|
If I'm 9th level and took a boat ride without anything to assist with aquatic combat, I'm just asking to "go down with the ship." I'm not sure the DM has things correct (like how the tentacles would get AoO, seems like random flailing since the squid can't see you and/or occupation with a grapple of the ship), but I can't ignore the players who have no other plan other than "readied" attacks.
If you have a good DM that you've had solid adventures with in the past, then this isn't going to be a pointless exercise. I figure the squid has to be right below me, so if I have to dive straight down with a short sword and stab it in the eye, that'll draw some tentacles off the boat, giving my pals time to do something creative of their own. I'm 9th level, heroic.
So, if the DM is running the rules different than you expected, adapt, try something innovative, and dicker about the rules after the session with him/her.
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.
Sadly, I do. Spend some time on these threads and you will see quite a few who seem to follow the fundamentalist line. References to "DM dickery", etc. abound, as do instances in which players repeatedly claim their GMs are violating the RAW to their detriment, or are just generally untrustworthy. If folks didn't believe in fundamentalism, to some degree, the term "rules lawyer" wouldn't exist.
Admittedly I phrased the "philosophy" as a strawman, in order to make my main points that folks should just work out perceived problems with the rules together, that players should trust their GMs, and people shouldn't get too hung up or angry over rules interpretations.
I have no problem with people pointing out what they believe are errors in the rules here, particularly as the game designers here are kind enough to frequently respond to them with the reasoning behind a rule, and occasionally even admit that they are reconsidering certain rules. I'm sure that in the future, if new editions come out, the feedback they receive on these boards will help inform their changes.
The fact is, however, that no set of rules is ever going to be perfect, and situations will always arise that the designers did not foresee. Similarly, the preferred style of play of some groups will not fit well with some rules. It's not necessarily "bad design", just a fact of RPG life.
|
Well the thing is, saying a rule doesn't work is one thing. To say that the rules don't work because of DM fiat and so a core aspect of the rules of combat should be changed is entirely another. The DM f'ed up. He made stuff up, ignored rules and basically pulled a rocks fall you die. There is no bad rules issue...there is a bad DM (or at least bad DM judgement) issue.
|
|
If I'm 9th level and took a boat ride without anything to assist with aquatic combat, I'm just asking to "go down with the ship." I'm not sure the DM has things correct (like how the tentacles would get AoO, seems like random flailing since the squid can't see you and/or occupation with a grapple of the ship), but I can't ignore the players who have no other plan other than "readied" attacks.
If you have a good DM that you've had solid adventures with in the past, then this isn't going to be a pointless exercise. I figure the squid has to be right below me, so if I have to dive straight down with a short sword and stab it in the eye, that'll draw some tentacles off the boat, giving my pals time to do something creative of their own. I'm 9th level, heroic.
So, if the DM is running the rules different than you expected, adapt, try something innovative, and dicker about the rules after the session with him/her.
If you read the OP, the DM ruled that the squid had total cover so was untargetable, but could attack with what seems to be no penalty at the players. There is pretty much nothing you can do as a player against that ruling other then rocks fall, you die. There is a difference between running rules differently and pulling this sort of BS.
I just wanted to clarify that there is no GM in this instance. He is and always has been theoretical.
|
|
I just wanted to clarify that there is no GM in this instance. He is and always has been theoretical.
Okay so your ranting because you can theoretically not play by the rules and screw players over?!? Or the rules should be changed because theoretically you can not play by the rules and screw players over?!?
Rule based discussion is fine...but if that was the case, then you should have dropped the case or changed scenerio when I mentioned the ACTUAL rules for cover and how that encounter isn't legal instead of pushing for more houseruled "realism" rulings.
I just wanted to clarify that there is no GM in this instance. He is and always has been theoretical.Okay so your ranting because you can theoretically not play by the rules and screw players over?!? Or the rules should be changed because theoretically you can not play by the rules and screw players over?!?
Rule based discussion is fine...but if that was the case, then you should have dropped the case or changed scenerio when I mentioned the ACTUAL rules for cover and how that encounter isn't legal instead of pushing for more houseruled "realism" rulings.
Calm down dude. There's no need for all the exclamation points.
It's like AvalonXQ said: "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."
That's all it is. Nothing more. Please don't read into something that's not there.
