Imagine you and your party are on a sailing vessel out in the middle of the ocean, when you and your ship are suddenly attacked by a giant squid.
The squid stays fully submerged underwater (gaining total cover from the sailors on the ship) except for its 30 foot reach tentacles (which effectively cover most of the ship's top deck). You cannot attack the monster's body or target it with spells due to it being fully submerged (and likely directly underneath your ship) and you can hardly move about the ship without provoking from the tentacles, so you prepare an action to attack one of the tentacles when it comes at you on the beast's turn. How would you feel if your GM said you couldn't attack the monster or its tentacles in this situation?
If it's your turn the creature isn't near enough to attack. If it's not your turn, prepared actions do you no good (since by the rules you can't attack creatures with reach if they are not within your reach, even with a prepared action).
You have two options: Jump in the water and most assuredly be killed by the beast since it is in all likelihood clearly superior to you in the water, or waste a precious high-level feat slot on Strike Back to gain an ability everyone should already have had by default.
This is mostly a rant about how I hate that you can't prepare an action to STAY ALIVE (since attacking the claws/jaws/tentacles of a monster as it attacks you is a fantasy staple, and disallowing it as a natural part of the prepare an action rules is absurd--that's why they exist!), but please feel free to find a way to kill the squid in the above scenario for fun. Assume you are level 9 (and as such can't have Strike Back yet anyways) and are NOT optimized for underwater combat.
Can you summon an underwater creature to draw it away from the ship? Freedom of movement then dive in? Rope trick?
|
First of all, I would agree with a DM that rules out attacking the tentacles EVEN WITH A READY ACTION. To be able to do this within the rules, you need to have Strike Back which is only accessible for creatures/characters with BAB +11 (i.e. no small requirement)
Second, if your giant squid takes full cover from the ship, it can't attack what's on the upper deck. Period. All it can do in this situation is damage the ship.
To be able to attack sailors, it needs to poke its face above the ship's railing SO AS TO BE ABLE TO TARGET CREATURES ON THE UPPER DECK. Sure, it can be 30 feet away from the railing, but if it wants access to the full upper deck (about "20 wide), and if it wants to target creatures towards the bow and the stern (not just those right against it) then it needs to be right against the railing. Being a ravenous creature with animal intelligence, it's probably gonna put its mouth as close as the edge of the food plate (i.e. railing) as possible. :)
Creative Director
|
It's important to keep in mind the fact that the Pathfinder combat system is abstract, and it's meant to model a normal battle in a way that's fun to play without being super complicated. When you start to build battles that are far removed from the typical "everyone's on more or less equal ground on land" scenario that the vast majority of fights function under, the rules start to creak and strain.
When this happens, it's the GM's job (or the adventure writer's job) to present alternative rules.
In the upcoming adventure "From Shore to Sea,"...
In the case of the squid attacking the ship above, and assuming the PCs can't jump into the water to fight it (which they probably SHOULD be able to do, considering a giant squid is a CR 9 monster and at that point, going into the water should be something the PCs can handle in a number of ways), I would handle it in the same way I mention it in the spoiler.
Another way to handle a fight like this is outlined in Pathfinder #10...
Fights like these where things are very different than simply facing a big monster can be REALLY fun and memorable, especially if you present them in a creative and interesting way in which the battle plays out with different rules than normal.
Another option would be to handle the fight like a "cut scene" where you describe what's going on and give the PCs some attack rolls or skill checks at key points in the narrative for them to affect the outcome of the scene. We use this cut scene style of encounter presentation several times during the Curse of the Crimson Throne Adventure Path in encounters that, had we presented them in the standard combat encounter format, would have been paralytically complicated or would have taken up several pages in stat blocks and maps and stuff.
My point is that in these cases, you shouldn't get hung up on the way fights work when you want a fight that doesn't work well with the rules. Rebuild and adapt and make it something new! The above two sources present two methods to handle a situation similar to the one you mention. I'm sure the creative folks on these boards can come up with PLENTY more. But the solution is NOT to get aggravated that the standard combat rules don't work well for such an unusual situation. Look at it instead as a chance to present a memorable and unusual encounter where the PCs get to do something different than they do in a normal fight.
First of all, I would agree with a DM that rules out attacking the tentacles EVEN WITH A READY ACTION. To be able to do this within the rules, you need to have Strike Back which is only accessible for creatures/characters with BAB +11 (i.e. no small requirement)
In v3.5, you COULD prepare an action to attack a creature as it reached into your square to attack you (as I've said, it is a staple of fantasy to be able to do so, and is partially what the prepared action rules were designed for). The only thing that keeps you from doing this in Pathfinder is that horrible feat. Feats are supposed to expand your options, not limit them.
Second, if your giant squid takes full cover from the ship, it can't attack what's on the upper deck. Period. All it can do in this situation is damage the ship.
To be able to attack sailors, it needs to poke its face above the ship's railing SO AS TO BE ABLE TO TARGET CREATURES ON THE UPPER DECK. Sure, it can be 30 feet away from the railing, but if it wants access to the full upper deck (about "20 wide), and if it wants to target creatures towards the bow and the stern (not just those right against it) then it needs to be right against the railing.
