|
I had a discussion with a player who claimed that he defeated the BBEG in Waking Rune
by summoning wave after wave of stirges to drain his constitution.
In theory, if they could hit, that could be done. However, I told him that I did not think the stirges could penetrate the DR/10 from stoneskin. He told me that stoneskin was activated.
Is there a stated rule that an attack, like the stirge's attach ability needs to be able to do damage or it is ineffective?
Anyway, this particular player is a great min/maxxer and usually has a good hold on the rules. I've played at his table before and played side-by-side with him but never as a GM myself. Other players tell me of his "exploits" though (typically summoning stirges) and I find where he is breaking or twisting rules most of the time. As I GM more, we'll eventually wind up at the same table. I want him to have fun and to be able to play his character to the max, but not at the expense of everyone else's fun.
So, my two questions are specifically, 1) if an attack like a stirges attach cannot penetrate DR, can it then suck constitution or is it deemed that the touch attack failed. 2) does anyone else know of a player who likes to summon stirges and believes them to be uber powerful? Or, are they?
Andy
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Reading over the stirge's abilities, it doesn't mention anywhere that it needs to be able to deal hit point damage to drain blood. Conceptually, it seems a bit wonky, but I see nothing in the rules to keep it from working.
I'll have to keep this in mind if I ever build a Druid. It gives summon nature's ally a swarm tactic that rivals lantern archons for summon monster.
|
Andy, what you are dealing with is a Rules Question. The proper forum to bring this to is here. The sad fact is the player is correct, that's how the stirge rules work. Personally I agree with the reasons you identified that it wouldn't work, but many players only care about the Rules As Written (RAW) even if they don't make sense in this corner case.
The best you can do is explain how you feel about it to the player. Ask him not to use that tactic when you are the GM, or to agree to limitations when confronted with DR. If he refuses, you can let him know that you won't GM for him in the future. You vote with your feet. That's about all you can do. Otherwise, suck it up and live with it. The developers aren't going to address this because it is a corner case, unless you get a buncha FAQ button support.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that the stirges have a reach of 0ft. I'm not sure of the legality of summoning a creature into someone else's space. Otherwise, they'll provoke AoOs when they move in to attach.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Krune can tell the surges to suck it
Or.. well.. not to.
|
|
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Krune can tell the surges to suck it
Or.. well.. not to.
Stirges make a touch attack. The result is not damage, but the special ability "Attach". The special ability "Attach" allows for the blood drain, and since it is a result of a touch attack, DR does not negate it. After the first round it's a grapple check to maintain, and that again would not be blocked by DR.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
This is a powerful tactic that I've used in the past on my druid, specifically on enemy spellcasters. It rarely lasts more than 1 round, as the caster simply targets the stirges with some spells or includes himself in an AOE that he is immune to.
It is, however, a nifty way to waste an enemy's turn.
In the higher levels, I usually replace it by summoning a cyclops, and having them use Flash of Insight on whatever combat maneuver I want to succeed. Disarm and grapple being fan favorites.
However, as was stated by the spoiler above, I don't think it would work in this case for that reason.
|
As a note while the stirge is slightly weirdly worded I do not believe it gives its victims the grappled condition because of the attach UMR. So I think it could initially attach but would then fail to maintain on its next turn.
Format: attach; Location: individual attacks.
|
|
1)From the Paizo PRD:
"Attach (Ex): When a stirge hits with a touch attack, its barbed legs latch onto the target, anchoring it in place. An attached stirge is effectively grappling its prey. The stirge loses its Dexterity bonus to AC and has an AC of 12, but holds on with great tenacity and inserts its proboscis into the grappled target's flesh. A stirge has a +8 racial bonus to maintain its grapple on a foe once it is attached. An attached stirge can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself—if its prey manages to win a grapple check or Escape Artist check against it, the stirge is removed."
Freedom of Movement would trump Attach.
2) As Attach is specifically called out as "effectively grappling its prey", it is well within GM interpretation to adjudicate it as a normal grapple in that multiple stirges cannot grapple the same creature--there would be one "main grappler" and other stirges could Aid Another on further grapple checks.
"Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check."
3) As everyone knows, Tetori Stirges AKA Stirgetoris can suppress Freedom of Movement.
|
Keep in mind that the stirges have a reach of 0ft. I'm not sure of the legality of summoning a creature into someone else's space. Otherwise, they'll provoke AoOs when they move in to attach.
