|
Something happend last week-end involving grapple.
A wyvern swooped down from the sky, surprising the party!
Using the fly by attack feat it made a bite/grab attack on the gnome and fly away with it!
The bite attack was succesfull and then the "built-in" grab succed as well.
We had at that point a gnome sorcerer held in the beak of a wyvern flying away.
At that point both were technicly having the grappled condition according to the rules.
On his turn the cleric (having the fire domain) fired his fireball at the wyvern still in range. Then the sorcerer on his next turn, having feather fall ready and knowing the wyvern was pretty low on health, decided to fire a scorching ray at it while held in his beak.
Two situations came up:
#1 The grappeled condition is not quite clear on reflex save except that the victim get -4 dex. But since the gnome was held in the wyvern's beack it was obvious (to me at least) that it was not in a situation to effectivly make a reflex save so i stated that it would save if the wyvern save or not. The wyvern failed his save so i stated that the gnome failed!
#2 Then when it came to the gnome's scorching ray i stated that since he was held/grappeld he would have the -2 to hit linked to the grappeld condition.
Then the player started to argue that since he was right in the beack he just as to extend his hand to hit and it was nothing less then an auto-hit. Seeing the spiral growing in the player's eyes and me having enouph of justifying all the time i just decided to let it go!
Were my call okay, out of the way, in between?
I would have allowed the reflex save and asked the player to 'describe what he does' whether he succeeds or fails. I can imagine a hero pulling hard on the beak, causing the wyvern to position itself between the hero and the fireball.
I would not have allowed the 'auto-hit'. The gnome still has to get his hand back and find a sensitive spot. Misses could represent pounding ineffectually against beak or having trouble getting the blade out and around. With a 'scorching ray' the gnome could have misfired due to turbulence. I have trouble hitting my mouth with the coffee cup on a bumpy road. I could see the gnome missing here.
Tarren hit the nail on the head regarding the gnome and the dragon; getting attack roll can be interpreted as anything from the opponent nimbly dodging your blow (if they have a high Dex or Dodge bonus to their AC, for example) or having armor too thick for your weapon to overcome (like the natural armor your dragon likely has).
I would have allowed the reflex save and asked the player to 'describe what he does' whether he succeeds or fails. I can imagine a hero pulling hard on the beak, causing the wyvern to position itself between the hero and the fireball.
I would not have allowed the 'auto-hit'. The gnome still has to get his hand back and find a sensitive spot. Misses could represent pounding ineffectually against beak or having trouble getting the blade out and around. With a 'scorching ray' the gnome could have misfired due to turbulence. I have trouble hitting my mouth with the coffee cup on a bumpy road. I could see the gnome missing here.
This
I think you probably already see how your ruling in 1) led the player to argue the point in 2).
I think it`s just much easier to stick to the RAW then start mucking around because you are visualizing things a certain way... IMHO, it`s much better to try and imagine SOME way to visualize why the RAW is the way it is. Not that you need to follow that 100% of the time, but if there`s any conflict about it, I don`t think it`s worth it to bypass the RAW when it is clear (which isn`t all the time, though it was in this case).
In the case of the grappled/held Gnome`s Reflex Save, if the rules meant for grappled characters to not be able to make Reflex Saves, they would say so, since Reflex Saves are certainly not an un-common game event. I`m not going to bother looking up the rules here, but I`m pretty sure that PINNED would restrict them from making a Reflex Save because they are immobilized (at the least there`s a really stiff penalty) - Grappled just isn`t that tight a hold (Jason Bulmahn has described it more as a solid grasp preventing you from moving away or moving will full grace, but you can still do 90% of things you normally can). I just don`t see any reason why it`s IMPOSSIBLE to visualize the held Gnome making a Reflex Save, given they are freely flailing their body around their entire space, with the Wyvern`s various body parts (or gusts of wind off the wings) potentially interceding between them and the Fireball.
In the case of the Scorching Ray, the rules clearly call for an attack roll... And honestly, a Touch Attack against a Large target with Grappled DEX and AC penalties, possibly benefitting from Point Blank, just isn`t that hard to hit. This is against Touch AC, so penetrating Armor isn`t an issue, but there`s a multiple of other events which could make the Gnome`s aim go awry - the Wyvern knowingly or un-knowingly shifting it`s grip/position just when the spell is about to go off, or just unexpected turbulence in the air stream... or just a Natural 1 whatever that is. I would have reminded the player that they are getting off easy in a way because normally shooting Scorching Ray in melee would provoke an AoO, but Grappled condition (applied to Wyvern) prevents AoO`s. I`d also mention that an attack roll is an opportunity to Crit :-).