The only thing I might have done wrong to begin with is having illustrated my point with a bad example scenario (it is, admittedly, skewed)--which is still no reason for anyone to get so upset.
In regards to the OP:
Didn't see this post earlier. Sorry I'm late to the game. So without reading the entire thread:
I actually ran a similar scenario but at around 14th-15th level, but I think I used an enhanced kraken. To make a long story short, I thought outside the normal rules of the game, and gave an AC and HP to the kraken's tentacles. The kraken itself wasn't attacking individuals running around on the ship's deck (that didn't make sense to me… its body was submerged beneath the waves as well and couldn't really see the creatures running about on deck); rather it was attacking the ship itself, in an attempt to crush & sink it. Some of the PCs could attack it by going into the water and did so while others attacked the tentacles themselves, and yet others made attempts to save non-party members (i.e. the crew of the ship). Needless to say, they managed to drive off the kraken, but not before it destroyed the ship. Fortunately for the players, they had the forethought of taking two ships. It was a memorable fight.
So in summary, I think your GM could have handled it better as it was an a-typical encounter.
|
|
It's like AvalonXQ said: "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."
Once again, talking about a bad rule is fine. But what your ranting about is not having the strike back feat as a standard option based on an encounter that is not following the rules as the reason that strike back should be a standard option. Basing rule discussion on DM fiat is akin to playing cowboys and indians and then sitting down and complaining about the results and how the rules should be changed. If you really think strike back should be a standard action we can talk about that just fine...just not by breaking OTHER rules to make that the only option. Use math, show how doing x damage as a readied action shouldn't need a feat. Show how it's tactical use isn't worth the feat. Show how there actually IS a rules legal scenerio where you need the strike back option or you have no option (no option does not equal less optimal options...feats are suppose be optimal options).
Show how there actually IS a rules legal scenerio where you need the strike back option or you have no option (no option does not equal less optimal options...feats are suppose be optimal options).
Even my heavily scewed scenario in the OP has "less optimal options" rather than none (jumping into the water).
In any event, I am not at all obligated to show you anything mathematically. My non-mathematical points are more than sufficient.
I think the strike back feat is a stupid idea in large part because it is something any hero should be able to do. It is a fantasy staple to attack a creature's limbs when you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach them. The fact that you must have a feat to do so is completely nonsensical. If the creature is close enough to attack me, then I am close enough to attack it. All that matters is timing. Timing is why prepared actions exist. That's straight up logic. As written, the rules break that logic unless you waste a precious resource to do so. (And it's not even easy to get! You have to be high level!)
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!).
Didn't you know? It's safer to be inside a T-Rex then it is to be actively attacked by one??
|
|
Just as a possible suggestion, allow people to ready an action to counter-attack (aka, strike back) without requiring a feat, but your attack comes after their attack, despite you readying the action first.
Then, rewrite strike back to "strike first" where you can ready an action to strike them the moment they come into your range, before they can make their attack.
A low level fighter can attack the opponent with longer reach when it is attacking him, but is hit first.
A high level fighter with a BAB of +11 can strike before the creature can successfully land the hit, possibly killing the opponent or sundering their weapon.
Since you are readying an action for something specific, you can't use it on multiple enemies and likely wouldn't be able to use it for all of your attacks, unless say, the person makes multiple melee reach attacks on you, then maybe.
That way Strike Back isn't useless, and you can still do what makes sense.
It's a little mind boggling that a person with a BAB of +11 is only THEN able to counter an attack, when I essentially could do the same with a stick as a commoner in real life.
Just as a possible suggestion, allow people to ready an action to counter-attack (aka, strike back) without requiring a feat, but your attack comes after their attack, despite you readying the action first.
Then, rewrite strike back to "strike first" where you can ready an action to strike them the moment they come into your range, before they can make their attack.
A low level fighter can attack the opponent with longer reach when it is attacking him, but is hit first.
A high level fighter with a BAB of +11 can strike before the creature can successfully land the hit, possibly killing the opponent or sundering their weapon.
Since you are readying an action for something specific, you can't use it on multiple enemies and likely wouldn't be able to use it for all of your attacks, unless say, the person makes multiple melee reach attacks on you, then maybe.
That way Strike Back isn't useless, and you can still do what makes sense.
That's a really great idea.