** spoiler omitted **
1)From the Paizo PRD:
"Attach (Ex): When a stirge hits with a touch attack, its barbed legs latch onto the target, anchoring it in place. An attached stirge is effectively grappling its prey. The stirge loses its Dexterity bonus to AC and has an AC of 12, but holds on with great tenacity and inserts its proboscis into the grappled target's flesh. A stirge has a +8 racial bonus to maintain its grapple on a foe once it is attached. An attached stirge can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself—if its prey manages to win a grapple check or Escape Artist check against it, the stirge is removed."
Freedom of Movement would trump Attach.
2) As Attach is specifically called out as "effectively grappling its prey", it is well within GM interpretation to adjudicate it as a normal grapple in that multiple stirges cannot grapple the same creature--there would be one "main grappler" and other stirges could Aid Another on further grapple checks.
"Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature's combat maneuver check."
Hi Bruno,
Does this means that the player in the OP's post, could NOT have used stirges to drain the BBEG's CON?
That he only defeated the BBEG, cos the GM played the BBEG wrongly!?!?!
|
The best you can do is explain how you feel about it to the player. Ask him not to use that tactic when you are the GM, or to agree to limitations when confronted with DR. If he refuses, you can let him know that you won't GM for him in the future. You vote with your feet. That's about all you can do.
Zero-Star PFS GM Question:
Do PFS GMs have the ability to ask a player not to use a rule supported mechanic (assuming that it is one), if it is undermining other PFS players enjoyment of the game? Are we allowed to do this as PFS is trying to operate according to RAW?I've gone back over the GuidetoOP, GM101, and GM201, and it doesn't seem like we are suppose to do this in a PFS game.
(Home-game sure. But PFS? Which is why I imagine andy mcdonald 623 put the question in this forum rather than in Pathfinder-Rules; this seems very PFS specific)
|
The best you can do is explain how you feel about it to the player. Ask him not to use that tactic when you are the GM, or to agree to limitations when confronted with DR. If he refuses, you can let him know that you won't GM for him in the future. You vote with your feet. That's about all you can do.Zero-Star PFS GM Question:
Do PFS GMs have the ability to ask a player not to use a rule supported mechanic (assuming that it is one), if it is undermining other PFS players enjoyment of the game? Are we allowed to do this as PFS is trying to operate according to RAW?I've gone back over the GuidetoOP, GM101, and GM201, and it doesn't seem like we are suppose to do this in a PFS game.
(Home-game sure. But PFS? Which is why I imagine andy mcdonald 623 put the question in this forum rather than in Pathfinder-Rules; this seems very PFS specific)
You can ask players to do whatever you want.
What you can't do is actually refuse them the legal options.
However, I believe the guide does indicate that GM's are able to refuse animal spammers, and that includes summoning, if it is unduly slowing the game down.
EDIT: For clarity, when I say you can ask a player to do whatever you want, let me be clear. You can ask. If the player refuses, then there isn't much you can do about it. If their actions are legitimately driving other players away, and you've warned them about inappropriate behavior, then you can simply disinvite them from your game day.
|
|
EDIT: For clarity, when I say you can ask a player to do whatever you want, let me be clear. You can ask. If the player refuses, then there isn't much you can do about it. If their actions are legitimately driving other players away, and you've warned them about inappropriate behavior, then you can simply disinvite them from your game day.
Okay, I'm pretty sure I'm following this. Does this process seem appropriate:
1) Watch for how the behavior is negatively impacting the other PFS player character's gaming experience.
2) Discuss with the player using the loophole the effect it's having on overall play, confirm it is a valid use (based on current rules), but explain that it's now impairing the other players fun as it's overshadowing them. Ask for the use to stop, as it's damaging overall fun, a core PFS tenant.
3) If the player tries to keep using the same technique, shut it down, so the other players can engage in defeating enemies as well.
4) If the player gets upset, indicate that this was explained, and invite them to leave if they cannot abide the ruling. If they become extreme enough in their reaction, ban them from the table/event.
|
|
Thanks, @BigNorseWolf, that was the rule I was thinking of. Logically, it would apply but by RAW, I guess because the stirge does no HP damage, it's allowed to bypass DR?!?
To my second question, people have skirted around at answering this but it seems I need to clarify what I'm asking. Have other GM's had players who use this (summoning stirges onto an enemy that has DR that they (the stirges) can't overcome, but they bypass it by having an attack that does no HP damage) tactic? It strikes me as passing strange that this should work. {EDIT: @Doug Miles, this does belong in the Rules Questions folder}
To my unasked question: if the person I talked to was telling the truth, his GM misplayed Krune. If the person I talked to buffaloed the GM with rules lawyering...