One thing it sounds like you overlooked, if the Wyvern itself had the Grappled condition (which you say it did), it could not move (even to complete the Fly-By Attack). Grab contains an option to take -20 on the CMB check in order for the Grabber NOT to also gain the Grappled condition, and evading the Movement and AoO restrictions are probably the prime effects of Grapple worth avoiding (besides the minor penalties). Personally, I think that penalty is so steep that I think an equitable house-rule is to say that instead of applying the penalty before success is known, instead roll the CMB check as per normal and say the Grabber doesn`t gain the Grappled condition if they beat the CMD by 20. That`s besides a possible reduction of the 20 amount. But as is, the -20 option (and Fly-By maneuvers it enables) aren`t really suitable against PC-level targets (though the monster may not know that), more against `food` type targets like wandering wildlife (or Commones). That is, unless True Strike is available...
|
Something happend last week-end involving grapple.
A wyvern swooped down from the sky, surprising the party!
Using the fly by attack feat it made a bite/grab attack on the gnome and fly away with it!The bite attack was succesfull and then the "built-in" grab succed as well.
We had at that point a gnome sorcerer held in the beak of a wyvern flying away.
At that point both were technicly having the grappled condition according to the rules.
First of all, I think that the encounter is highly flavorful, but it tramples a bit on the rules.
1) "The wyvern swooped down from the sky, surprising the party." I can picture terrain that might block line of sight, but unless the wyvern has a way of obtaining concealment or cover, with a speed of 60, he's going to be spotted on approach.
2) Having surprised the party, "Using the fly by attack, it made a bite/grab attack on the gnome and fly away with it! (sic)" Fly By Attack effectively allows a move action to be split around a standard action. However, it still requires both the move and standard action and cannot thus be accomplished in a surprise round, where the wyvern has a single action. An alternative sequence would be a charge with bite/grab during the surprise round, and then flying away during the subsequent round; if winning initiative, this all happens prior to the party's response.
3) Having grappled the gnome, "we had at that point a gnome sorcerer held in the beak of a wyvern flying away." The Wyvern attacked with a bite, hit with the bite, succeeded at the grab. Since the Wyvern did not grab with -20, both are grappled.
Moving while in a grapple is not automatic; in fact, one of the qualities of being grappled is that the Wyvern can't move (except as noted below). As mentioned previously, the fly-by-attack isn't an option in the surprise round at all. However, were the Wyvern to attempt to fly away at the start of the next round, he'd need another grapple check to maintain the grapple, and could also then move at half speed (30 feet total). Moving further requires another standard action, so that's as far as he gets. There may be Fly skill checks related to elevation changes and/or slow speed.
Note that in order to fly off faster, he can grapple at -20; he then doesn't have the grappled condition.
There is also a monster feat, Snatch, that is really geared for what is being attempted here.
As said, the situation is quite flavorful, but the wyvern is doing a lot that would require other circumstances or abilities to carry out in my mind. Moving on to the questions after.
On his turn the cleric (having the fire domain) fired his fireball at the wyvern still in range. Then the sorcerer on his next turn, having feather fall ready and knowing the wyvern was pretty low on health, decided to fire a scorching ray at it while held in his beak.
Two situations came up:
#1 The grappeled condition is not quite clear on reflex save except that the victim get -4 dex. But since the gnome was held in the wyvern's beack it was obvious (to me at least) that it was not in a situation to effectivly make a reflex save so i stated that it would save if the wyvern save or not. The wyvern failed his save so i stated that the gnome failed!
The grappled condition does not prevent reflex saves. Not event he pinned condition prevents reflex saves. In fact, helpless doesn't, either. He uses his reduced Dex, but gets his own save.
#2 Then when it came to the gnome's scorching ray i stated that since he was held/grappeld he would have the -2 to hit linked to the grappeld condition.
Then the player started to argue that since he was right in the beack he just as to extend his hand to hit and it was nothing less then an auto-hit. Seeing the spiral growing in the player's eyes and me having enouph of justifying all the time i just decided to let it go!
Whether he is adjacent or not doesn't matter. He needs a concentration check to cast the spell, and he still needs to hit. (Edit: The Wyvern gets no AoO vs the cast due to grappled condition for wyvern) While he is -2 to hit, the wyvern is grappled and takes -4 on Dex, which makes it a wash.