It's a little mind boggling that a person with a BAB of +11 is only THEN able to counter an attack, when I essentially could do the same with a stick as a commoner in real life.
This is the brunt of my problem. It totally breaks suspension of disbelief.
|
|
Okay if your gonna pull the realism card...fine, realistically, you get hit once, you die. Realistically, if you think waiting and poking in a counter attack is just that easy, your WAY wrong. There is a reason why just about every fighting system ever generated puts the focus on keeping the iniative in a fight and less on counter-attacking. The counter-attacking happens after you lose the iniative and need to get it back. In many cases you gain the iniative back with the counter attack, before attacking. That is to say, your counter attack isn't even an attack so much as a way to throw off your opponent's rythm. D&D combat is NOT realistic. Not by a long shot. It isn't even 10% realistic...hell I think 1% maybe pushing it. The system however has to be balanced...and reach is suppose to be an advantage. The feat lest you negate some of that advantage. If you feel that the advantage of reach should not require a feat to negate, then you need to show why other then because I say so. Because quite honestly...I'm likely to believe the rules are balanced over your griping...and I am MUCH more likely to believe the rules are balanced if your refusing to actually give mechanical reasons.
Okay if your gonna pull the realism card...fine, realistically, you get hit once, you die.
Straw man.
Realistically, if you think waiting and poking in a counter attack is just that easy, your WAY wrong. There is a reason why just about every fighting system ever generated puts the focus on keeping the initiative in a fight and less on counter-attacking. The counter-attacking happens after you lose the initiative and need to get it back. In many cases you gain the initiative back with the counter attack, before attacking. That is to say, your counter attack isn't even an attack so much as a way to throw off your opponent's rhythm. D&D combat is NOT realistic. Not by a long shot. It isn't even 10% realistic...hell I think 1% maybe pushing it. The system however has to be balanced...and reach is suppose to be an advantage. The feat lest you negate some of that advantage. If you feel that the advantage of reach should not require a feat to negate, then you need to show why other then because I say so. Because quite honestly...I'm likely to believe the rules are balanced over your griping...and I am MUCH more likely to believe the rules are balanced if your refusing to actually give mechanical reasons.
I don't know that I ever said that the rules were unbalanced (I may have, this thread was revived after a long hiatus). In any case, allowing everyone the Strike Back feat for free would not negate reach. Creatures with reach would still get tons of attacks of opportunities and would negate many full attackers (everyone would either be moving in to full attack and take a beating, or preparing an action and losing their iteratives).
I don't mind you having a different opinion on the matter, but it seems like my stance is greatly upsetting you. Why is that?
|
|
Realistically, if you think waiting and poking in a counter attack is just that easy, your WAY wrong. There is a reason why just about every fighting system ever generated puts the focus on keeping the initiative in a fight and less on counter-attacking. The counter-attacking happens after you lose the initiative and need to get it back. In many cases you gain the initiative back with the counter attack, before attacking. That is to say, your counter attack isn't even an attack so much as a way to throw off your opponent's rhythm. D&D combat is NOT realistic. Not by a long shot. It isn't even 10% realistic...hell I think 1% maybe pushing it. The system however has to be balanced...and reach is suppose to be an advantage. The feat lest you negate some of that advantage. If you feel that the advantage of reach should not require a feat to negate, then you need to show why other then because I say so. Because quite honestly...I'm likely to believe the rules are balanced over your griping...and I am MUCH more likely to believe the rules are balanced if your refusing to actually give mechanical reasons.I don't know that I ever said that the rules were unbalanced (I may have, this thread was revived after a long hiatus). In any case, allowing everyone the Strike Back feat for free would not negate reach. Creatures with reach would still get tons of attacks of opportunities and would negate many full attackers (everyone would either be moving in to full attack and take a beating, or preparing an action and losing their iteratives).
I don't mind you having a different opinion on the matter, but it seems like my stance is greatly upsetting you. Why is that?
Because your basically saying I think the rules ought to be changed because I'm not following the rules. Really honestly for your game do what you want and be happy. But your ranting that the rules should be different for everyone because you don't wanna follow the rules...and that is a bit...well silly. And strike back does negate reach. That is the tactical use for it.
And strike back does negate reach. That is the tactical use for it.