Assuming the beast is alongside the ship rather than directly underneath it, it could easily look up through the water to target people near the railing--and since it is likely "attacking the ship" as you say, there will most likely be lots of "food" at the edge of the railing trying to stop it from sinking the vessel and dooming them all.
*lists awesome ideas*
Thank you for the awesome ideas James! Nevertheless, it still bothers me that you can't really slash a T-rex's snout as it leans in to swallow you whole--you kinda have to spring in and attack the body (if it doesn't eat you first!).
First of all, I would agree with a DM that rules out attacking the tentacles EVEN WITH A READY ACTION. To be able to do this within the rules, you need to have Strike Back which is only accessible for creatures/characters with BAB +11 (i.e. no small requirement)In v3.5, you COULD prepare an action to attack a creature as it reached into your square to attack you (as I've said, it is a staple of fantasy to be able to do so, and is partially what the prepared action rules were designed for). The only thing that keeps you from doing this in Pathfinder is that horrible feat. Feats are supposed to expand your options, not limit them.
Second, if your giant squid takes full cover from the ship, it can't attack what's on the upper deck. Period. All it can do in this situation is damage the ship.
To be able to attack sailors, it needs to poke its face above the ship's railing SO AS TO BE ABLE TO TARGET CREATURES ON THE UPPER DECK. Sure, it can be 30 feet away from the railing, but if it wants access to the full upper deck (about "20 wide), and if it wants to target creatures towards the bow and the stern (not just those right against it) then it needs to be right against the railing.
Assuming the beast is alongside the ship rather than directly underneath it, it could easily look up through the water to target people near the railing--and since it is likely "attacking the ship" as you say, there will most likely be lots of "food" at the edge of the railing trying to stop it from sinking the vessel and dooming them all.
*lists awesome ideas*Thank you for the awesome ideas James! Nevertheless, it still bothers me that you can't really slash a T-rex's snout as it leans in to swallow you whole--you kinda have to spring in and attack the body (if it doesn't eat you first!).
First off no I don't believe you could ready an action to strike at arms/legs of a creature. Hence the need for a strike back feat. Can you show me where this is possible in the 3.5 SRD? I had tried this multiple times and been denied, unable to find rules to support what I felt was fair.
Also, if the beast is along the ship not directly underneath then...just target it. If it has line of sight to the passengers then the passengers have line of sight to it and can hit it with javelins, bows, arrows, thrown knives, spells, etc.
It's important to keep in mind the fact that the Pathfinder combat system is abstract, and it's meant to model a normal battle in a way that's fun to play without being super complicated. When you start to build battles that are far removed from the typical "everyone's on more or less equal ground on land" scenario that the vast majority of fights function under, the rules start to creak and strain.
When this happens, it's the GM's job (or the adventure writer's job) to present alternative rules.
I would agree with this, and the later post about setting up each tentacle as a monster. The rules are there as a guide line, not a straight jacket. As long as the players know and abide by any rule modifications, there is no reason not to.
If your GM doesn't let you attack the tentacle and seems to be preventing the battle from a conventional standpoint, chances are he's got something else he's expecting/hoping you to try. Maybe there's barrels of gunpowder on the deck that you can jerry-rig into depth-charges. It reminds me of an episode of American dad that was about a MMORPG, "They always put in some way to win these games".
First off no I don't believe you could ready an action to strike at arms/legs of a creature. Hence the need for a strike back feat. Can you show me where this is possible in the 3.5 SRD? I had tried this multiple times and been denied, unable to find rules to support what I felt was fair.
It wasn't until I switched over to Pathfinder that it was even an issue. I've played with over a dozen v3.5 groups that allowed preparing actions to attack a creature that was taking a swing at you (even if it had reach).
Furthermore, I read a number of threads on the WotC's official v3.5 forums (when they still existed) in which other groups played the same way. I also had D&D developers support the idea. A few people in this thread even agree with me, so I know I am not alone in this line of thinking.
I can't quote a specific rule for you because (in v3.5 at least) it is already assumed that you can do it. It's kind of like how, when your character dies, it is assumed that you can no longer take actions (even though the rules don't specifically stat that).
If the creature is close enough to hit you, then you are logically close enough to hit it (at least at the time that it is hitting you). If you can't prepare an action to do that, then there is little else prepared actions can do for you (help get you around cover in a firefight perhaps).
I acknowledge that Pathfinder runs it differently, I just think that the way it is handled hurts the game (if only slightly).
Also, if the beast is along the ship not directly underneath then...just target it. If it has line of sight to the passengers then the passengers have line of sight to it and can hit it with javelins, bows, arrows, thrown knives, spells, etc.
It's not a matter of line of sight. The creature can see the sailors (at least the ones at the edge) and the sailors can clearly see the monster.
The problem is cover. The water line alone provides the beast with total cover from attacks from above the water line. The beast's space is entirely under submerged water, but its reach is not. Therefore it is immune to most forms of attack while retaining the ability to bring harm to the sailors.
The rules are there as a guide line, not a straight jacket. As long as the players know and abide by any rule modifications, there is no reason not to.
