|
Recently this issue came up on a game, when the druids set their tiger and velociraptor ACs to chew down some skeletons.
Skeletons have DR 5/Bludgeoning. I (as GM) assumed that bite attacks didn't do bludgeoning. The druid players protested, we looked it up, and the bestiary lists bite attacks as B/P/S. At that point I'd already ruled against them doing bludgeoning, but with the option of discussing it again after the session; sticking with that ruling for the duration of the session.
Not surprisingly, the druid players weren't happy that I ruled against the bludgeoning. They feel pretty strongly about it, so I might let them have their way rather than house rule it to exclude bludgeoning, but I'm just kinda trying to figure out the deal here: why are bite attacks B/P/S?
Some arguments/explanations were offered:
1) It's a game balance thing. Otherwise ACs would be hampered by DR/type.
I disagree; not all ACs have bite attacks, I don't think there was any effort to make sure animals could deal with DR/weapon type either.
2) Bite attacks apply a great deal of pressure on whatever they bite down on.
Counterargument: "in the real world", attacks with big slashing blades against people in heavy armor are also de-facto bludgeoning attacks, since you're usually beating people senseless rather than actually cutting through the armor. But slashing swords don't do bludgeoning damage. So making bites do bludgeoning isn't really all that consistent.
Weapons tend to have the type of the most primary, ideal way they're used; while you can beat in someone's skull with a sword pommel (which is actually real-world technique), the primary method is slashing. So why should natural weapons be any different?
---
So my question is: why?
I don't know why you would have ruled against Bludgeoning. There are several weapons with multiple types of damage. Daggers for example are P/S.
Whenever a damage type has a slash the user is allowed to choose the type of damage. So: when a dagger is being used against a creature with DR/slashing the player needs to specify what type of damage he is using.
A Bite is no different, it can do either B or S or P. The creature making the attack needs to decide which type it is using when the attack is made.
Note: when a weapon says B and P it means it does both types simultaneously. The advantages and disadvantages of both are applied. Example: A Morningstar is B and P. Against a Black Pudding it would do real damage AND split the Pudding in half.
In any case, this has nothing to do with Animal Companions. This is common to all creatures as shown on Bestiary p302 Table 3-1.
In your example of beating someone's skull in with the sword pommel that is fine. But it is also an improvised weapon and thus the wielder takes a -4 penalty to attack in order to do that blunt damage.
Summary: The players are correct by RAW but they need to choose what bite type the AC is using. Tigers would tend to use slashing (ripping and tearing flesh) but should be able to switch to piercing (such as during a grab attack) or bludgeoning (such as when a tiger is trying to break bone).
- Gauss
Hmmm, BBT is correct. The CRB uses / to indicate OR whereas the Bestiary uses / to indicate AND. Bah.
- Gauss
BBT: Got me again, I guess I have been seeing or's as /'s. My bad. Im not perfect. :)
- Gauss
|
|
I think I'll let him have it the RAW way, although I'm not entirely happy about it.
I suppose what it comes down to is that some animals certainly have crushing bites, like a crocodile or maybe a snapping turtle, but other animals seem more like it's about the sharpness and not just brute crushing force.
With other natural attacks it's easier to make that distinction - slam is strictly bludgeoning, while claw attacks are b/s. But I suppose you have to draw a line somewhere about the amount of detail you want to put in a game system, and having two different types of bite attack (crushing vs. tearing perhaps) would've been too much nitpicking.
So I guess it's a benefit of doubt thing.
what i don't understand is why you would claim it would lose bludgeoning before slashing. biting typically crushes, teeth pierce. if i had a choice as to the one it shouldn't do (although i understand it doing all 3) it would lose slashing before the other 2.
Yeah, to be honest, I think weapons like Axes and Greatswords probably should also deal bludgeoning, and I agree that bites ought to be P/B and not S. I've never seen any animal slash with their mouth.
