Answer any of these questions, of all three if you really feel like helping. Some of these might have no answers, though.
1. A swarm is composed of hundreds of small creatures and the damage it deals is based on the fact that all those creatures attack a target at the same time. However, damage reductions are used for a swarm just like it's used for a goblin. How can that even make sense? Let's say a swarm and a sword deal five points of damage to someone with a DR of 3. The sword is a single, hard blow, that damages the man's skin even though it's resistant. However, five points of damage divided among two-hundred spiders that bite the man's flesh affects him just like the sword...
2. The rules concerning grapple don't seem clear to me. First : "A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple." Does that include maintaining a grapple? And does that include the actions you can trigger while grappling someone, like tying a pinned target?
Second : "If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold. If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds." When does that bonus apply? When the target fails to escape the grapple? One round after it is grappled?
Third : So the grappler needs to make a check each round to maintain the grapple AND the grappled target has the possibility to free itself during its own turn? Maintaining a grapple sounds pretty hard, isn't it? It's like the grappled target can defend itself even outside of its turn, since the grapple can be broken during the grappler's turn!
3. Flanking seems a bit dumb on one point : someone can be flanked by two opponents, but not by a third one. Example : an human fighter fights three orcs. One of the orcs is in front of him and another one is behind him. The third orc stands on his right. The orc in front and behind have a flanking bonus... but not the third one? How come? If the first and second orcs have bonuses because the fighter can't block them both at the same time, shouldn't the third orc have the same advantage too? Heck, he should even have a bigger advantage, since the fighter is even more overwhelmed because of him, but I agree that would become a little complicated. Still, if you're flanked by two opponents, isn't it also easier for a third or fourth opponent to hit you just like it is for the two others?
1. Some of those little creatures are able to get inside his mouth or nose (or something similar), where the DR doesn't apply.
2a. IMO, the penalty is only for actions unrelated to grappling.
2b. The bonus applies as soon as you successfully maintain the grapple.
2c. Grappling is still very powerful, especially for a dedicated grappler.
3. It worked like you mention in 3.5. I'm honestly not sure why it was changed, but presumable because it is harder to keep an eye on two attackers on opposite sides of you than it is to keep an eye on two attackers in a 90 degree arc of you (you have side vision, but not eyes in the back of your head).
1. Some of those little creatures are able to get inside his mouth or nose (or something similar), where the DR doesn't apply.
2a. IMO, the penalty is only for actions unrelated to grappling.
2b. The bonus applies as soon as you successfully maintain the grapple.
2c. Grappling is still very powerful, especially for a dedicated grappler.
3. It worked like you mention in 3.5. I'm honestly not sure why it was changed, but presumable because it is harder to keep an eye on two attackers on opposite sides of you than it is to keep an eye on two attackers in a 90 degree arc of you (you have side vision, but not eyes in the back of your head).
1. Makes sense. Thank you.
2a. I guess so.
2b. As soon as you maintain it once?
2c. It just seemed a bit weird to me when the grappled target had a 75% chance of freeing itself every round. I guess it depends on the situation.
3. I had thought about that, but that still doesn't make sense : when flanked, both opponents have a +2 bonus against you. That means the one you're looking at AND the one you're not looking at. So a third enemy should have a +2 bonus too, since even the opponent you're facing has it too, no?
Thank you for the answers, though. The first one was really clever!
1. What Are said. The same way a swarm can damage someone in full plate armor (they get inside the defense).
2a.Grapple rules say: "If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold." That means you make a new grapple check each round which, as the rule you stated says, means you don't suffer the -2.
It also says: "Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions (as part of the standard action spent to maintain the grapple)." Since it is the second grapple check that allows you to apply the pinned condition it also doesn't suffer the -2 penalty.
2b. The +5 applies as soon as you state you're maintaining the grapple on your next turn.
2c. Yes it's tough, but the benefits are sometimes worth the effort. Any target that gets pinned on the second round effectively becomes a pinata for the rest of the grappler's party.