If your GM doesn't let you attack the tentacle and seems to be preventing the battle from a conventional standpoint, chances are he's got something else he's expecting/hoping you to try. Maybe there's barrels of gunpowder on the deck that you can jerry-rig into depth-charges. It reminds me of an episode of American dad that was about a MMORPG, "They always put in some way to win these games".
This is good advice (with a fun sounding idea for handling the scenario as well).
I'll admit my squid scenario is a little contrived, but the problem exists even in simpler encounters. Take the warrior facing down the T-rex I mentioned earlier. Why shouldn't he, by the intent of the rules, be allowed to smite the dinosaur's snout as it leans in to bite him? Both the intent and the letter of the Pathfander rules expressly forbid such a simple and logical action, however. That fact has just never sat well with me and will likely be house-ruled in my games (which is a big deal as I prefer not to use house rules if able).
It's not a matter of line of sight. The creature can see the sailors (at least the ones at the edge) and the sailors can clearly see the monster.
The problem is cover. The water line alone provides the beast with total cover from attacks from above the water line. The beast's space is entirely under submerged water, but its reach is not. Therefore it is immune to most forms of attack while retaining the ability to bring harm to the sailors.
Ahh, but it is a matter of line of sight. Not for the sailors, but for the the creature. If the creature's body is fully submerged, granting total cover, how can it see the sailors properly to target? The tentacles could grope around looking for something to grab, but it could not be directed attacks. Random squares could be attacked, but if a sailor happened to be in an affected square, there would still be a 50% miss chance.
Now, if it is right at or just below the surface, then it doesn't have total cover. That would be Improved Cover. Which gives nasty enough penalties, but at least you can target it.
Personally, I think something this big shouldn't even benefit from that. Sitting just below the surface of the water and reaching up like that I'd give the creature Concealment (20% miss chance), and leave it at that.
Ahh, but it is a matter of line of sight. Not for the sailors, but for the the creature. If the creature's body is fully submerged, granting total cover, how can it see the sailors properly to target?
A thick wall of clear glass or crystal, or even a wall of force, does not block line of sight, yet still grants total cover to all those behind it. This is the same scenario here, except instead of glass, it is a water line, which the rules clearly state grant total cover if the creature is fully submerged.
Now, if it is right at or just below the surface, then it doesn't have total cover. That would be Improved Cover. Which gives nasty enough penalties, but at least you can target it.
Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover. Those beneath the surface of water have total cover. I suspect you are confusing the two rules.
Now, if it is right at or just below the surface, then it doesn't have total cover. That would be Improved Cover. Which gives nasty enough penalties, but at least you can target it.
Though a GM may well choose to rule differently, an aquatic creature with even an inch of water between him and his attacker still has total cover from the attacker provided that, that one inch of water fully submerges the creature, as per the rules.
Personally, I think something this big shouldn't even benefit from that. Sitting just below the surface of the water and reaching up like that I'd give the creature Concealment (20% miss chance), and leave it at that.
A perfectly fine and fair house rule.
EDIT: Earlier I believe I said the squid could not be targeted by spells due to total cover. Having looked at the rules a second time, I now realize that this is incorrect. Only spells that require attack rolls are effected by the cover provided by the water. Therefore, many target spells are still perfectly valid (and as such make the above scenario much easier to handle).
The issue to me is more of a meta-game issue. Is this scenario purely hypothetical or is it an example of actual play? Assuming for argument's sake the latter, did the DM design the encounter simply as a death trap, knowing the rules had no specific method of resolution? If so: shenanigans. If the DM designed the encounter as a legitimate combat scenario, he/she would certainly have considered line-of-sight problems, readying actions, and other rules as they pertain to the PCs emerging from the fight victorious. As James Jacobs indicated, unusual situations call for unusual solutions. The scope of which, in this case, is determined by the DM and/or (but mostly and) player ingenuity.
On the other hand, if this is another attempt to show that the rules are broken, and from the OP's phrasing it is fairly obvious this is the case: you are correct, sir. Per RAW it doesn't seem that survival is likely. The GM in this case would provoke a drop in morale among his players, to say the least.
I could take issue with the notion that the fight is too far above APL, or that one could imagine literally any number of other encounters that are game-breaking/TPK-prone/etc. simply because explicit rules do not exist to deal with every conceivable scenario. However that wasn't the question. :)
Zo
|
|
Ahh, but it is a matter of line of sight. Not for the sailors, but for the the creature. If the creature's body is fully submerged, granting total cover, how can it see the sailors properly to target?A thick wall of clear glass or crystal, or even a wall of force, does not block line of sight, yet still grants total cover to all those behind it. This is the same scenario here, except instead of glass, it is a water line, which the rules clearly state grant total cover if the creature is fully submerged.
Not the same scenario at all. Enter REFRACTION. Enjoy! :)
Ahh, but it is a matter of line of sight. Not for the sailors, but for the the creature. If the creature's body is fully submerged, granting total cover, how can it see the sailors properly to target?A thick wall of clear glass or crystal, or even a wall of force, does not block line of sight, yet still grants total cover to all those behind it. This is the same scenario here, except instead of glass, it is a water line, which the rules clearly state grant total cover if the creature is fully submerged.