I did not play that scenario with him so I can't say what really happened. I only reported what he told me to add context to the question. And for more context, I witnessed him buffalo a GM into letting his stirges grapple (as in apply the grappled condition) their enemies with attach. We steamrolled a sub-tier 6-7 scenario all while playing up in a previous season. The GM let it walk during the game and it took me awhile to find that this was wrong because I had to find the PRD on my phone. Regardless, even after we set the player staight on that rule (after the game), players in other scenarios that I was running later reported to me that he was still doing it (applying the grappled condition to his stirges' enemies). I don't know that it's true because I wasn't there for these other "exploits" but I believe that there is some kernel of truth to it.
In the end, I just want to put the right rules out there when he inevitably plays at my table. And, despite how it might look, I want him to have fun as long as it does not negatively impact the other players.
Andy
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
This only surrounds the sarcophagus, though, so is only relevant for a part of the encounter.
To your second question: I've not met people who summon stirges. At high levels, they're easily overcome, and summoning in less than a one round action takes a feat or a summoner class. If he's using all his actions summoning a CR 1/2, he's not doing that much for the rest of the party. Also, stirges detach after four rounds. It may be pretty alright at low levels, but it quickly becomes a time waster for him.
Multiple creatures can "grapple" by being in the target's square (per aid another) and attacking to aid the grapple. This does not give the creatures who aid the ability to blood drain on their turn as they are not attached.
If you find that the player is trying to override your perfectly legitimate understanding of the rules, you reserve the right to remove him from your table. GMs and players alike may choose to not GM/play with certain players, even at public game events.
If you are able to contact the other GMs in your area, having a quick "GM meeting" on stirges could be appropriate, too. As in, this is what the monster does, and this is what the monster does not do, to get the record set straight. If the player is aware of how the stirge's attach works, yet pressures GMs into applying a grappled condition to the target, then he is cheating, which is not tolerated.
It seems as if you won't let him pull that choice word at your table; more power to you, and stick with your ruling. Showing that your waver is an exploitable sign of weakness. (There's a difference between osculating because you were wrong and waffling because you were bullied into it.)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Logically, it would apply but by RAW, I guess because the stirge does no HP damage, it's allowed to bypass DR?!?
Though I disagree that the idea of the stirge's blood drain being blocked by DR would be "logical", you are correct that the rules do allow it to go through.
To my second question, people have skirted around at answering this but it seems I need to clarify what I'm asking. Have other GM's had players who use this (summoning stirges onto an enemy that has DR that they (the stirges) can't overcome, but they bypass it by having an attack that does no HP damage) tactic?
Walter Sheppard already stated that he himself uses this tactic, HERE.
To my unasked question: if the person I talked to was telling the truth, his GM misplayed Krune.
Unless of course someone in the party had managed to suppress the ring of freedom of movement with a high-rolling dispel magic.
If the person I talked to buffaloed the GM with rules lawyering...
There are two situations that can result in a scene that looks like "buffaloing the GM with rules lawyering". One is where a player (whether through willful deception or insufficient proficiency with the rules) is wrong about how something works but wants it to work that way so he pressures GMs until they go along with it to keep the game moving.
The other is where the player is the only one who does know how the rule in question works, and constantly has to struggle with less-proficient GMs who have a negative gut reaction to unfamiliar tactics and get suspicious of anyone who points to a rulebook.
Since the rule involved is "damage reduction only applies to damage", guess which situation we've got?
I did not play that scenario with him so I can't say what really happened. I only reported what he told me to add context to the question. And for more context, I witnessed him buffalo a GM into letting his stirges grapple (as in apply the grappled condition) their enemies with attach. We steamrolled a sub-tier 6-7 scenario all while playing up in a previous season. The GM let it walk during the game and it took me awhile to find that this was wrong because I had to find the PRD on my phone.
That would be easy to miss, as the stirge makes multiple references to grappling, and grappling normally applies that condition to the target. Between the Core grapple rules, the stirge's stat block, and the UMR; only the UMR points out that the target doesn't gain the grappled condition. I wouldn't blame someone for missing that any more than I'd blame someone for missing that Personal spells can't be made into potions.
Regardless, even after we set the player staight on that rule (after the game), players in other scenarios that I was running later reported to me that he was still doing it (applying the grappled condition to his stirges' enemies). I don't know that it's true because I wasn't there for these other "exploits" but I believe that there is some kernel of truth to it.