As does a 5-ft. step or a reach weapon often times, but you don't need a feat for those. I still think the Strike Back feat is messed up for a number of reasons--one of which is balance. Even if you disregard everything else I've said, it remains a really weak feat that (in my experience) nobody ever takes.
|
|
Okay if your gonna pull the realism card...fine, realistically, you get hit once, you die.
From a giant squid's tentacle? Most likely, as I'm a level 1 commoner. If you hit me once, and it wasn't a critical hit, I'd likely still be conscious. But we're talking about around level 9 adventurers here, when most humans irl can't surpass level 5-6 realistically. I'd call it more logic than anything...
Realistically, if you think waiting and poking in a counter attack is just that easy, your WAY wrong.
People in fencing do it all the time. Martial arts has moves designed to parry/counter-attack at the same time (and that negates the attack!). These are real life things. My brother and I fake fight and I'll counter his "attacks"...
Realistically, if a large tentacle is swooping in, and you readied an action to wait for it to come into range, you should be able to have a chance at hitting it, it's logic. This tentacle isn't moving so fast that it's impossible to hit.
There is a reason why just about every fighting system ever generated puts the focus on keeping the iniative in a fight and less on counter-attacking.
Yes, initiative is there because it has to for it to make sense, but all the actions happening in a single round are all technically happening at the same time. It's placed into a sequential order because it must.
The counter-attacking happens after you lose the iniative and need to get it back. In many cases you gain the iniative back with the counter attack, before attacking. That is to say, your counter attack isn't even an attack so much as a way to throw off your opponent's rythm.
Hence why I suggested strike first, which allows you to wait to strike before your opponent does when they come into range. Without training, why shouldn't you be able to try? Hence why I made it so that without training your strike happens after your opponent strikes. Counter attacking shouldn't be a trained only skill, or a feat, it should be a combat maneuver. But you can have feats that make that combat maneuver better, like improved trip.
D&D combat is NOT realistic. Not by a long shot...
I agree. Like magic. This is why we suspend our disbelief :) So let's improve the realism by adding the ability to counter attack without a feat requirement. :)
The system however has to be balanced...and reach is suppose to be an advantage. The feat lest you negate some of that advantage. If you feel that the advantage of reach should not require a feat to negate, then you need to show why other then because I say so.
Ravingdork replied to this already and I agree with him. There are other ways to negate reach without feats, and reach still has lots of advantages. I find it much more unbalanced to say that something with reach can hit me for free, and I cannot attempt to hit it if it hits me until I have a BAB of +11...
Because quite honestly...I'm likely to believe the rules are balanced over your griping...and I am MUCH more likely to believe the rules are balanced if your refusing to actually give mechanical reasons.
Though I doubt this was directed at me, what I posted was a suggestion for house rules for Ravingdork. But not all rules are balanced or set in stone, nothing is infallible. Besides, rules that are in the book are suggestions of how the world should work, and above all else everyone should be having fun, and if a rule and situation like this presents itself which doesn't make sense and noone is having fun, then the rules need to be adjusted. This is the nature of the game.
Personally I am much more likely to believe that outright logic should be enough for a mechanical reason. Mechanically speaking, I myself as a level 1 commoner (say I have a sword) can counter attack you, for example, another level 1 commoner (say with a spear). It doesn't mean that I'll hit your spear and break it everytime, but I have a CHANCE to do it, with or without training. Let the roll of the dice determine if something happens, not a feat with an absurdly high requirement for such a common combat maneuver.
You may not think so, and this is why in your games you play with the rules. I DO think so, so in our game we can counter attack without a feat. Simple as that! :)
|
|
Though I doubt this was directed at me, what I posted was a suggestion for house rules for Ravingdork. But not all rules are balanced or set in stone, nothing is infallible. Besides, rules that are in the book are suggestions of how the world should work, and above all else everyone should be having fun, and if a rule and situation like this presents itself which doesn't make sense and noone is having fun, then the rules need to be adjusted. This is the nature of the game.
Personally I am much more likely to believe that outright logic should be enough for a mechanical reason. Mechanically speaking, I myself as a level 1 commoner (say I have a sword) can counter attack you, for example, another level 1 commoner (say with a spear). It doesn't mean that I'll hit your spear and break it everytime, but I have a CHANCE to do it, with or without training. Let the roll of the dice determine if something happens, not a feat with an absurdly high requirement for such a common combat maneuver.