Now, if it is right at or just below the surface, then it doesn't have total cover. That would be Improved Cover. Which gives nasty enough penalties, but at least you can target it.Characters swimming, floating, or treading water on the surface, or wading in water at least chest deep, have improved cover. Those beneath the surface of water have total cover. I suspect you are confusing the two rules.
Nope, not confusing anything, just adjudicating for a situation that isn't well covered by existing rules.
First off, I would walk out on any DM that said that a giant squid 1 inch under the surface of the water gets the benefit of Total Cover. I love RAW, but there has to be some intelligence behind the screen.
Second, in all the cases you listed above, and all the cases I can think of, Total Cover affects both parties equally. If you can make attack rolls against something on the other side, it's not Total Cover. If the sailors cannot see the squid clearly enough to target it, the squid cannot see the sailors to target them.
You stated that the squid is likely directly below the boat. How is this not Total Cover? I can reach the top shelf of my bookcase, but I can't see what's on it. I either have to step on something to bring myself to eye level, or feel around blindly for what I'm looking for.
It wasn't until I switched over to Pathfinder that it was even an issue. I've played with over a dozen v3.5 groups that allowed preparing actions to attack a creature that was taking a swing at you (even if it had reach).
Furthermore, I read a number of threads on the WotC's official v3.5 forums (when they still existed) in which other groups played the same way. I also had D&D developers support the idea. A few people in this thread even agree with me, so I know I am not alone in this line of thinking.
I can't quote a specific rule for you because (in v3.5 at least) it is already assumed that you can do it. It's kind of like how, when your character dies, it is assumed that you can no longer take actions (even though the rules don't specifically stat that).
If the creature is close enough to hit you, then you are logically close enough to hit it (at least at the time that it is hitting you). If you can't prepare an action to do that, then there is little else prepared actions can do for you (help get you around cover in a firefight perhaps).
I acknowledge that Pathfinder runs it differently, I just think that the way it is handled hurts the game (if only slightly).
Just because it was a common houserule to allow it does not mean it is allowed under the rules. This has not changed in PF. You cannot attack a creature with a melee weapon which you do not threaten. If you are medium and are threatened by a large creature you need to move in to attack it unless you are using a reach weapon. I agree it is reasonable to do so, but those aren't the rules. If we let something silly like reason get in the way of the rules where would we be? :)
I think the irony of this situation is that it wasn't legal under 3.5 but was a common houserule or assumption so when Paizo printed PF they created a feat to let you do it. Now that there's a feat that allows it, it only makes more DMs aware that it was never legal, and the situation you describes arises.
I'm also trying to find rules that say you can attack from the Total Cover provided by the water. If you are submerged you gain Total Cover from creatures on land, this we know, but I can't find where it says the creatures on land would not have cover from the squid in this situation.
Anyway, if the people on top don't have total cover I suggest they fall to the deck as a free action to get total cover. Or go below decks. Or have a caster cast Fog Cloud or something else to give the party cover. 5-foot step and hide behind a mast. Jump in the water to fight it. Turn invisible and fly away, nuke it from orbit. Allow yourself to be grappled and hope you can get a lucky roll.
Nope, not confusing anything, just adjudicating for a situation that isn't well covered by existing rules.
Ah, my mistake.
I love RAW, but there has to be some intelligence behind the screen.
Yes, strict RAW interpretations aren't always the best basis for a good, sensible ruling. Take this example: An even stricter interpretation would require that the attackers be on LAND for the creature to benefit from water cover. A strict reading means that the sailors on the boat ignore the cover entirely as they are not standing on land, but on a boat.
If the sailors cannot see the squid clearly enough to target it, the squid cannot see the sailors to target them.
In my example, both parties can see each other equally and can even target one another (so long as no attack rolls are required).
This (that is to say, one way total cover) is one of the illogical holes in the rules I spoke of. That's why I chose the example in question (which by the way did NOT actually happen in a game), it better shows that the rules can be illogical and, as James put it, in need of "alternative rules."
You stated that the squid is likely directly below the boat. How is this not Total Cover? I can reach the top shelf of my bookcase, but I can't see what's on it. I either have to step on something to bring myself to eye level, or feel around blindly for what I'm looking for.
I also stated that he might NOT be under the boat. There are two different scenarios: one where the beats is directly underneath the ship (and as blind as you claim) and the other where he is alongside the ship (and able to target those near the railing). In both examples, the squid's entire space is fully submerged underwater.
Not the same scenario at all. Enter REFRACTION. Enjoy! :)
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/images/waveobstacle-refraction. gif
http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/image/challenge/529/905Abstract_Refractio n_green-med.jpg
That's a great argument for those posters who say GMs could/should use concealment, but not much else.
It does make one wonder, though, why the game designers chose to go with the cover rules rather than the concealment rules when it came to above/below water combat.