Of course, that said, I think the game needs to get rid of the "slashing" description and instead go with "chopping" or even "hacking." There are maybe a half dozen truly "slashing" weapons on the list--most of them just "chop" or "hack."
|
Yeah, to be honest, I think weapons like Axes and Greatswords probably should also deal bludgeoning, and I agree that bites ought to be P/B and not S. I've never seen any animal slash with their mouth.
Of course, that said, I think the game needs to get rid of the "slashing" description and instead go with "chopping" or even "hacking." There are maybe a half dozen truly "slashing" weapons on the list--most of them just "chop" or "hack."
If a animal don't use the bite to grapple his target it often tear away the flesh moving its head with the teeth clamped shut on your body, the same thing happen when you try to tear away your arm or leg from the animal mandibles. So you get a form of slashing damage.
If you want to use to that level of detail, a horse bite would be a good example of a S/B only type of damage for bites. It generally don't pierce the flesh, but it can easily tear it away.
Just to add to that, horse hooves would do only Bashing damage.
But it would be a needless complication.
Stabby, choppy and bashy?
...
Though that does sounds like extras in Snow White before Disney went "Oh hell no!"
If a animal don't use the bite to grapple his target it often tear away the flesh moving its head with the teeth clamped shut on your body, the same thing happen when you try to tear away your arm or leg from the animal mandibles. So you get a form of slashing damage.
I think we disagree on what constitutes "slashing." That sounds more like ripping, which is something else entirely.
Slashing is specifically sliding a blade along flesh to cut it. Not chopping or hacking into, but basically pressing it against the skin and sliding it down. It's more like a slicing motion. You use rapiers like that, whips, knifes, sometimes curved blades like scimitars/sabers when the enemy is unarmored, and pretty much nothing else.
Every other slashing weapon, for the most part--and most of the time, curved blades as well--is really used by chopping, which teeth definitely can't do.
If you want to use to that level of detailI don't, I'm happy with B/P/S, this is mostly just random theoretical discussion.
a horse bite would be a good example of a S/B only type of damage for bites. It generally don't pierce the flesh, but it can easily tear it away.
I just don't see how tearing is Slashing.
Just to add to that, horse hooves would do only Bashing damage.
Yeah, don't they?
Stabby, choppy and bashy?
...Though that does sounds like extras in Snow White before Disney went "Oh hell no!"
No, no, Pokey, Slicey, and Bashy, so you can maintain the P, S, B letters.
Slashing in PF is any kind of tearing action that opens a long gash of some kind in a body part. How neat the wound is is the difference between cutting and ripping. But both cutting and ripping are slashing.
Piercing is a hole. One form of Bludgeoning is bone breaking damage.
A Bite can pierce via creating holes), bludgeon via break bone, and then slash via tearing flesh off. Seems appropriate to me.
There is no PF category for chopping, ripping, etc. Everything that does any of those types of damage is in the slashing category.
- Gauss
5th grade health class you have 3 diferent type of teeth incisor, canine, and molars.
Incisor sound like scissor which means to cut or ie slashing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxillary_central_incisor
Canine or fangs are long and pointy teeth use to pirece things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxillary_canine
Molars like mortar use to griding things ie blunt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandibular_first_molar
The mian thing I see that you as GM did not know the answer...And when the PC gave you the answer from the book said it was still wrong. That is the real problem.
Cause it sound like you do not know enough to GM. And you will not listen to people who can find the rules.
Do you have to know every thing NO. But you do need to listen to you players when they tell you are wrong and can show you.
|
5th grade health class you have 3 diferent type of teeth incisor, canine, and molars.
Incisor sound like scissor which means to cut or ie slashing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxillary_central_incisorCanine or fangs are long and pointy teeth use to pirece things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxillary_canineMolars like mortar use to griding things ie blunt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandibular_first_molarThe main thing I see that you as GM did not know the answer...and when the PC gave you the answer from the book said it was still wrong. That is the real problem.
Cause it sound like you do not know enough to GM. And you will not listen to people who can find the rules.