3. Again I agree with Are. It's not too hard to focus on a 90 degree arc. And I'm sure others would say that since there are no facing rules the target of the flank is technically paying attention to every square around himself every round. This could easily be overcome by the third attacker standing next to either of the other two and thus gaining flanking position.
It all makes sense, but it's still illogical that someone standing in front of a flanked target gets a bonus while someone attacking on the sides doesn't have it. If you're too busy to parry two opponents, a third one should be even harder, no? Or maybe I missunderstood what you wrote? English isn't my first language and I didn't really get your point on #3, but with that aside, the rest really helped. Thanks!
|
1) What everyone else has said. Swarms would be an absolute P.I.T.A. if they had tons of special rules. Part of the reason they are treats as a "swarm" is so that they semi-behave like a single creature as a whole. Treating them as such has them inherit some rules that may or may not always make full sense logistically.
2) Grapple gets asked about a TON. Search should come up with easily half a dozen threads that will speak ad nauseum about it's intricate minutia. As a brief summary, I will post how I personally run grapple in my games. I don't know if I'm completely correct, but no one has directly contradicted me in any thread I've posted it in.
As has been reiterated by Paizo in a couple of places, the grapplee can ignore any attempt to break the grapple, and instead make a full attack action (including a monk's flurry). However, both the grappler and grapplee must utilize one arm (or mouth, or tentacle, or appendage, or whatever as the case may be) as part of the grapple. This changes the number or type of attacks the either can attempt. This would prevent use of two weapon fighting, as well as limit the number of natural attacks. In other cases (such as the Rake ability), the grappled condition may allow them to access additional abilities or attacks.
The grappler must continue to maintain the grapple, usually a standard action. The Grab or Snatch extraordinary special quality of some monsters would then allow them to effectively maintain the grapple as a free action (technically they are ending and restarting the grapple every round, but the effect is the same).
Alternatively, the grappler could bypass their normal attack progression, and instead performa a grapple check. This grapple check would not only maintain the grappled condition of both the grapplee and grappler, but also allow them to move, damage, or pin, the grapplee. (Note this means that something with a high CMB could effectively bypass a high AC and instead roll against their opponents CMD).
Lastly, I would point out that opinions on grapple are kinda like big toes, most people have even more than one, and stench is prevalent. My opinion clearly differs from others here, and until official errata/FAQ/clarification is released, I doubt we will reach an overall consensus. Even when such declaration has occurred, I suspect that grapple rules will remain one of the most commonly house-modified. The short version of what I'm trying to say is that your mileage (or views) may vary.
3) I think the real issue is that rogues, coming late to a flank (and thus being the third wheel) were still getting sneak attack under 3.5, thus breaking the iconic view of a "backstab" (I know, we aren't supposed to use that term anymore). I've instituted a compromise in my own games: attacking a flanked creature gets you a +2 bonus to hit them, even if you aren't directly involved in the flank. However, they still retain their dex to you, and are not considered flanked for precision-based damage (such as sneak attack).
note: this is a house rule, and not the RAW
Hope that helps.
For the flanking situation, consider that the +2 comes not from the attacker dividing his attention generally, but rather from each of the flanking creatures being able to take advantage of the window where the opponent is facing the opposite flanker, and so (for creatures of normally limited vision) can't also see the first flanker. The third character can be in the opponent's range of vision the whole time, but each of the flanking characters has at least a small segment of time where the opponent can't see them. That's what allows for the flanking bonus.
Being flanked no longer makes you lose your dexterity bonus to AC, so I don't know how your rule can apply. I guess you put another house rule stating that a flanked target loses its dexterity bonus?
For the flanking situation, consider that the +2 comes not from the attacker dividing his attention generally, but rather from each of the flanking creatures being able to take advantage of the window where the opponent is facing the opposite flanker, and so (for creatures of normally limited vision) can't also see the first flanker. The third character can be in the opponent's range of vision the whole time, but each of the flanking characters has at least a small segment of time where the opponent can't see them. That's what allows for the flanking bonus.