Just because it was a common houserule to allow it does not mean it is allowed under the rules. This has not changed in PF. You cannot attack a creature with a melee weapon which you do not threaten. If you are medium and are threatened by a large creature you need to move in to attack it unless you are using a reach weapon. I agree it is reasonable to do so, but those aren't the rules. If we let something silly like reason get in the way of the rules where would we be? :)
I think the irony of this situation is that it wasn't legal under 3.5 but was a common houserule or assumption so when Paizo printed PF they created a feat to let you do it. Now that there's a feat that allows it, it only makes more DMs aware that it was never legal, and the situation you describes arises.
v3.5 D&D game designers said it was legal by the rules as well as their intent. I'd post links for you if their posts still existed (4E and the boards changeover several months ago messed up everything). Ask around, others may well tell you the same.
I'm also trying to find rules that say you can attack from the Total Cover provided by the water. If you are submerged you gain Total Cover from creatures on land, this we know, but I can't find where it says the creatures on land would not have cover from the squid in this situation.
The total cover in my scenario does not prove to be an effective barrier for the squid because it can simply "reach over it" so to speak, just like a giant tall enough to stand over a low wall can reach over it and swing at the halflings on the other side. The haflings can't get past the wall, but the giant can. Why? Because he has significantly great reach.
Sorry I couldn't think of a better example with which to explain my reasoning.
If that doesn't do it for you, I guess you can fall back on the "intelligence behind the screen" that was mentioned earlier. It is totally illogical for the water to be a barrier to something that can reach so far past it. The total cover rule assumes you are swinging your sword or shooting arrows/magical rays into the water. Water, as dense as it is, proves to be an effective barrier against such attacks--especially when you take things like momentum and refraction into account.
Anyway, if the people on top don't have total cover I suggest they fall to the deck as a free action to get total cover. Or go below decks. Or have a caster cast Fog Cloud or something else to give the party cover. 5-foot step and hide behind a mast. Jump in the water to fight it. Turn invisible and fly away, nuke it from orbit. Allow yourself to be grappled and hope you can get a lucky roll.
Good suggestions all.
Other option is the squid is under the boat and has a few tenticles that have eyes on the end :P
My character would just jump into the ocean and tear the squid apart barehanded. But would have a better battle cry than his own name. :)
Don't forget to halve the damage and apply the -2 penalty to his unarmed attack rolls for being underwater (or else be sure to put freedom of movement on him first).
God forbid you ever have to punch something that is underwater AND has damage reduction. Having your damage halved and then getting the remainder reduced by DR may well cripple your damage output.
Imagine you and your party are on a sailing vessel out in the middle of the ocean, when you and your ship are suddenly attacked by a giant squid.
The squid stays fully submerged underwater (gaining total cover from the sailors on the ship) except for its 30 foot reach tentacles (which effectively cover most of the ship's top deck).
If it has total cover, it cannot have line of effect to the target, so it cannot make melee attacks. Pg 196:
Big Creatures and Cover: "Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you."
Total Cover: "If you don't have line of effect to your target (that is, you cannot draw a line from your square to your target's square without crossing a solid barrier), he is considered to have total cover from you. You can't make an attack against a target that has total cover."
So, while it's logical that a squid could reach around the cover to make attacks, RAW doesn't allow for it. Just as RAW doesn't allow for people to ready actions against targets with reach, unless you have the Strike Back feat.
The squid HAS to stick part of its body out of the water to attack - it must shed total cover to be able to attack its targets with melee attacks. Now I can see how you could interpret water as not being a 'solid barrier'; it isn't, but the rules treat it as one unless you have Freedom of Movement.
You cannot attack the monster's body or target it with spells due to it being fully submerged (and likely directly underneath your ship) and you can hardly move about the ship without provoking from the tentacles,
Even if the squid could make attacks on the ship, large portions of the ship will provide total cover from the squid (think about the angle of attack here), meaning that the squid cannot make attacks of opportunity to the whole deck unless it can see the whole deck. Pg 180:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack,"
Combine this with the total cover rules above. Even if you don't count the water as blocking view, the deck of the ship will block view, except perhaps for very small or low boats. Total cover = no melee attack = no attack of opportunity.
Oh, and at best the squid is going to get improved cover (+8 AC), because if it's attacking something out of the water, it's not fully submerged - that pretty clearly means 'all parts of it are underwater', which isn't true if its tentacles are flailing around the deck of a ship.
All this said, I can't help but wonder why the rules talk at length about creatures attacking submerged things when it doesn't talk about submerged thing attacking creatures on land. Nor does it really talk about aquatic creatures fighting underwater..does chart 13-7 apply to all melee underwater, or just land-based creatures underwater? The chart includes entries for 'has a swim speed'. Does this mean the squid does half damage from its bludgeoning tentacles underwater?
So, as GM, I'd say the squid has Improved Cover and be done with it. Fill it with arrows/spells and whatnot, and probably parts of the ship will still be total cover from Mr.Squid.
|
One could also ready an action to 'sunder' the attacking limbs, which would just do normal damage, obviously, since the tentacles aren't weapons, but are serving the same role as longspears in this event, as weapons that you can hit, while the body of the target remains out of reach.
There's a limit to how many corner cases the rules are going to cover (without expanding to the size of the Star Fleet Battles rules and costing many hundreds of dollars), which is why the game has GMs, to handle funky non-standard things like this.
@Helic
+1
You get a gold star!
