I guess that, in the end, the GM had pity and let us get away.

Zapp wrote:

Many groups HATE it when fleeing monsters get away and create fast characters for the express purpose of being able to catch anyone. But I'd wager far fewer groups like it when the monsters do the same to them...

I was recently chastised by my fellow players for chasing a monster after we got the upper hand in a fight. It was flying away, the GM asked if we wanted to continue the encounter, and I said "yes, we don't need it returning later with friends while our characters are sleeping and vulnerable." So I gave chase to the faster creature hoping to drop it with a couple more rounds of magic missile before it got out of my spell range. Seemed a perfectly logical course of action to me. We weren't even terribly beat up or anything.

Seems it was perfectly logical to the other players that I would drag us into another encounter, which is what happened. A hundred feet away the monster found two more allies and they mounted a counter offensive. The GM called it for the night on that cliff hanger and, much to my surprise, the others laid into me for my actions. I was blindsided and bewildered, and am now second guessing everything I do.

I wonder if it's because of the difficulty level of 2e that players are wound up so tight that they believe any encounter that doesn't begin with the PCs topped off with HP and spells could spell disaster for the party.

Heck, one of my parties had two characters with Continual Recovery, a third with Battle Medicine, and two more with magical healing.

I guess I have played too much World of Warcraft to do that... :)

But anyway.

What I was thinking of was more overland encounters where the players become aggressive if I leave even the slightest opening for a critter to get away...

In dungeons distances are seldom great enough for a chase to occur. Of course I as the GM can have creatures retreat/flee, but PF2's design and encounter math is so unforgiving I try not to. In published low- or midlevel scenarios, if you combine any two encounters, you'll likely end up with a TPK.

And that's even before we add in the possibility of the heroes being at fault.

Captain Morgan wrote:

It also isn't necessarily obvious that an enemy won't pursue, or how far it will.

In my opinion, this is the kind of information a Recall Knowledge check should give.

In my opinion, this is a good example where the Recall Knowledge rules fall apart.

(When you are being chased you do not have time for Recall Knowledge actions. Not only do you reduce your speed by 1/3rds you probabably have a very poor chance of actually making the Recall Knowledge check against anything you need to flee from...)

SuperBidi wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

It also isn't necessarily obvious that an enemy won't pursue, or how far it will.

In my opinion, this is the kind of information a Recall Knowledge check should give.

In my opinion, this is a good example where the Recall Knowledge rules fall apart.

(When you are being chased you do not have time for Recall Knowledge actions. Not only do you reduce your speed by 1/3rds you probabably have a very poor chance of actually making the Recall Knowledge check against anything you need to flee from...)

this

Well, if you are waiting until you are losing the battle and are trying to make a run for it, that is probably too late to be making Recall Knowledge checks.

Once you are running, just keep running.

Recall Knowledge is for the beginning of the battle when the knowledge gained can improve your tactics and help you win the fight. And if your knowledge specialist is repeatedly failing the Recall Knowledge checks, that in itself may give you a clue to what you are up against.

I think running away is actually a good topic on which to have house rules, such as "if enough PCs run off the map and the other PCs aren't immobilized, then the party as a whole is running away, and we grab a pack of chase cards to resolve the chase".

The turn-to-turn logistics of escaping a map with a whole party and chases with everyone having fixed 20/25/30+ movement speeds just aren't really good.

If you have a sandboxy campaign where you might very well run into overmatching foes, then you also need a more robust rule for the party running away as you just told them they sometimes should.

Well, if you are waiting until you are losing the battle and are trying to make a run for it, that is probably too late to be making Recall Knowledge checks.

Once you are running, just keep running.

Recall Knowledge is for the beginning of the battle when the knowledge gained can improve your tactics and help you win the fight. And if your knowledge specialist is repeatedly failing the Recall Knowledge checks, that in itself may give you a clue to what you are up against.

I bet you you are NUCH better

Well, but even if you didn't chase it, wouldn't it find reinforcements and come back anyway?