Taking a coup de grace vs a helpless opponent is an automatic hit and takes a full round action. Spells aren't eligible. Giving him auto hit against a non-helpless target is generous.
Overall, I'd suggest that you review the helpless condition. You were largely treating grappled as having elements of helpless.
For the third time, it sounds quite flavorful, and kudos for that. Flavorful exciting encounters are good. :)
|
Too many useless rules that ruin a really good scenario.
Lesson to take here is design the scenario the way you want it and screw the rules*. Just always allow the REF saves and always require the attack roll. Other wise just go with it and you'll be fine.
*I don't play RPGs for the rules, I play for the stories and interaction. If I want inviolate rules I would play World of Warcraft. By the rules there are too many situations that are nearly impossible to actually run. For example, by the RAW a chase scene is almost impossible to play. If the chased player runs as a full round action the chasing players can never actually catch them until a failed CON check forces a Standard Action. Which makes for a really lame scene.
Too many useless rules that ruin a really good scenario.
Lesson to take here is design the scenario the way you want it and screw the rules*. Just always allow the REF saves and always require the attack roll. Other wise just go with it and you'll be fine.
*I don't play RPGs for the rules, I play for the stories and interaction. If I want inviolate rules I would play World of Warcraft. By the rules there are too many situations that are nearly impossible to actually run. For example, by the RAW a chase scene is almost impossible to play. If the chased player runs as a full round action the chasing players can never actually catch them until a failed CON check forces a Standard Action. Which makes for a really lame scene.
If you hate rules so much don't play DnD, Larping is pure roleplay, try that.
It gets annoying when people try to take a ruled game and ask why people use so many rules, there are other games for that
/vent
Nothing personal
All Krome is saying is don't sacrifice the thrill of the scene. I don't believe he hates the rules. The rules are just in place to give structure to our imagination and a nice orderly framework in which to function in. If you end up fudging some rules for the sake of the adventurous aspect, so what? I'm not saying, "to hell with the rules, let's start a revolution!" although I'm down if anyone else is...
|
|
Too many useless rules that ruin a really good scenario.
Lesson to take here is design the scenario the way you want it and screw the rules*. Just always allow the REF saves and always require the attack roll. Other wise just go with it and you'll be fine.
*I don't play RPGs for the rules, I play for the stories and interaction. If I want inviolate rules I would play World of Warcraft. By the rules there are too many situations that are nearly impossible to actually run. For example, by the RAW a chase scene is almost impossible to play. If the chased player runs as a full round action the chasing players can never actually catch them until a failed CON check forces a Standard Action. Which makes for a really lame scene.
If you hate rules so much don't play DnD, Larping is pure roleplay, try that.
It gets annoying when people try to take a ruled game and ask why people use so many rules, there are other games for that
/vent
Nothing personal
true, sort of like when I played AD&D and 2nd Ed and then they came out with this one book with more rules than all of the rule books previously printed... seriously was annoying.
I actually remember what ROLEplaying was like. I don't like ROLLplaying. I prefer ROLEplaying. But some people are just born rules lawyers so I let them have their fun too. Why they don't just play World of Warcraft instead of a game that is supposed to be about a shared creative social activity I have no idea.
Regardless though, when the rules get in the way of the story, then the rules have to go. Does that mean toss out the book? No, but it means be ready to improvise and roll with the moment. Seriously, if you don't want to do that why even have a human running the game?
|
|
Too many useless rules that ruin a really good scenario.
I went out of my, repeatedly, to call out that I thought it was a flavorful encounter. However, not evrey flavorful encounter works per the rules and might require higher level abilities and/or creatures to pull off.
But, if you want to play a game that is highly rules complex (such that a designer discounts his input in discussions by mentioning that it is complex and he isn't a computer), then come to a rules forum for a rules complex game and call out that there are too many rules, go to it. I'll take it as a commentary on your input on such discussion, not a comment on either the nature of the game or an approach that values both flavor and pays attention to the rules.
Creativity is an elusive concept that means many things to many people; the flavor of this encounter fits within that concept to me. A game, by definition, involves striving to overcome a challenge in the presence of restricted actions. The restriction of those actions are called rules. A creative game encounter thus is not merely flavorful, but does so within the rules. YMMV.
Too many useless rules that ruin a really good scenario.