Sometimes being a rules nazi pays dividends! If you know where to look, and look hard enough, most rules that seem unfair at first are balanced by another rule somewhere else.
|
|
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Not the same scenario at all. Enter REFRACTION. Enjoy! :)http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/images/waveobstacle-refraction. gif
http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/image/challenge/529/905Abstract_Refractio n_green-med.jpg
That's a great argument for those posters who say GMs could/should use concealment, but not much else.
It does make one wonder, though, why the game designers chose to go with the cover rules rather than the concealment rules when it came to above/below water combat.
Because water is much more heavy than wood, dirt and fleshy creatures... (i.e. provides BOTH concealment and cover, but total cover is better than concealment, so they used the best of the two)
Also, shooting in water you "may" hit a swimming creature if they're close to the surface, but ballistic testing uses water or gel-filled receptacles to stop bullets for a reason... it dissipates energy awesomely. Also, try diving 12 feet, and then try to swing anything that's not spear-like... hopeless and completely draining. Great workout though.
All this said, I can't help but wonder why the rules talk at length about creatures attacking submerged things when it doesn't talk about submerged thing attacking creatures on land.
I've wondered that myself.
First if the critter is directly under the ship then it can't see anyone and thus you can move freely without provoking.
I mentioned that further up thread.
Second it doesn't have total cover from being targeted by spells simply by being underwater.
I mentioned that too.
Third, why is the critter attacking?
Because the sahuagin that trained it are hungry for pillage! :P
|
While I agree with James' and like the idea of the GM bending the rules so they fit the situation, I have a player who doesn't appreciate such "bending". He's not quite a "rules lawyer", but close. :)
And in any case, that type of bending is pretty much verboten in Pathfinder Society games where everyone is supposed to be using the same rules all the time. (At least, that's my understanding of the PFS rules.)
First of all, I would agree with a DM that rules out attacking the tentacles EVEN WITH A READY ACTION. To be able to do this within the rules, you need to have Strike Back which is only accessible for creatures/characters with BAB +11 (i.e. no small requirement)In v3.5, you COULD prepare an action to attack a creature as it reached into your square to attack you (as I've said, it is a staple of fantasy to be able to do so, and is partially what the prepared action rules were designed for). The only thing that keeps you from doing this in Pathfinder is that horrible feat. Feats are supposed to expand your options, not limit them.
Second, if your giant squid takes full cover from the ship, it can't attack what's on the upper deck. Period. All it can do in this situation is damage the ship.
To be able to attack sailors, it needs to poke its face above the ship's railing SO AS TO BE ABLE TO TARGET CREATURES ON THE UPPER DECK. Sure, it can be 30 feet away from the railing, but if it wants access to the full upper deck (about "20 wide), and if it wants to target creatures towards the bow and the stern (not just those right against it) then it needs to be right against the railing.
Assuming the beast is alongside the ship rather than directly underneath it, it could easily look up through the water to target people near the railing--and since it is likely "attacking the ship" as you say, there will most likely be lots of "food" at the edge of the railing trying to stop it from sinking the vessel and dooming them all.
*lists awesome ideas*Thank you for the awesome ideas James! Nevertheless, it still bothers me that you can't really slash a T-rex's snout as it leans in to swallow you whole--you kinda have to spring in and attack the body (if it doesn't eat you first!).
I agree with you 100%. The Strike Back feat is an example of a badly designed feat. I would never tell a player they can't try something because they don't have a feat.
While it's true that you can't attack something you can't reach, the squid is right there, and you can reach it. The squid is not considered to be in an area the where it's main body any more than you are considered to be in the space where your torso is. A leprechaun could walk up to you and attack your toe with a dagger, and you can do the same to a storm giant.
I see two ways of looking at this situation.
1) The squid is grapple the ship. The ship is an inanimate object, so it is fairly easy to maintain the grapple. It is in the same space as the ship as per the rules of grapple. The placement of the tentacles should still be declared on the squids turn, but if you can reach a tentacle you can attack it just fine. Moving around doesn't give AoO because grappling prevents this from being done. At this point the encounter is more a race against the ship sinking than the squid actually attacking the characters.
2) The squid is attacking the characters from underwater with it's tentacles. The characters have full cover(the ship). While it is true that being unable to reach the squid means characters don't get full attack actions against the squid, they still get held actions to attack or use some other ability that requires line of sight on the tentacles when attacked.
I prefer the first situation as the second is going to have the squid missing everyone quite often due to full cover and concealment. And the players are likely to miss the quickly flying tentacles fairly often depending on the determined AC. The grappling situation can be a very colorful encounter requiring action from the whole party and crew of the boat in order to keep the boat from sinking or trying to steer the ship towards safety.
So, what's your problem with it then?
There isn't much of a problem (except for my dislike of the Strike Back feat).
At the time of writing the initial post, I thought spells could NOT target the beast. I later found that to be an error in my post and said as much.
Since you CAN target the beast with spells after all, the encounter as a whole becomes much easier.
