Okay, so an interesting situation came up during our last session. The party is currently exploring some tunnels and happened upon a Gelatinous Cube. The party fighter has Shall Not Pass and wanted to use it on the Cube, as it tried to slither over and engulf him and another party member.
This led to a discussion about whether it would work on such an amorphous creature, which could just "flow/slither/blob" around the stopping attack since it fills up the entire hallway?
We came up with a very situational solution in the given instance, giving the fighter his AoO and, because of the feat, a reflex save to avoid being engulfed (which he wouldn't have received if he had used a normal AoO).
Any other perspectives, thoughts, criticism, comments or accolades?
Was the Fighter attempting to not let the creature get by, or specifically not trying to allow the creature to engulf?
Both really. He and his fellow party member was standing next to it, having just spent a round trying to damage it. It then changed direction and started to move it's full movement over them, thus trying to engulf them. So, the figher was standing in it's way, not trying to stop its movement from e.g. the side of it.
Hum, I can't seem to find it.
You won't find it if you're just looking in the Beta. It's a feat from the extra fighter feats Jason posted in a thread a while ago - it'll also be in the final book.
Ya, I checked out the Beta first, than "duh, it's not here" I just can't seem to find the other topic. Is it in the Blog?
Did a little searching, here's the thread with all the new feats:
ANNOUNCEMENT: NEW FEATS FOR PLAYTESTING
|
Ok. Shall not pass allows you to make an special attack of opertunity against a foe that moves through your threatened square (for that reason), and if it hits, prevents the target from further movement that round.
When a Gelatinous Cube tries to Engulf, you do get an attack of opertunity, but not necessarily for it moving, so technically no, Shall Not Pass does not work work. However, if you want to say that it does, that open up a can of worms. There are two ways to rule this, from the start. It is either the movement or the Overrun attempt that causes the AoO. I'm inclined to say it is the Overrun attempt. However, it would be perfectly reasonable to let your Fighter shine, as this is not far outside the intent of the Feat.
So lets say that you allow it. Here is the problem. Okay, the AoO interupts the action that caused it, but, in this case, it is to late. if they are within reach of each other, and you opt to take the AoO, it happens after the Gelatinous Cube leaves the threatened square, (ie is not engulfing the Fighter). Because the Fighter decided to take the AoO, he gets no save, (as per Engulf, MM1 page203). He is also now Grappled, which means he drops whatever he is wearing, immediatly has to save vs paralysis, and begins taking acid damage.
Now, however, this might be based on an incorrect assumption, on my part. If the Fighter has a reach weapon, and the G Cube and Fighter started off far enough away that the Cube had to move and allow the Fighter to get the opertunity to actualy attack, than mechanically, there is no reason to say it shouldn't. If you need a fluff reason, I'm sure there is some.
However, two other possibilites do come up, which really come down to a DM call. Shall Not Pass doesn't specify that it is any type of special effect, but Oozes are Immune to both Paralysis and Stunning. It is possible to argue that the Ooze would also be immune to this feat, depending on how (you?) the GM ruled.
However, it would be perfectly reasonable to let your Fighter shine, as this is not far outside the intent of the Feat.
This is also what we decided to incorporate, giving the fighter an AoO to damage it and, because of the feat, gave him the reflex save too.
Other than that I agree with what you wrote in the first part, technically he'd be engulfed.I wasn't the DM, so ultimately it wasn't my decision, though, and the mentioned compromise was decided upon.
|
|
I would say officially 1.) no it wouldn't work because the innitial AoO is not for movement per se, and 2.) the Fighter would be engulfed first so wouldn't get the AoO anyway, unless he had both the room and a reach weapon.
But that also may not be so fun, so unofficially, (not that I'm official:) anyway), I might allow it.
|
We came up with a very situational solution in the given instance,...
I think this is the most important point, here.