If the monster runs away, I'm not sure it wants to come back just because he found friends. Also, while the monster runs away, the PCs can also move away from the dangerous area. In general, once every one runs away in opposite direction, I call it a day. Now, if my players are stupid and decide to heal in the room the monster just left... well, too bad for them.

In dungeons distances are seldom great enough for a chase to occur. Of course I as the GM can have creatures retreat/flee, but PF2's design and encounter math is so unforgiving I try not to. In published low- or midlevel scenarios, if you combine any two encounters, you'll likely end up with a TPK.

I had to combine 4 encounters to finally TPK the party (and with chance they could have gotten away). You can combine encounters quite easily as long as there's a few rounds between each triggered encounter. 1 for a Low/Trivial encounter, 2 for a Moderate, 3 for a Severe. As long as you respect that, your party can handle the enemies as fast as they come.

I meant to say

You're much better spending your actions just attacking the monster, finding out about any immunities and special abilities the hard way, than wasting your actions on Recall Knowledge.

In combat, that is, where the action cost is an actual cost.

If your GM allows you to gain recall knowledge actions outside combat, the entire framework is just an maddeningly complicated way of saying "here's what you know".

But everything suggests Paizo intends for the acton cost to be an actual cost. Why otherwise design spells and classes that improve your RK action economy?

So the core problem persists: without those improvements Recall Knowledge sucks abysmally. And you can't have a game where only specialists can reliably learn things about monsters.

So: Recall Knowledge is entirely unworkable and if you disagree I bet you're running the rules in a much more liberal way than what the rules actually say.

Congrats if you do - I do too. But it doesn't change the basic fact the framework is FUBAR on arrival.

You can combine encounters quite easily as long as there's a few rounds between each triggered encounter. 1 for a Low/Trivial encounter, 2 for a Moderate, 3 for a Severe. As long as you respect that, your party can handle the enemies as fast as they come.

Shame the gamemaster advice and encounter handling guidelines doesn't say anything about this...

I mean, you're not wrong. Just that the CRB and the GMG are so obviously written by someone still in a PF1 mindset, rending the actual PF2-relevant advice mostly useless.

For beginners the absolute first GM advice MUST be "never smush your encounters together".

Again, that doesn't mean you're wrong. Just that you're very experienced with the intricacies of PF2 encounter balancing.

You absolutely cannot handle PF2 adventures the carefree way you can in PF1 or 5E or, I dunno, Tunnels & Trolls?, is all I'm saying. A GM that does not realize fights are balanced on a razor's edge in PF2 is just moments from disaster.

I think running away is actually a good topic on which to have house rules, such as "if enough PCs run off the map and the other PCs aren't immobilized, then the party as a whole is running away, and we grab a pack of chase cards to resolve the chase".

The turn-to-turn logistics of escaping a map with a whole party and chases with everyone having fixed 20/25/30+ movement speeds just aren't really good.

If you have a sandboxy campaign where you might very well run into overmatching foes, then you also need a more robust rule for the party running away as you just told them they sometimes should.

My "house rule" (quotes because I think it might technically be RAW) for the situation is that an Encounter is the type of Encounter the players are trying to have it be.

So if they are trying to engage in combat with the combat mechanics, we use the combat mechanics. But as soon as they say "let's bail" or the like, it's not combat - it's a chase.

I make that clear line of separation because a) it's what impression I was given how things worked by the rules way back when I first started RPGs and it was called "pursuit and evasion", and b) I have a player that always plays a dwarf if dwarf is one of the valid options for a game, and he's so rule-minded that until I told him "as soon as you say you're running away, it's a chase, not combat" he believed that it was literally impossible to ever run away from anything because his Speed was lower than just about all other creatures, so I noticed the importance of making sure people know that even though your Speed will affect your positioning during a combat or stealth type of encounter... it's not the deciding factor of a chase encounter (whether you are chased chasing).