Answering this from a couple different angles, in case I'm not understanding the question.
Casting a second Summon Swarm spell should just summon a second swarm, with its own creatures, hit points and statblock.
Swarms are typically encountered in 10x10 squares or cubes, however, and the system assumes that you're not going to combine two swarms into a megaswarm, or stack their spaces so they both end their Move on the same square as a PC. After all, unless that PC has Combat Reflexes, they'd only get an AoO on the first swarm but not the second.
If you were just attacking one creature, then two swarms are (offensively) much less effective than casting a different second spell. The difference would be if the first swarm is destroyed before it makes it to its target, at which point the second swarm can still attack. We had a situation like this in my last game session, where the players cast a Flaming Sphere in a doorway; after the first rat swarm ran through, the Attack of Opportunity finished off that swarm but the second was able to surge through and mass on to the PC to bite (and infect) him.
@ShadowDax: Looking at the swarm traits in the Bestiary (page 313) I can not find any mention of that. Multiple swarms can occupy the same space and all do damage.
However, there is an exception. (Isn't there always an exception? :))Look at the Creeping Doom spell. It specifically mentions that the swarms summoned by that spell do not stack - you only take damage once. But that rule only affects tat specific spell. Normal swarms, or swarms summoned by different spells, do stack and all do their damage to the target.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was told this while running a PFs mod a while back. Is it true that swarms can not stack with each other, makes multiple swarm spells useless?
I don't know if this transfered over to PF, but in 3.5, multiple swarms explicitly took up a larger space rather than both occupying the same space, which is what I think you mean by stacking. If that carried over, than multiple swarms aren't useless, they just aren't both attacking the same medium critter at the same time.
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No monster is "stackable" in the game. Including swarms.
The reason you'd want more than one swarm under your control at a time is because you're faced with a particularly large open area with a lot of foes spread out over more than a single ten-foot-square.
I think they should be stackable. But just realize that if they are different swarms they should be attacking each other (as well as anything else in in their squares.)
If its just more of the same swarm it should be represented by advancing the swarm. Making it larger, greater HD, greater damage etc.
More of the same swarm is represented by multiple squares / cubes of swarm. In the narrative, your horde of 1200 rats is much larger than the horde of 300 rats you encountered earlier; but in the game, it is necessary to treat it as 4 swarms that move contiguously unless you're willing to perform tweaks or surgery as needed.
|
|
How does this work with multiple swarms of the same creature and large characters. I will try to create an ASCII example...
.
.
.
.
.
x x x x x x
x x x 3 3 x
x x C C 3 x
x 1 C C 2 x
x 1 1 2 2 x
All swarms are, say, scarabs (had an unfortunate incident at a convention with this exact scenario). Swarm 1, 2 and 3 are all the same creature type. They are attacking 3 squares of the 4 the character occupies. That is the same space a single one can attack. A single one would only do 2 d6 a round. This scenario would give 6d6 a round. Would this be how it works? Logically, it wouldn't matter how many different ones there are, since they do not stack. It is just a larger square foot swarm.
What happens when one swarm wants to attack another swarm?
What happens when one swarm wants to attack another swarm?
And what if each swarm has also been enveloped by a gelatinous cube, and the cubes also want to attack each other?
Sorry that was a silly question.
|
I ran into this about two weeks ago, similar.
Swarms are listed as being 'contiguous' - meaning adjacent or touching.
When I ran the ant swarms, they were in the wilderness. I take it that the term means that they do not have to be 2x2 in size. That they could be 1x4, or some other combination, providing that they are no more than 4 squares (5' per square) and touching. This to me includes diagonal squares. In the case, I had 1 line of 3 squares with the 4th square touching the 3rd square diagonal. Our rules lawyer declared it illegal, and I said via the meaning of adjacent or touching that it was legal.
What is the proper connecting points for a swarm? Can one square of swarm members be diagonal from its swarmmates?
In the case of the Gelatinous Cube - I too had run this, with the cube swallowing up the ants and both doing damage to each other. Especially if the swarm just continues on its path and 'happens' to encounter the cube just as much as any other 'thing.'
What happens when one swarm wants to attack another swarm?And what if each swarm has also been enveloped by a gelatinous cube, and the cubes also want to attack each other?
Sorry that was a silly question.
And what happens if a Purple Worm Swallow Whole's them?
And then the Gnome Wizard riding the worm teleports?
Can he choose to take his favorite rat in the swarm with him and leave his boots behind?
Or would that violate his Paladin Code because the boots where secretly a good creature?
No monster is "stackable" in the game. Including swarms.
It's certainly possible to have two creatures sharing the same 5' square, if they're small enough.
But I would rule that you can't have a double-strength swarm in one square. I certainly wouldn't want to see a single spider swarm crammed into one square and doing quadruple damage each round!
No monster is "stackable" in the game. Including swarms.It's certainly possible to have two creatures sharing the same 5' square, if they're small enough.
But I would rule that you can't have a double-strength swarm in one square. I certainly wouldn't want to see a single spider swarm crammed into one square and doing quadruple damage each round!
I think the question should be more about different swarms. If I have an ant swarm and a spider swarm, can they both be occupying the space a PC is in? Would they automatically damage each other?
Part of the issue is how many creatures can FIT in that space. There's 300~ creatures in each 10x10 space. I suppose a Medium creature fitting in the same square with the swarm makes sense since their two legs take up little room (and they can otherwise become climbed on by the swarm), but two competing swarms are taking up mostly floor-area.
Which would lead to a strange corner case of, if a rat swarm and a centipede swarm can't occupy the same space, is it impossible for them to kill each other? : )
No monster is "stackable" in the game. Including swarms.
The reason you'd want more than one swarm under your control at a time is because you're faced with a particularly large open area with a lot of foes spread out over more than a single ten-foot-square.
Does this carry over to Second Edition as well? Swarm trait in the 2e Beastiary RAW states that swarms may occupy the space of other creatures, implying that a GM could create what I call "spider cubes".
Sorry about this being in the 1e forum, but it's the only authoritative thread I could find for the subject.
Based on the overall deadliness of PF2E, I would heavily lean toward the 'No, you cannot stack swarms on top of each other to 'swarm' a single player character twice'. The intention I perceive (rather than simply giving you a RAW answer) is that a swarm COVERS a creature in order to deal their damage, getting into every nook and cranny order to score automatic damage against them. There would simply be no room for two swarms to do this with a normal sized player character.