| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Reading over this monster, especially the Ecology section, it seems apparent that, swallow aside, it is intended to be able to lift up and hold a PC whilst defending itself from the rest of the party. Yet as many rules threads have borne out, this is impossible--maintaining the grapple is a standard action, meaning that the tree cannot otherwise attack without using the ridiculous "let go and full attack again" behavior.
So, rules known, how do you fellow GMs handle such a situation when the RAW seems to contradict the intent and flavor of the creature?
It's not meant to defend itself physically.
That's what this ability is meant to be for:
"Hallucinatory Spores (Ex) Once per day as a standard action, a hangman tree can release a cloud of spores in a 50-foot-radius spread. Creatures in the area must make a DC 20 Will save or believe the hangman tree to be a perfectly ordinary tree—or at worst, a treant or some other friendly tree-like creature. An affected creature becomes passive for 2d6 minutes and refuses to attack the hangman tree during this time. An affected creature can attempt a new Will save each round that the tree attacks an ally—if a hallucinating creature is attacked by the tree, it gains a +4 bonus on its Will save to see through the hallucination. This is a mind-affecting compulsion effect. The save DC is Constitution-based."
It's meant to incapacitate the whole party, strangle one shmuck to death (or eat him), and then grab another.
Obviously this isn't a done deal...which is a good thing. It's not meant to be a guaranteed TPK or even single target killer.
It's not meant to defend itself physically.
That's what this ability is meant to be for:
"Hallucinatory Spores (Ex) Once per day as a standard action, a hangman tree can release a cloud of spores in a 50-foot-radius spread. Creatures in the area must make a DC 20 Will save or believe the hangman tree to be a perfectly ordinary tree—or at worst, a treant or some other friendly tree-like creature. An affected creature becomes passive for 2d6 minutes and refuses to attack the hangman tree during this time. An affected creature can attempt a new Will save each round that the tree attacks an ally—if a hallucinating creature is attacked by the tree, it gains a +4 bonus on its Will save to see through the hallucination. This is a mind-affecting compulsion effect. The save DC is Constitution-based."
It's meant to incapacitate the whole party, strangle one shmuck to death (or eat him), and then grab another.
Obviously this isn't a done deal...which is a good thing. It's not meant to be a guaranteed TPK or even single target killer.
Yeah, and as someone who has run it, there is nothing more satisfying than when the person who is being dragged by the tree still thinks that the Hangman tree is just a friendly treeant giving them a hug because they keep failing their will saves.
It's comedy gold.
It's this part that leads me to what I believe is the intent:
The tree generally only swallows one foe whole at a time, letting its other captured victims dangle and ripen until it is ready to feed on them.
The tree is incapable under RAW of having multiple captured victims dangling at once. Dead victims, perhaps, but not captured.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's this part that leads me to what I believe is the intent:
The tree generally only swallows one foe whole at a time, letting its other captured victims dangle and ripen until it is ready to feed on them.The tree is incapable under RAW of having multiple captured victims dangling at once. Dead victims, perhaps, but not captured.
That's why you have a Hangman Forest. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's this part that leads me to what I believe is the intent:
The tree generally only swallows one foe whole at a time, letting its other captured victims dangle and ripen until it is ready to feed on them.The tree is incapable under RAW of having multiple captured victims dangling at once. Dead victims, perhaps, but not captured.
It could conceivably incapacitate and bind someone, then hang them before moving onto its next victim.
I'll agree, though, that the rules don't handle the iconic monster that can grip multiple enemies at a time, or hold one foe while attacking others.
The kraken, probably the most recognizable example of this, cannot hold aloft 2 or 3 people while it's destroying a ship. This is a significant failure on the part of the rules to simulate well known myths and monsters.
What if you have all the Kraken's tentacles count as separate monsters. Then, when you "kill" a tentacle, you cut it off, but the beast itself still remains?
I think this line is what's confusing about the tree:
When a hangman tree grapples a foe with its vines, the tree does not gain the grappled condition.
It doesn't really explain the OP's issue, but I think it's possible that the tree's author thought this would allow the tree to use its remaining vines to attack additional creatures - what Vamptastic said, basically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about the idea of the tree grappling with it's vines and then using them to tie up the victim? After the tree grapples and pins the foe first, of course.
Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check.
Replace Rope with Vines, and I think we have a winner.
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
I think this line is what's confusing about the tree:
When a hangman tree grapples a foe with its vines, the tree does not gain the grappled condition.It doesn't really explain the OP's issue, but I think it's possible that the tree's author thought this would allow the tree to use its remaining vines to attack additional creatures - what Vamptastic said, basically.
That is the impression I had as well. What's puzzling is that this seems to be the case for the author of many of the aforementioned iconic grappling monsters as well.
Has anyone tried playing it that way--that a creature that doesn't get the grappled condition while grappling can maintain the grapple with a separate action economy and still use its normal actions with its remaining limbs? I'm not sure how (or whether) that should affect CR. It'd certainly make for a more memorable encounter.
Mainly, I'm interested in whether others have played differently from RAW and how that went for them.
Thanks for the replies!
What about the idea of the tree grappling with it's vines and then using them to tie up the victim? After the tree grapples and pins the foe first, of course.
Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check.
Replace Rope with Vines, and I think we have a winner.
Very Respectfully,
--Bacon
Interesting idea!
My way of playing it is that
A) A grapple check triggered by the 'grab' special ability doesn't stop a full attack in progress (but you can't drop one target in between attacks in a full attack sequence to pile on constrict damage, either), and
B) Creatures logistically capable of maintaining multiple characters can maintain all grapples they have established with the same standard action--one check which is then compared to each CMD to see if it keeps its hold.