Maybe he's being dishonest, maybe he's being forgetful, maybe the stories are from before he was "set straight", or maybe when he was "set straight" he was simply told to submit rather than actually being shown the correct rule. In any case, you can't really know.
In the end, I just want to put the right rules out there when he inevitably plays at my table.
Then where you should probably be looking is in the rules. We're all just fellow GMs/players/commentators. Even if we all gave you perfect consensus, we could all be unanimously wrong. I suggest making a habit of using the following system when you're unsure of something:
1) Look up the thing in question (in this case, the stirge's stat block).
2) If the question is still not 100% answered, look for any mechanics referenced in the thing from #1 (in this case, the grapple mechanic).
3) Look up any other mechanics involved in the interaction in question (in this case, DR).
4) Check the FAQ for all books involved in steps #1-3.
With a fair and open mind, this process will answer well over 95% of your questions, and at the end you'll have something better to point to than what would look to a player like a posse gathered against him.
Hope that helps! :)
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between osculating because you were wrong and waffling because you were bullied into it.
I don't believe that word means what you think it means ...
The word you are looking for is "oscillating". "Osculating" is a fancy word for kissing.
(I have to concede, though, that this is a first-rate malapropism)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between osculating because you were wrong and waffling because you were bullied into it.I don't believe that word means what you think it means ...
The word you are looking for is "oscillating". "Osculating" is a fancy word for kissing.
(I have to concede, though, that this is a first-rate malapropism)
Oh, expletive! I should not type at 4ish AM. At least you knew what I meant to try to say...
But you're correct, I didn't double-check my proof-read. Thanks for the correction.
|
|
Then where you should probably be looking is in the rules. We're all just fellow GMs/players/commentators. Even if we all gave you perfect consensus, we could all be unanimously wrong. I suggest making a habit of using the following system when you're unsure of something:
1) Look up the thing in question (in this case, the stirge's stat block).
2) If the question is still not 100% answered, look for any mechanics referenced in the thing from #1 (in this case, the grapple mechanic).
3) Look up any other mechanics involved in the interaction in question (in this case, DR).
4) Check the FAQ for all books involved in steps #1-3.With a fair and open mind, this process will answer well over 95% of your questions, and at the end you'll have something better to point to than what would look to a player like a posse gathered against him.
Here's why I don't think the stirge being able to overcome DR is logical...
In the stirges attach ability it describes "the proboscis penetrates the flesh" of its victim. The spell stoneskin (for example) makes one resistant to "blows cuts or stabs" to the point of mechanically granting DR 10/adamantine until used up. So, I think it odd that a puncture that does 0 HP damage should overcome DR 10/adamantine. But, I concede that RAW is at best unclear and I would rule in the stirges favor.
I've played at over fifty tables and GM'ed thirteen more (I know, big deal), and I've played with and GM'ed summoners before. Other than Walter Sheppard on this board, one person has used this seemingly excellent tactic. I found that odd too.
Having checked the rules in my books (I should have searched electronically), I could not find anything to say that this guy was wrong. But with all the things I found odd, I decided to check here to see if people could put me on the right track. In my mind, this worked.
It appears that despite my initial misgivings, the person in question is right.
Andy
|
|
There are two situations that can result in a scene that looks like "buffaloing the GM with rules lawyering". One is where a player (whether through willful deception or insufficient proficiency with the rules) is wrong about how something works but wants it to work that way so he pressures GMs until they go along with it to keep the game moving.
The other is where the player is the only one who does know how the rule in question works, and constantly has to struggle with less-proficient GMs who have a negative gut reaction to unfamiliar tactics and get suspicious of anyone who points to a rulebook.
Or the rule is genuinely unclear or contradictory and the DM has to make a call.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Or the rule is genuinely unclear or contradictory and the DM has to make a call.There are two situations that can result in a scene that looks like "buffaloing the GM with rules lawyering". One is where a player (whether through willful deception or insufficient proficiency with the rules) is wrong about how something works but wants it to work that way so he pressures GMs until they go along with it to keep the game moving.
The other is where the player is the only one who does know how the rule in question works, and constantly has to struggle with less-proficient GMs who have a negative gut reaction to unfamiliar tactics and get suspicious of anyone who points to a rulebook.
In my experience, that situation typically doesn't result in the type of scene I was talking about. (Or if it does, the nature of the situation pretty closely mimics the dichotomy I already expressed.)
|
|
Theorycrafting why you don't see this tactic:
1) Low level casters with SNA I will most likely summon the DPR option i.e. the full-attacking talon/talon/bite eagle which gets them the most bang for their buck for the limited rounds they have it.