I'm aware of that, but still, even if the flanked target always looks and parries the same opponent, this opponent will still get a +2 against the flanked target. A flanked target is trapped and, as you said, the flanking creatures will take advantage of the flaws in its defense, because it can't block in all directions at the same time. If two flanking fighters can take advantage of a flanked creature, a third one can too, and much more easily.
|
|
Being flanked no longer makes you lose your dexterity bonus to AC, so I don't know how your rule can apply. I guess you put another house rule stating that a flanked target loses its dexterity bonus?
No, I was just being overly verbose in my comments to be sure I was being clear that you can't sneak attack the target unless you are one of the two primary flankers.
Personally, I'd move the Flanking condition from the "Attacker is..." table to the "Defender is..."
Flanking a defender causes him to strain his attention, which is a Defender condition, not an Attacker's.
This would cause all subsequent attackers to get a +2.
Also, the defender could choose to ignore the threat behind him (foregoing his Dex/Dodge bonuses to AC for this attacker) to focus on the 120° arc in front of him.
...but that's house rules.
3. I would suggest that the flanking rules work that way to ensure Rogues are using the traditional tactical flank to get sneak attack bonuses.
In other words, I think it's a balance rule rather than a logic rule.
Several random answers. I answered all the questions, and several more besides. If you haven't figured out what belongs where, I can give out clues.
A. Everything grapple-related is exempt from the penalty
B. It is a one-time bonus
C. While the flanking rules might work with some flank zone extension, the problem you face while being flanked is not facing two enemies, it's facing two enemies that flank you. It's one thing defending against two enemies at once, and quite another when they're on different sides of you and while you defend against the one, the other can take his time selecting a nice place to hurt you.
D. They don't stack
E. Like others say: Those little buggers go everywhere. If you want to make things complicated, you can rule that critters like golems (which are all metal all over) are impervious to swarms. Of course, if you add all those little rules and exceptions and corrections for more reality into the books, they will break your back, because they will be bigger than the frikkin' Brockhaus.
F. If you don't succeed in your check, nothing changes. The dance doesn't end, but you don't get to pin the sucker, or hurt him. In order to escape a grapple, you either have to let go (if you're the dominant grappler) or succeed in your check and then let go (if you're the poor bastard who is mangled by that huge snake)
G. The doctor says I'll be back to normal after a decade or three. He mumbled something which sounded like "...after you're dead", but he denied it afterwards.
H. The bonus starts to apply in the round after you grabbed the rube.
@Louis IX : True. I liked it in 3.5 that the defender was handicapped and the attacker had bonuses, but still, maybe it was a bit too powerful. However, in real life, if you get flanked, you're pretty much screwed, so making it powerful was okay to me and my players.
@Treantmonk : Yeah, it must be a balance rule. Still, I hate those. If I wanted to play with balance rules that make no logical sense, I'd play 4th Edition D&D.
@KaeYoss : Only having troubles with answer B and D.
I read the rules as ending the grapple if you don't succeed on your check to maintain. Has there been a ruling on this?
|
|
I read the rules as ending the grapple if you don't succeed on your check to maintain. Has there been a ruling on this?
I interpret the rules the same way, kinda. The grappler attempts a grapple check to pin and fails, the grapplee (on their turn) becomes the grappler (i.e. he gains control of the grapple), and thus the grapple ends unless the new grappler takes another action to maintain the grapple.
I read the rules as ending the grapple if you don't succeed on your check to maintain. Has there been a ruling on this?
I'm not sure what the alternative would be. As far as I know, if you fail to maintain the grapple, the grapple ends. The exception is if you have the feat Greater Grapple, in which case you have two chances to maintain the grapple.
It is pretty clear that failing to maintain a grapple ends the grapple:
If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.
A hold that is not maintained is not a hold anymore, right?
Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continue grappling the foe, and also allows you to perform one of the following actions
If you need a successful check to continue grappling, then by logical inference, an unsuccessful check disallows continued grappling. If gappling is not continued, then you're not grappling anymore.
I don't see any way to read this that allows a failed maintenance roll to continue grappling.
@KaeYoss : Only having troubles with answer B and D.
This is a bit Jeopardy, but possible questions to these answers are:
B:
D:
I interpret the rules the same way, kinda. The grappler attempts a grapple check to pin and fails, the grapplee (on their turn) becomes the grappler
Nah, you need to succeed in a check to become the active grappler.
I read the rules as ending the grapple if you don't succeed on your check to maintain. Has there been a ruling on this?I'm not sure what the alternative would be. As far as I know, if you fail to maintain the grapple, the grapple ends. The exception is if you have the feat Greater Grapple, in which case you have two chances to maintain the grapple.
Except, if you fail the first, the grapple is over - at least, if a failed grapple check ends the grapple.
It is pretty clear that failing to maintain a grapple ends the grapple:
If you do not release the grapple, you must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold.A hold that is not maintained is not a hold anymore, right?
Make. Not necessarily succeed in.
@KaeYoss : Only having troubles with answer B and D.This is a bit Jeopardy, but possible questions to these answers are:
B:
Is 3e toughness a one-time bonus or is it per level?
Does the new, third printing, Pathfinder paladin get double charisma against every attack against evil undead and dragons and things.
If I promise my soul to the pandaemonic entities from the Cerulean Void, I get a bonus according to a dice roll from a really cool chart, like a potion that will make me irresistible to my preferred sex(es). Will I get this daily or only once? D:
Do trait bonuses stack?
Can I put marbles one on top of the other?
Resistance bonuses?
I still have no idea of which bonuses you're talking about.
I still have no idea of which bonuses you're talking about.
No worries - the two answers were the unrelated ones, they didn't match any of your questions from above.
I just felt that randomising the order in which I answer your questions wasn't random enough. You do have to keep up appearances as an agent of the Cerulean Void.
I'll just act as if I completely understood what you were doing and slowly walk away.
I'll just act as if I completely understood what you were doing and slowly walk away.
:P
A bit of advice: I don't want to say that I'm dangerous or anything (I'm a big softy, really :D), but in such instances, it's important not to turn your back.
Not that anything would happen if you did turn your back on me.
This huge custard pie? I'm on my way to a charity. Or something. Those kids *love* aerodynamic pie. Did I say aerodynamic? I meant sticky, uh, no, tasty! Hm...... ballistic pie! No! Baltic!
Could someone get me that Freud fella? I need to have a word with him or two.
I'd expect that failing the check to maintain the grapple would end the grapple, but I haven't researched it in any detail. What's interesting is that it says the grappler "must" make a check as a standard action. That makes it sound almost as if the grappler has no choice in the matter. For instance, could a spellcasting grappler (with Still Spell) cast a spell instead, or would be be compelled to make the grapple check?
I figure that the rule most likely just means that you "must" make the check if you want to continue the grapple, but I could see people arguing otherwise.
|
|
I'd expect that failing the check to maintain the grapple would end the grapple, but I haven't researched it in any detail. What's interesting is that it says the grappler "must" make a check as a standard action. That makes it sound almost as if the grappler has no choice in the matter. For instance, could a spellcasting grappler (with Still Spell) cast a spell instead, or would be be compelled to make the grapple check?
I figure that the rule most likely just means that you "must" make the check if you want to continue the grapple, but I could see people arguing otherwise.
The "must" isn't compulsion, it's an ultimatum, but only if the grappler wishes to maintain the grapple. Note, as I originally sated way up above, many creatures (i.e. those with improved grab) never perform a grapple check as a standard action. They instead let the grapple end, then immediately start a new grapple with whichever attack they have grab as part of. While they are two separate grapples from a mechanics standpoint, they end up being effectively the same grapple from the grapplee's perspective.