Regardless of what the final decision was, the fact that all parties were willing and able to compromise something that didn't strain anyone's disbelief, and not bog the game down, is commendable.That said, my ruling would have been that oozes ought to be immune to being stopped in their tracks.
The feats are written from a humanoid perspective, assuming they're being used against other humanoids.
Nobbling a humanoid enemy, who's trying to get past you, is feasible, since you know where to aim (they need their legs to move, right? Or clothesline them round the neck.). An ooze just sort of splurges at you from all angles.
An ooze is also mindless, doesn't feel pain, and doesn't keep its vital organs in any sensible place. So I'd say you can't use your superior training to 'hamstring' it, any more than you could confirm a critical hit. (Assuming of course that they will keep that immunity in the upcoming rules. I'd say they'd be one of the creature types that would.)
We came up with a very situational solution in the given instance,...I think this is the most important point, here.
Regardless of what the final decision was, the fact that all parties were willing and able to compromise something that didn't strain anyone's disbelief, and not bog the game down, is commendable.That said, my ruling would have been that oozes ought to be immune to being stopped in their tracks.
The feats are written from a humanoid perspective, assuming they're being used against other humanoids.
Nobbling a humanoid enemy, who's trying to get past you, is feasible, since you know where to aim (they need their legs to move, right? Or clothesline them round the neck.). An ooze just sort of splurges at you from all angles.
An ooze is also mindless, doesn't feel pain, and doesn't keep its vital organs in any sensible place. So I'd say you can't use your superior training to 'hamstring' it, any more than you could confirm a critical hit. (Assuming of course that they will keep that immunity in the upcoming rules. I'd say they'd be one of the creature types that would.)
Personally, I fully agree with you and that was also my stance on the night in question. I didn't mind the compromise implemented either, but had I been in the DM chair I would have ruled "tough noogies" and engulfed the character when he took his AoO - based on the exact observations you just gave.
Just some clarifications:
Shall Not Pass does not work beyond 'adjacent squares', and Jason confirmed this was the intent. (no Reach weapons)
AoO's happen 'just before' the triggering action occurs (just like Readied Actions), so for an opponent provoking via movement, they ARE still in their original square for purposes of the AoO.
SNP is activated
It doesn't clearly say so, but it seems that Engulf allows up to the Ooze's standard Move Distance (15' - how else to explain Engulfing "as many as it can cover"?), which is consistent with the Ooze having to DO nothing else except "mereley" move. In other words, the AoO Engulf mentions would be due to this Movement, not from something analagous to a (standard) Unarmed Attack. ...That would seem to indicate SNP would work 100%.
I don't think (barring specific info) Oozes should necessarily be Immune to something like this, as SNP doesn't mention exactly HOW this works (i.e. instead of 'hamstringing' them (which should have more lasting repurcussions than one 6 sec. round), you could smack it, causing a dissonant vibration, stopping the Engulf). Then again, if PRPG Oozes end up with an Immunity to "Movement hampering effects" (including difficult terrain), that wouldn't seem at all out of character :-)
However, SNP *is* clearly focused on stopping opponents moving PAST you ("You can stop foes that try to move past you"), not towards you, so the case of moving out of an adjacent square and into your own Engulf) is definitely not in the spirit of the Feat... All I can say is that you guys found a good compromise, and hopefully PRPG/Bestiary will handle this situation well!
|
|
I disagree. I think the AoO comes from it trying something aken to a bull rush or overrun. I originally though it was from the movement, but that would also mean that there is no AoO if it 5ft steps. It doesn't say that, though, it says that the action itself causes the AoO, (in words very similar to an 3.5 Overrun), even if it partially implies it is for movement.
Good call on the Adjacent Squares, though, I didn't notice that until you mentioned it. With this in mind, if you rule the AoO is for the action, the Feat doesn't work. If it is for the movement involved, it still may.