You may not think so, and this is why in your games you play with the rules. I DO think so, so in our game we can counter attack without a feat. Simple as that! :)
I'll skip the previous stuff because I think you completely missed what I said about real fights as you confused game terms with fighting terms.
See I have NO issue with what you just said. You can do it in your game and be happy. You can ask for house rules ideas and that is fine. But RD's gripe was that because of a scenerio that wasn't following the rules heavy scaled the encounter against the players, that this house rule should be a default rule...and that I do not agree with. If you can give me some mathmatical or tactical reasons behind the rule change being needed when EVERYTHING else is being played by the rules, then yeah maybe this houserule should be a default rule.
But RD's gripe was that because of a scenario that wasn't following the rules heavy scaled the encounter against the players, that this house rule should be a default rule...and that I do not agree with. If you can give me some mathematical or tactical reasons behind the rule change being needed when EVERYTHING else is being played by the rules, then yeah maybe this house rule should be a default rule.
Will you please stop calling it a gripe? The term has a clear negative connotation that can be construed as an attack (and is honestly designed to do little more than give you some fictional moral high ground). You could just as easily have used the term "interpretation" or something similarly neutral and still made your points just as valid.
As for it being a house-rule? In v3.5 D&D, it really wasn't. It only became so in Pathfinder with the advent of the Strike Back feat. Everybody I know who played v3.5 would have allowed their players to prepare an action to attack reach creatures--after all that was a large part of what prepared actions are for.
As for my scenario, it wasn't my argument (you keep mistaking the two). It was simply an example scenario meant to illustrate (rather poorly as you have repeatedly pointed out) my points about why the feat is poor game design (among other things).
I know you would prefer a different (more fair, more rules accurate) scenario, but I don't have to waste my time coming up with one since my problems with the feat stand on their own merits (even if you disagree with them).
|
|
I'll skip the previous stuff because I think you completely missed what I said about real fights as you confused game terms with fighting terms.
See I have NO issue with what you just said. You can do it in your game and be happy. You can ask for house rules ideas and that is fine. But RD's gripe was that because of a scenerio that wasn't following the rules heavy scaled the encounter against the players, that this house rule should be a default rule...and that I do not agree with. If you can give me some mathmatical or tactical reasons behind the rule change being needed when EVERYTHING else is being played by the rules, then yeah maybe this houserule should be a default rule.
'kay.
I'm not confused though, I just think we have differing beliefs on what we can do in a real fight. I was trying to give you irl examples and reflect on how that pertains to the game, since we were discussing realism.
But I got nothin' besides, "Because I could do this even in real life." for why the rule should change. I think it should change too, but oh well.
Oh and by the way? I totally don't play by the rules... *dons his leather jacket, jumps on his motorcycle and drives into the setting sun*
|
|
Will you please stop calling it a gripe? The term has a clear negative connotation that can be construed as an attack (and is honestly designed to do little more than give you some fictional moral high ground). You could just as easily have used the term "interpretation" or something similarly neutral and still made your points just as valid.As for it being a house-rule? In v3.5 D&D, it really wasn't. It only became so in Pathfinder with the advent of the Strike Back feat. Everybody I know who played v3.5 would have allowed their players to prepare an action to attack reach creatures--after all that was a large part of what prepared actions are for.
As for my scenario, it wasn't my argument (you keep mistaking the two). It was simply an example scenario meant to illustrate (rather poorly as you have repeatedly pointed out) my points about why the feat is poor game design (among other things).
I know you would prefer a different (more fair, more rules accurate) scenario, but I don't have to waste my time coming up with one since my problems with the feat stand on their own merits (even if you disagree with them).
Ranting about a rule set you don't like with no mechanical backings is a gripe. I do it often. I'm fairly certain your first post was a gripe against the strike back feat and your post afterwards don't really progress this any further into the rules discussion arena as you seem to think that just your feeling that your right is enough to prove any point.
Secondly...wha?!? No group I have ever played with in 3.5 used such ruling. So your proof proves nothing other then a local houserule as there was no such rule to allow that in 3.5 either. The only time I have ever seen something like that come up was at con organized play (usually by players sighting a movie or TV show scene along with the "realism" tag attached)...and it wasn't allowed in those either.