Under bogs on page 428 it talks about attack form under water with improved cover which is what the squid has since at least part of it is above water to attack the players, it takes a -10 to its attack roll. Now you asked for a build that could fight the squid that was not built for underwater combat. I think that is not logical, if a character is on a ship and by 9th level they should have put some gold for fighting in the water if not underwater. A 9th level character would have 46,000 gold to spend on gear, so I would find it reasonable that the character would have spent at around 5% (2,300) of their gold on gear for water combat if they are going to be spending any amount of time around water. I will be using books from 3.5 since I always do anyway. List of books: Stromwreck , Magic Item Compendium, Players Handbook II, and Complete Warrior. It would only take two items to solve the problem, a Greater Crystal of Aquatic Action (3,000gp), and an Amulet of Aquatic Salvation (500gp).
To start with I will list gear I get for my characters for when I encounter water; Lesser Crystal of Aquatic Action (1,000gp) you gain a swim speed, of Aquatic Salvation (500gp) can breathe water for a few rounds.
Level BAB Class Feats
1 1 Fighter EWP (Kanata), Quick Draw, WF (Kanata)
2 1 Monk Dodge
3 2 Monk Deflect Arrow, Mobility
4 3 Fighter Extra Stunning
5 4 Duskblade Practiced Spellcaster
6 5 Exotic Weapon Master Stunning Blow
7 6 Dervish Dervish Dance 1/day, Movement Mastery, Vital Strike
8 7 Dervish Fast Movement +5
9 8 Dervish Spring Attack, Dance 2/day, Extra Stunning
Have three spells per day plus the ability to use eternal wands which only need you to be able the cast arcane spells not have them on your list and you can use them a number of times a day they do not get used up. So two eternal wand of fist of stone, expedient retreat, shield, and three eternal wands cure light (just under 5000gp) +3 Called chain shirt (1,100gp), +2 Kanata (8,000gp), Lesser Crystal of Aquatic Action (1,000gp) you gain a swim speed, of Aquatic Salvation (500gp), Lesser Crystal of Returning (1,000), Healing Belt (750), Circlet of Mages (5,000), Boots of Dex +2 (4,000), Gloves of swimming and climbing (7,250), Ring of Mystic Healing (3,500), Shiftweave (500) and that leave you with 250gp.
|
Here's the thing, the squid is under water so it has total cover...the squid is under water so YOU have total cover. Neither side can attack each other until he sticks his head out of the water...at which point both sides can get to killing each other. If the GM rules that the tentacles don't have cover and can attack you...well then you can attack the tentacles and the damage goes straight to the monster's total HPs.
1) The squid is grapple the ship. The ship is an inanimate object, so it is fairly easy to maintain the grapple. It is in the same space as the ship as per the rules of grapple.
In Pathfinder, you no longer share space due to grapple. The squid should be adjacent the ship.
Of course, if the squid is allowed to grapple the ship at all, the battle should already effectively be over. The squid should initiate the grapple 20 feet underwater and, when it succeeds the grapple check, it automatically moves the ship adjacent to it -- which submerges the ship.
If the GM rules that the tentacles don't have cover and can attack you...well then you can attack the tentacles and the damage goes straight to the monster's total HPs.
That's a houserule, and one that sets a double standard at that. As written, you can't attack a creature's limbs as they attack you from afar unless you have the Strike Back feat.
RAW, you only have total cover if you are "completely submerged".
If the squid's tentacles are above the surface of the water, the squid is not completely submerged. It gets at most improved cover.
RAW, you only have total cover if you are "completely submerged".
If the squid's tentacles are above the surface of the water, the squid is not completely submerged. It gets at most improved cover.
That rule would make sense to me provided the characters in question are leaning over the ship's rail trying to get angle shots off at the body as RAW also says they can't attack the tentacles without the right feat.
|
|
By RAW, if the squid has total cover, it can NOT attack you...nor can you attack it. If the squid has improved cover or cover, then you can attack it just fine, it gets an AC bonus. YOU also get the SAME AC bonus. If those tentacles are attacking you and have NO cover issues, then the squid by reverse rule engineering has NO cover and can be attacked with impunity. If none of these apply, your DM is in houserule territory...and a very BAD houserule territory at that.
By RAW, if the squid has total cover, it can NOT attack you...nor can you attack it. If the squid has improved cover or cover, then you can attack it just fine, it gets an AC bonus. YOU also get the SAME AC bonus. If those tentacles are attacking you and have NO cover issues, then the squid by reverse rule engineering has NO cover and can be attacked with impunity. If none of these apply, your DM is in houserule territory...and a very BAD houserule territory at that.
If you look at the #2 example of the cover diagram in the combat chapter (the rogue versus the ogre) you will see that the rogue has to contend with cover while the ogre does not. Why? Because he is a bigger creature with reach. I think the same rule would apply to a giant squid under a boat attacking the sailors.
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.
I also think that a GM could fairly rule that a creature with enough reach to wrap the ship could easily reach around his cover and ignore it similarly to how one can ignore low cover if he's closer than his target.
|
|
By RAW, if the squid has total cover, it can NOT attack you...nor can you attack it. If the squid has improved cover or cover, then you can attack it just fine, it gets an AC bonus. YOU also get the SAME AC bonus. If those tentacles are attacking you and have NO cover issues, then the squid by reverse rule engineering has NO cover and can be attacked with impunity. If none of these apply, your DM is in houserule territory...and a very BAD houserule territory at that.If you look at the #2 example of the cover diagram in the combat chapter (the rogue versus the ogre) you will see that the rogue has to contend with cover while the ogre does not. Why? Because he is a bigger creature with reach. I think the same rule would apply to a giant squid under a boat attacking the sailors.