Lesson to take here is design the scenario the way you want it and screw the rules*. Just always allow the REF saves and always require the attack roll. Other wise just go with it and you'll be fine.
*I don't play RPGs for the rules, I play for the stories and interaction. If I want inviolate rules I would play World of Warcraft. By the rules there are too many situations that are nearly impossible to actually run. For example, by the RAW a chase scene is almost impossible to play. If the chased player runs as a full round action the chasing players can never actually catch them until a failed CON check forces a Standard Action. Which makes for a really lame scene.
If you hate rules so much don't play DnD, Larping is pure roleplay, try that.
It gets annoying when people try to take a ruled game and ask why people use so many rules, there are other games for that
/vent
Nothing personal
true, sort of like when I played AD&D and 2nd Ed and then they came out with this one book with more rules than all of the rule books previously printed... seriously was annoying.
I actually remember what ROLEplaying was like. I don't like ROLLplaying. I prefer ROLEplaying. But some people are just born rules lawyers so I let them have their fun too. Why they don't just play World of Warcraft instead of a game that is supposed to be about a shared creative social activity I have no idea.
Regardless though, when the rules get in the way of the story, then the rules have to go. Does that mean toss out the book? No, but it means be ready to improvise and roll with the moment. Seriously, if you don't want to do that why even have a human running the game?
Please not another "following rules equals video game comment". The rules don't get in the way of the story. What kills a story is when immersion is broken, or a bad combination of rules knowledge + imagination. If the physics of the world changes at the DM's whim that would break immersion for me and many others. Being consistent(letting the same rules apply all the time, barring special circumstances) and being creative are not at odds. They can both take place at the same time.
|
|
The rules don't get in the way of the story. What kills a story is when immersion is broken, or a bad combination of rules knowledge + imagination. If the physics of the world changes at the DM's whim that would break immersion for me and many others. Being consistent(letting the same rules apply all the time, barring special circumstances) and being creative are not at odds. They can both take place at the same time.
+23
How could the Sorcerer cast Scorching Ray while being grappled in the first place?
1) Scorching Ray has a somatic component.
2) You cannot cast a spell with a somatic component while grappling (CRB 206).
So it's not an auto-hit, it's an auto-miss for the poor little gnome. :P
EDIT : It seems that rule number 2) is overlooked by a lot of people.
Please not another "following rules equals video game comment". The rules don't get in the way of the story. What kills a story is when immersion is broken, or a bad combination of rules knowledge + imagination. If the physics of the world changes at the DM's whim that would break immersion for me and many others. Being consistent(letting the same rules apply all the time, barring special circumstances) and being creative are not at odds. They can both take place at the same time.
I don't totally agree with you. At least in Pathfinder, there's no rule for mythal (permanent epic-level spells that affect a wide area). Does that mean that you shouldn't include mythal in your game, even if it's just for the sake of story telling? Sometimes you can just make "stuff" without rules to back it, as long as it doesn't happen every day.
Please not another "following rules equals video game comment". The rules don't get in the way of the story. What kills a story is when immersion is broken, or a bad combination of rules knowledge + imagination. If the physics of the world changes at the DM's whim that would break immersion for me and many others. Being consistent(letting the same rules apply all the time, barring special circumstances) and being creative are not at odds. They can both take place at the same time.I don't totally agree with you. At least in Pathfinder, there's no rule for mythal (permanent epic-level spells that affect a wide area). Does that mean that you shouldn't include mythal in your game, even if it's just for the sake of story telling? Sometimes you can just make "stuff" without rules to back it, as long as it doesn't happen every day.
Plot devices are one of those special circumstances which is what your Mythal example is, and when I said breaking a rule I meant going against a firmly established rule.
Of course plot devices are exceptions. Almost every AP or homebrew has those. I did not think I need to explain plot devices. The regular rules should apply every day, once again, barring special circumstances.
PS:Plot devices do not include a DM breaking a rule because he wants too.
Example: The BEEG that has to be stopped before they use an ability to steal a portion of the world=plot device.
Saying a random wyvern that is not different than any other wyvern can ignore game rules is just breaking rules.
Saying a random wyvern that is not different than any other wyvern can ignore game rules is just breaking rules.
I have to agree with you here. What if the gnome sorcerer was slain because of the GM's overlook on grappling rules? The player would be really upset and he could even think that the GM overlooked those rules on purpose, simply to kill his character. Because of that, it's better to always play within the rules when you can (with the exception of plot devices).