I do agree though, that there is no mechanical reason to think that the feat wouldn't affect a Gelatinous Cube becasue of it's body type. D&D isn't based on logic, really, so it's very possible that the Fighter "lasso's" the G. Cube up for the round. It is just an effect that happens. On the other hand, if your playing in a more realistic game, it's easy to say no, also, and that is perfectly fine. There is a reason for GMs, after all.
I was the DM on that fateful night ;-) I sort of liked the solution we came up with, though there were some things I that bothered me about it. Some of your points have helped me make a decision that I think I'll be using IF the situation ever arises again...
In the given situation we have the fighter facing the Cube and it is in fact moving through his adjacent square which would grant him the AoO.. BUT the thing is also moving through his own square, so logically, if we use such a terrible thing ;-), he would most likely be more concerned about that part than the thing also moving past him, therefore not granting him the benefit of the feat.
Should the thing, another time around, move past him but not through him, I'd probably rule that the feat did work, in some fantastic fantasy magical kind of way, just to make him shine, which this was also about.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
This is an interesting corner case, mainly does using the engulf ability count as movement, or not.
It also made me think of the case of SNP vs. swarms. I think that one is more clear, since the feat works on a creature, and the swarm is many creatures, you could stop one of the creatures in the swarm, but effectively have no impact on the swarm itself. At least that's how I'd rule it, but I can see players not liking that interpretation.
There's also the factor of whether or not the ooze was already in an adjacent square:
if it was, it's only taking a 5' step while engulfing an adjacent target (not provoking from movement)
but if it is moving 10'/15', the attempted movement from adjacent square into the target's square should itself provoke.
likewise, assuming someone else threatens the square the ooze wants to move thru to engulf the target: if the ooze is moving more than 5', it should provoke from EVERYBODY theatening it by it's greater-than-5' movement.
I would say no, you can't stop the ooze with that feat because it just doesn't make any sense at all. Sometimes, you just have to go with logical sense.
|
|
I would say no, you can't stop the ooze with that feat because it just doesn't make any sense at all. Sometimes, you just have to go with logical sense.
I see what your saying, but the feat doesn't actually say how you stop them, just that you do. For all we know, you could rip the street up like a superhero and for one round, they can't move as your holding up a sheet of gravel like a huge shield blocking them. Granted, I don't think it should work by the book (even though I might allow it), just not for that reason. If, in cases like this, you go with what makes sense so to speak, your just allowing those with the better talent for BSing to get away with things that ther players can't. It doesn't make sense that with a single punch, you could Great Cleave into 9 people, but the feat allows for that, and doesn't tell you exactly how it looks, so to speak.
|
|
There's also the factor of whether or not the ooze was already in an adjacent square:
if it was, it's only taking a 5' step while engulfing an adjacent target (not provoking from movement)but if it is moving 10'/15', the attempted movement from adjacent square into the target's square should itself provoke.
likewise, assuming someone else threatens the square the ooze wants to move thru to engulf the target: if the ooze is moving more than 5', it should provoke from EVERYBODY theatening it by it's greater-than-5' movement.
This is what I meant, earlier. Maybe I wasn't clear. I think the AoO for engulf is not from the movement becasue if you are in aposition to be make an AoO, but not actually a target of the engulf, (let say it is moving straight down, but you are right beside it), you are not entitled to an AoO for the engulf itself. You get your normal one, if it moves through your threatened area, but not for the engulf (which you ten couldn't also avoid.
If, in cases like this, you go with what makes sense so to speak, your just allowing those with the better talent for BSing to get away with things that ther players can't.
Eh, that's part of the game. If they can come up with something that makes sense then I'll allow it.
It doesn't make sense that with a single punch, you could Great Cleave into 9 people, but the feat allows for that, and doesn't tell you exactly how it looks, so to speak.
True but mainly because "cleave" was a poorly chosen word for the ability. "Follow through" would've been a better choice although less flashy. I know everything isn't going to make logical sense but when something quirky like this happens, that's pretty much where I turn for answers. Hey, at least 3/4 of the game isn't making up rules like this anymore. :)