If a single eagle hits with all its attacks, that's an average of 7.5 DPR per round. If a single stirge attaches, it takes TWO rounds to do 2 CON damage. Your stirge would have to be attached to a 15 HD monster (!) for two rounds to do the same DPR as an eagle that hit with all 3 attacks in the same amount of time.
2) Starting with SNA II, you can summon multiple Eagles to attack the same target. Only one stirge can attach to a target.
3) An eagle has 5' reach and threatens squares around it. A stirge has 0' reach and must provoke to enter a square to attack. The eagle offers more territorial control and sets up flanks.
4) Most low level combats, where eagles and stirges would be summoned, do not often feature high AC monsters. Even if the eagle only hit once a round for 2.5 DPR, that's 10 points of damage over 4 rounds versus the stirge's max 4 CON drain (which would break even with the one-hit eagle in this case only if the monster had 5 HD).
5) Players like rolling dice. The eagle has 3 attack and damage rolls. The stirge has 1 attack roll.
6) The stirge requires a higher level of system mastery to maximize in combat. Grappling and ability damage may scare folks off into using simpler options.
All that being said, a stirge can be a good situational summon depending on your foe...but odds are there are probably a bajillion other better SNA options out there.
Apparently I may be missing something. From the comments above, I have the impression that several are saying that only one creature can grapple another one - hence only one stirge can drain blood in a round.
I am not seeing that when I read the rules.
Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature’s combat maneuver check.
That first phrase says that multiple creatures can grapple. The rest is about how the mechanics of it would work - saves everyone from rolling a d20 when several people try and grapple the same creature.
Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures: Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2-1/2 feet across, so four can fit into a single square.
Stirges are tiny creatures.
Stirges don't make a grapple check to initiate their attach ability, that is they don't make a CMB check vs CMD. They make a touch attack. To me, that means that the designers deliberately made the initial attack not be a grapple check.
My interpretation of the rules is that 4 stirges could attach themselves to a medium sized creature. And 16 to a large creature.
If I have misinterpreted the rules could someone point out where?
Edit: Grammar
|
|
At worst is unclear. At best, it's very clear: DR applies to damage. As others have pointed out, DR would not apply to ability drains.
The problem that you're running up against occurs with this word: "logical." There are two types of logic we can use in the game.
1. Analytical/Comprehension: used to understand what the rules mean or intend;
2. Comparative/Analogous: trying to compare something in one reference frame (our real world) to another reference frame (the game world). <---DON'T DO THIS.
There are probably one hundred things we can point to and say this makes no sense in the context of the real world. A perfect example is armor class. Logically, someone wearing full plate mail would not be harder to hit than someone who was in street clothes. They would be harder to damage. Logically, a large shield would reduce the chance you got hit by a sword a lot more than 10%.
"Logical" arguments based on real world physics or analogies don't work as justification for changing rules in PF/D&D. The game is not a real life simulator, it's a game. The rules are filled with things that don't make sense and PFS GMs can't go cherry-picking. As a GM you need to accept this is game.
Don't mean to lay it on thick, but the sooner you abandon this approach to the rules, the easier it will be to play the game as written.
Actually, I see the stirge touch attack as a natural weapon that does 0 HP of damage and wondering how it overcomes DR 10/adamantine. I'm looking at a lot of things here. I'm trying to synch up RAW, level differential of a stirge and the stoneskin spell, what a player would do if the tables were turned, etc.
Now, I agree that if the stirge bypasses DR, it drains con. And, I agree that RAW says they do or at least it doesn't say they don't. Since it does not mention numerical damage, you say DR vs. attach don't interact. I say the attach does 0 HP damage...
And just like every time I come here for advice, I realize I could be wrong. This is another case where I think I am by RAW. Despite how little sense I think it makes.
Andy
@ Jiggy: I think my lack of clarity comes from how I see the attach as a 0 HP natural attack vs. DR/10 adamantine. My perspective could be wrong, but that was my interpretation.
|
|
Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature’s combat maneuver check.That first phrase says that multiple creatures can grapple. The rest is about how the mechanics of it would work - saves everyone from rolling a d20 when several people try and grapple the same creature.
The assisting stirges are not grappling per se, they are using the Aid Another action to bolster the main stirge's grapple check. If two smiting paladins Aid Another on a third paladin's attack, not all three get to do smite damage--only the third paladin who actually attacked does.