Once again the feat is NOT poor designed because your basis for the argument is illegal by RAW. Your use to a houserule that allows it for free...I'm use to rules that didn't allow it at all (at the very least organized play doesn't allow it). I consider the feat a worthwhile feat and I do take it with many of my characters. So if all your gonna toss out is nah nah I'm right, well then your never gonna get anywhere is an actual RULES discussion that you keep claiming this. So far, your still in gripe mode.
|
Is the squid just a "normal" over sized animal? In which case something like lightninig bolt targeted at one of tenacles where it meets the water. Not sure about under PF, but this use to result in a fireball like underwater explosion. I would then as DM make a morale (or DM call) for the squid to think "What the hell was that! Screw this, there's easy fish in the sea to eat". So my first question has to be. What is the motivation for the squid to attack the ship? Lunch, controlled animal, intelligent animal, defending it's territory?
S.
So if all your gonna toss out is nah nah I'm right...
I've never once said anything of the sort! I am, and always have said, "this is the way it SHOULD be," not that "I'm right."
You proved me wrong via the rules long ago. I never once said otherwise.
Can we get back to the squid please.
Sorry. Assume that it is an awakened giant squid--a servant of a vengeful aquatic druid--and as such is capable of advanced tactics and maneuvering.
If nothing else the following line grants a little mechanical support:
"A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach."
This indicates that you would need to be able to perform the kind of action I describe in order to require this line of text disallowing sneak attack in this situation.
If it can hit you, the logically you can hit it, or its weapon, back. Technically you should be able to attack the limbs of ANY creature who melee attacks anyone within your reach, however you'll need to ready an action to do so, therefore you only get one attack--which is what keeps it from being abused.
I still think you are right via RAW, Cold Napalm, but I don't think everyone thinks as you do. After all, the game is made by multiple game designers, some of which may have thought like I do, and others who clearly didn't. I've seen disagreements and differing interpretation from game designers all the time. I've seen one designer make a ruling while another for the same game made a contradictory ruling. In the end, my interpretation has a little support, whereas yours seems to have won out anyways. I contribute that to the different philosophies of the game designers. Nevertheless, I asked about readying action against creatures with reach on a v3.5 forum in the hopes of getting unbiased support from a community that was not aware of the existence of a Strike Back feat. I didn't get any. The RAW is clear and they called me on it. In the end, however, it was revealed that many of the posters knew about the Strike Back feat. I may try again on a forum unfamiliar with Pathfinder rules, if there is one, though I am now far less hopeful of getting any support.
I commend you on your knowledge of the rules, if not your methods of debate.
Query. If you can't see enough of the squid to attack it, how is it seeing what it's attacking? Or is it flailing around with it's tenacles hoping to randomly connect with something (other than the boat)?
If the squid is alongside the ship, it should be able to see at least SOME of the crew just fine (those by the railing futile attempting to hurt the beast).
|
|
Query. If you can't see enough of the squid to attack it, how is it seeing what it's attacking? Or is it flailing around with it's tenacles hoping to randomly connect with something (other than the boat)?If the squid is alongside the ship, it should be able to see at least SOME of the crew just fine (those by the railing futile attempting to hurt the beast).
So ranged weapons a perfectly fine to attack the creature with then?
|
|
People should really read the RAW more carefully.
Strike back feat :
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
What this feat allows is an additional opportunity, in very specific conditions, to strike at a creature that your armament would not usually allow you to reach.That's it.
Note that it only allows the character who is attacked to do so. Even other characters standing next to him would not get this opportunity.
However, if the creature is within your weapon's reach, you can strike it already quite fine per the rules, even if it does not attack you. All the more so if you have a ranged weapon.
With my bow, I ready an attack against the creature when it emerges from its cover (even part of it emerging is enough by the RAW to negate cover) and shoot at it.
When it strikes with its tentacles, the condition is met.
Query. If you can't see enough of the squid to attack it, how is it seeing what it's attacking? Or is it flailing around with it's tenacles hoping to randomly connect with something (other than the boat)?
If it were completely hidden underneath, I'd go with the flailing. DC 20 + Stealth perception check to pinpoint the location the things it wants to hit (or just pick a square to flail in), and 50% miss chance for an effectively invisible target, is how I'd rule it.