Low Obstacles and Cover: A low obstacle (such as a wall no higher than half your height) provides cover, but only to creatures within 30 feet (6 squares) of it. The attacker can ignore the cover if he's closer to the obstacle than his target.I also think that a GM could fairly rule that a creature with enough reach to wrap the ship could easily reach around his cover and ignore it similarly to how one can ignore low cover if he's closer than his target.
1) The cover rules state that to determine cover with reach, you do it as if you are using a ranged weapon...which means by that diagram, the rogue actually DOES have cover from the ogre as the back corners go through the wall to reach the rogue. Remember that ALL corners for a ranged weapon needs to clear obstacles before there is no cover. Besides that, the reason given for no cover by the ogre has nothing to do with size but how you adjucate clear lines for reach attacks. So size isn't the issue, reach is. A fighter with a longspear uses the samerules.
2) once again houserule...and pretty much DM dickery. You seem to be defending a you can't do jack DM dickery quite fervorantly...why do I get the feeling your the DM and you pulled this BS on your players? Because as a player, this kind of BS is equal to rock falls, you die...and I would so not be defending or trying to rationalize the ruling as much as you are.
You seem to be defending a you can't do jack DM dickery quite fervorantly...why do I get the feeling your the DM and you pulled this BS on your players? Because as a player, this kind of BS is equal to rock falls, you die...and I would so not be defending or trying to rationalize the ruling as much as you are.
I am not defending DM dickery so much as I am trying to emphasize how messed up the RAW rules can be. It is no secret that I despise the very existence of the Strike Back feat as it allows you to do something everyone should already be able to do (and by extension makes it illegal to do without the feat). That's really what started it all.
|
|
You seem to be defending a you can't do jack DM dickery quite fervorantly...why do I get the feeling your the DM and you pulled this BS on your players? Because as a player, this kind of BS is equal to rock falls, you die...and I would so not be defending or trying to rationalize the ruling as much as you are.I am not defending DM dickery so much as I am trying to emphasize how messed up the RAW rules can be. It is no secret that I despise the very existence of the Strike Back feat as it allows you to do something everyone should already be able to do (and by extension makes it illegal to do without the feat). That's really what started it all.
Except in this case, it isn't RAW. It is pure DM fiat dickery. The strike back feat is fine if the DM uses the cover rules like it's suppose to be run instead of making houserules up because it's "realistic".
What this thread is really about is a question of theology. It asks if you are a fundamentalist or not. Do you believe the Core Rules, as written, are the one and only authority on what happens in a game? Or do you believe that the rules are subject to interpretation, and may even be altered in the name of game balance, fairness and fun?
Being old school, having played and game mastered for over thirty years, I lean very strongly toward the second line of theology. In fact, our group has just one hard and fast rule, no matter what game or edition we are playing. The GM is the final arbiter of everything, and if he/she feels the rules as written don't adequately cover a particular situation, the GM is expected to freelance and develop a ruling to keep the game moving.
This works well if you have a group that trusts the GM, and requires a GM who demonstrates maturity and realizes his role is to be the storyteller and facilitator, and his main job is to keep it fun. No powertrippers or people who think they are playing "against" the PCs need apply.
We have three different people who all GM for our group in turn, and we all support each other in this position. We welcome people challenging us on the rules, up to a point, and sometimes we will even admit we are wrong and change a ruling, if a good, logical argument is made. However, in case of a rules disagreement that can't be resolved quickly, the GM is always right, and everyone is expected to accept that ruling and move on.
Nothing is less fun, in my opinion, than blowing an hour or more of precious game time arguing over rules. If I wanted to do that, I'd invent an RPG where everyone gets to play lawyers.
So my advice is to pick your GM well, and then trust them to do their job. More specifically, if you don't like the Strike Back feat and what it implies, make the case to your GM, and if he/she agrees, change it.
This thread is hilariously at odds with a myriad of other threads that keep insisting "if you want the battle to be challenging, never use single-monster encounters without other factors like terrain".
*DM adds terrain*
"Waaaaaaaah! There's terrain!"
*roll eyes*
What this thread is really about is a question of theology. It asks if you are a fundamentalist or not. Do you believe the Core Rules, as written, are the one and only authority on what happens in a game? Or do you believe that the rules are subject to interpretation, and may even be altered in the name of game balance, fairness and fun?
Do you actually think that anyone follows the first option? It's more of a strawman than a real philosophy.
The point of discussing rules like this in the thread is to show that one or more rules are bad rules, period, and shouldn't be rules at all. This is a reasonable objective, and one that's not negated by the fact that everyone understands Rule Zero when it's time to sit down and play the game.As many game analysts and designers have said over the years, Rule Zero does not excuse for poor game design. If someone believes that part of RAW is bad or leads to a poor result, threads like this pop up, and I have no issue with that.
The problem with using the OP illustration, though, is that it's actually the aquatic combat rules that cause the issue here, not the lack of a "strike back" action.