Toddpinil's page

Sorry if that was too snide, but if a bonus like this existed, the book would say it. It doesn't. It doesn't even begin to hint that multiple limbs aid in a grapple. Therefore, they don't. Look to the already-cited marilith and xill, or girallon, or a number of other multi-limbed creatures (including the thri-kreen). If they got a bonus due to multiple arms, it would be listed. It isn't. They don't.

Saern wrote:

...simply because you have more arms doesn't mean you can use them effectively in a grapple. If anything, the space has become more cluttered, harder to find room to use a weapon in.

Unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with this (although "realistically" it doesn't make sense.)

I threw a kraken (err giant squid) at my guys, and one of them got grappled pretty handily. So that means the squid (with its 10 arms) couldn't engage in any other grapples (completely against what you would expect from 20,000 leagues under the sea, any tentacle-based anime, etc)
I kind of house-ruled that the squid was holding onto the boat with the remaining tentacles, biting at the ship (they were on a ship) with its beak, and crushing the PC at the same time.

Unfortunately, even tokens lack realism (the squid has reach - therefore any of its attacks, including its beak, can reach just about anywhere.) So you can either play "fast and loose" with the rules to make the game more cinematic, or you can 100% stick to them and end up slowing down the game to look up EXACTLY what should happen in any given situation.

Thus sayeth the reformed rules lawyer...
-Talen

OK, similar but not similar question. What if a new combatant IS aware, or at least not unaware? Two examples:

1. You hear a fight going on in the next room, but don't engage. So basically, do I have to use a readied action, or can I choose to delay? I don't like having to force a readied action, because that limits them to one action, so I'd think allowing them to roll initiative (when they hear sounds of battle) and then just delay until someone comes in is fair.

My players got a little miffed that they went into the second room, and I just immediately threw the new combatants into the initiative at that point, but I think that's fair because they are aware.

2. If the combatants in the 2nd room DON'T hear a fight going on, Initiative-wise how is that different than just the start of a new battle? The party isn't sneaking, they don't get "surprise" per se. I don't like the argument of "the party was already in battle, so they get the drop on the combatants in the second room. With that logic, party members could just claim "I'm always vigilant and assume I'm going to be in combat, therefore I always get a surprise round if the person behind the door doesn't know I'm coming."

Simply having the new combatants roll initiative could screw them on a high initiative...even if they roll high, they might just happen to be last depending where in the initiative order the triggering action was.

BUUUUUUUT

All of this begs the question "what is initiative?" In theory, if the defender knows someone is coming (but not when) they could just "always be on alert." (same argument the PC's could make.) I've even seen paizo modules (going back into 3.5) state that an aware enemy readies an action for if the PCs come into the room...but 3.5 rules state that you can't ready an action outside of combat.

If I allow defenders to prepare themselves for someone entering the room, I promise that my players will just say "OK, so we always assume something's around every corner and behind every door, so we always win on initiative and never get caught surprised." I already had one guy lose his (bleep) because I got a surprise round AND beat him on initiative and it took 3 other players looking up rules, quoting, and explaining to him for 10 minutes before he calmed down.

Erg.

UGH!

Hmm, is does make sense, what you say. Im more argumenting for that it Should be mentioned. We are talking about a monsterfeat so poorly written that its general description goes against the detailed benefit description. Leaving the flyby attack open to AoO makes it almost useless to monsters without magic or ranged attacks.

Specific, im playing a Druid with a Roc companion.
There is no reason that the Roc should make a flyby where he can only make one bite attack, if he still gets bashed by everything nearby, when he could go into normal close combat and gain full attack with bite and two talons.

I would like to hear an official ruling from paizo, and maybe that they would rewrite the feat. Its horrible flawed as it is.

I agree with you, as the rules are written, flyby does provoke AoO.
But won't you at least agree that it doesn't make much sense, when compared to rideby?

To sum up my response to your posts:

1. Both mounted and flying combat have been imperfect since D&D 3.0 was born.
2. Rideby is a little different, since it's the rider making the attack. Also, it does have one prerequisite feat (Mounted Combat) and a minor skill prereq (1 rank ride.)
3. There was a 3.5 feat "improved flyby attack" that negated AOO, but it had prereqs of dodge and mobility (so it was basically a flying spring attack.)
4. I'd say do away with improved flyby, and if the creature has dodge and mobility (with flyby attack) it becomes like spring attack.
5. Pathfinder changed flight by making "fly" into a skill. They made the "hover" feat somewhat optional, and now it can be accomplised with a skill check (for example, the druid's Roc companion would need to hover to get off its multiattack.) You could easily do the same with improved flyby attack - make it a check (DC 20?) without the feat, and make it automatic with the feat along with some minor benefit.

IMO, early in a game, a witch with the misfortune hex can cackle its way right down the overpowered path. That's without even talking about slumber. Most stuff early on (goblins, animals, vermin, etc) have crappy will saves. They also tend to have poor attack bonuses, and rely on the sheer number of attacks (e.g. 8 goblins each with a +1 attack) to get any hits in, much less serious damage. With misfortune, a 50% hit chance goes down to 25%. A 1/3 chance goes down to 1/9. As a GM, I try not to play low-level stuff with much tactics, so they wouldn't think to move 30 feet away or anything like that. I was running Rise of the Runelords a while back, and the witch just made the game no fun. Granted, they party-wiped by level 4 or 5 (bad tactics, I would say) so I can't speak for the witch at higher levels, but starting out it's a real pain in the be-hind.

Along the same lines, I have a character with a class feature that allows him to alter attitudes during combat. (ok, this is really a 3.5 cloaked dancer question.)
Anyway...if the player succeeds, does he change the opponent's attitude IN GENERAL, or only towards him? I would say the latter, but I don't want to nerf an ability.
Thanks!