Example:
A young pre-tetori Bruno Breakbone is attacked by Stirges:
Larry Stirge enters Bruno's square.
Bruno misses Moe Stirge with AOO.
Larry Stirge succeeds in touch attack.
Larry Stirge attaches to Bruno.
Larry Stirge gains grappled condition.
Bruno gains grappled condition.
Larry Stirge drains 1 CON.
Curly Stirge enters Bruno's square.
Bruno does not have Combat Reflexes, so no AOO.
Curly Stirge succeeds in touch attack.
Curly Stirge tries to attach to Bruno.
Bruno is already grappled by Moe Stirge.
Curly Stirge's attach fails.
Moe Stirge enters Bruno's square.
Bruno does not have Combat Reflexes, so no AOO.
Moe Stirge, since it cannot grapple, successfully Aids Another on Larry's grapple check to maintain.
Bruno, because he is not yet a beautiful and handsome tetori, fails to escape Grapple.
Larry Stirge makes grapple check to maintain with +2 bonus.
Larry Stirge succeeds and chooses to maintain grapple.
Larry Stirge drains 1 CON.
Curly & Moe Stirge Aid Another for Larry's next grapple to maintain, etc.
Basically, the second and third Stirges can make their touch attacks, but cannot attach because the grapple rules only allow for one controlling grappler--while there can be one controller and multiple victims there cannot be multiple controllers and one victim.
Multiple people wishing grapple the same target are mechanically reduced to Aid Anothering the main/controlling grappler. Even though all the creatures may have a special ability that triggers on a succesful grapple, only one creature is actually making a grapple check (the others are using the Aid Another action).
edit: grammar/clarity/reasserting Bruno's handsomeness
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
EDIT: For clarity, when I say you can ask a player to do whatever you want, let me be clear. You can ask. If the player refuses, then there isn't much you can do about it. If their actions are legitimately driving other players away, and you've warned them about inappropriate behavior, then you can simply disinvite them from your game day.Okay, I'm pretty sure I'm following this. Does this process seem appropriate:
1) Watch for how the behavior is negatively impacting the other PFS player character's gaming experience.
2) Discuss with the player using the loophole the effect it's having on overall play, confirm it is a valid use (based on current rules), but explain that it's now impairing the other players fun as it's overshadowing them. Ask for the use to stop, as it's damaging overall fun, a core PFS tenant.
3) If the player tries to keep using the same technique, shut it down, so the other players can engage in defeating enemies as well.
4) If the player gets upset, indicate that this was explained, and invite them to leave if they cannot abide the ruling. If they become extreme enough in their reaction, ban them from the table/event.
Replace 3 and 4.
you can't really do 3 under the rules.
For 4, your option is basically to take the guy aside and basically say "I'm sorry, but having you play this character is making things unfun for the other players at the table. I think this may not be the best game for you, you are going to need to find another table." And suggest that they may need to find a table with more optimized gamers where they are not showing everyone up.
Make sure that it really is ruining the fun for the other players. My bard for example *really* likes having other PCs at the table who can kill off the opponents so I don't have to. (I can dish out a fair bit of damage, but a lot of those options cost me money.)
The assisting stirges are not grappling per se, they are using the Aid Another action to bolster the main stirge's grapple check.Multiple Creatures: Multiple creatures can attempt to grapple one target. The creature that first initiates the grapple is the only one that makes a check, with a +2 bonus for each creature that assists in the grapple (using the Aid Another action). Multiple creatures can also assist another creature in breaking free from a grapple, with each creature that assists (using the Aid Another action) granting a +2 bonus on the grappled creature’s combat maneuver check.That first phrase says that multiple creatures can grapple. The rest is about how the mechanics of it would work - saves everyone from rolling a d20 when several people try and grapple the same creature.
That is where I am interpreting differently. Attach is not grappling - it says so right in it's description - it's a touch attack. If the game designers had wanted it to be a grapple, then they could have easily stated that - as they created a new ability indicates to me that it is not grappling.
Please note that Bruno would have been able to make AoO against the newly arriving stirges each round, as Bruno does not have the grappled condition.
Attach (Ex) The creature automatically latches onto its target when it successfully makes the listed attack. The creature is considered grappling, but the target is not. The target can attack or grapple the creature as normal, or break the attach with a successful grapple or Escape Artist check. Most creatures with this ability have a racial bonus to maintain a grapple (listed in its CMB entry).
"Osculating because you were wrong" is a skill every married man should learn. :)I prefer the waffling actually...
I only prefer waffling if s/he's making eggs and coffee to go with it.