Do you have to know every thing? NO. But you do need to listen to you players when they tell you are wrong and can show you.
Some very valid points, but a bit harsh.
how about we call it NOMNOMNOM damage? :)
GM made a ruling, that's his call.
Unfortunately, he made a completely incorrect ruling on a simple clear-cut rule, then enforced his own ruling even after being shown in no uncertain terms that he was totally incorrect on the rule in question.
Again, completely his call to make, his game.
Not at all what I would have done, or what I can say any of the GMs I play under would have done, but he's the boss.
|
Whatever your honest philosophical musings on the True Nature of the bite, I can empathise with your players.
To them, it must seem like you made it up on the spur of the moment just to nerf their attacks against the skeletons, and this feeling would be reinforced by your refusal to follow the rule when the RAW was put in front of your face.
I'm sure it was not your intention, but it must have come across as cheating!
|
|
I came across a piece of game rules which made me think "this can't be right", and made a call about that. One player was really unhappy with that, so I said that I'd look into it after the game session, so that's what I did.
Which way did you go during the session, before you 'looked into it'?
In the OPs situation, if he'd said something like, 'We'll do it my way now, and I'll review it after the game', then 'after the game' is too late! The skeletons would have benefitted from DR they shouldn't have had throughout the entire encounter! Saying 'I'll change it back after the game' makes it seem like even more of a cheat! What if a PC died in tha encounter, killed by a skeleton on 1HP who would have been destroyed if it wasn't for his DR5/bludgeoning?
If a player gets killed by a skeleton with one hit point, that would be hilarious.
I can see a player being mad, but he/she/it should get over it. If a GM makes a ruling, it's not cheating. I don't think you are looking at this game the right way, it isn't really a competition between players and GM. The GM is the arbiter between the PC faction and the NPC faction. If he thinks a rule either doesn't make sense, or is unbalanced it is his role/job to correct it. He isn't cheating because he isn't benefiting. If the GM kills the whole party because of an extremely minor advantage, he loses out as well because now the everyone is just sitting around a table doing nothing. In addition if your party is killed by skeletons because of their DR, your party was built poorly and deserves to die.
Not every character is going to be effective in every battle. Sometimes a fight comes up where all your best options are rendered null. It's not the end of the world, because the next fight will be different. Has ever played a healer in a fight where nobody got hurt? Played a fire-spell sorcerer fighting a red dragon? Stuff happens in games that can render you useless, roll with it and build your character to avoid those situations when they arise.
I applaud your willingness to reverse your decision. I have known a few GMs who wouldn't, worse still I have known a few GMs who would burn an hour of game time arguing about the bite strength of creatures that don't exist. Such discussions are best left to message boards and not play sessions.
|
|
In the cases of the OP and BBT, I don't doubt their sincerity. But imagine a DM who did cheat, who routinely changes rules on the fly just to mess with the PCs to 'win'. How would this look any different to what the OP did!
I've had characters die because of a DM who was full of tricks like that. Where invisibility worked for NPCs but didn't work for PCs because invisibility is an illusion so you can't see through walls you make invisible and if the PCs are invisible and set fire to the barracks then when the soldiers run out and can't see who set the fire their conclusion is that the fire must have been lit by invisible creatures, therefore they get a save to 'disbelieve' the invisibility and they see the PCs just fine!
In 2nd ed a combat round lasted one minute, and you could move 240-feet and still get all your attacks. On one particular round my PC moved 100-feet or so then started to attack the baddy. The DM just 'decided' to only let me have half my allowed attacks, this meant the baddy was alive instead of dead and he killed me!
The laws of physics apply whether we believe them or not. In the fantasy worlds in which we play, the world might not work exactly the same our world does, but it works the way it works! This shared internal reality should not be altered at the DM's whim to 'win' an encounter! I would be mightily pissed off if the DM announced-mid combat!-that he didn't think that magic missile should be a force effect, so the ghosts don't get destroyed and kill you! But don't worry! He's a reasonable man and will agree to review his decision after the game is over!