| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, if some Sprite grabs onto your PC's neck, and begins stabbing you, and you think "well, I have a good CMD, and bonuses against grappling", and your DM tries to tell you "no, the Sprite is climbing on you, not grappling you, so your bonuses don't apply", you think you wouldn't be pissed?
Now, the visual is cool, but bypassing the rules, and avoiding using a possibly lower bonus, just because you "flavored" it, so you could do the exact same thing mechanically, just dang well seems like cheating to me.
To me, that's not cool.
If the sprite was small enough, made an appropriate Climb check, provoked an attack of opportunity, continued to make attack rolls, and didn't inflict the grappled condition on my character? No, that seems fine to me. What's the concern?
Edit: If I have bonuses against grappling, I'd expect the GM to decide in a rational manner whether such bonuses would apply to the climb check. I'd then abide by that decision.
At a minimum, this looks like a Move Action DC 30 Ride check (DC 20 for Fast Mount, +5 for unsuitable creature, +5 for bareback). Thereafter, a DC 15 Ride check to "stay in saddle." I may even add the CR of the creature to the DCs.
Just my 2 cp.
-Doomn
|
Replacing an attack roll, with a skill check, is not something that anyone should just be able to "flavor" their way into.
Also, if flavor is what's most important, then why would you need to bypass the need for an attack roll?
Nobody gets Acrobatics their way out of needing a Reflex save, just because they "flavored" different.
Nobody gets to Disable Device, to trip a construct.
Nobody gets to Sleight of Hand, to disarm someone.
You want to do stuff like that, you pay for it, with feats, class abilities, and so forth.
Only then, should one be able to use completely different rules, to do things that the rules already cover.
We've already discussed that the maneuver in question is not grappling (by virtue of it not doing the things that grappling does), so I won't bring it up again.
What's your take on the above-mentioned kaiju rules?
Edit: Double post? *shakes fist*
|
|
By the way, Kaiju are actually larger than Colossal, like, almost twice the space, and reach.
There just any size category, technically, that covers that.
If you wanted to use the special "Massive" rules, on every creature, then you should limit it to those at least 4 size categories larger.
Meaning, a Small PC could only "climb" a creature of Gargantuan, or larger, or a Fine creature could only "climb" a creature of Medium, or larger.
It certainly isn't RAW.
However, in this case I have to say the RAW gets pretty ridiculous.
Also, the specific example you gave with a sprite actually seems kind of cool to me. A sprite clinging to the small of your back, forcing you to take drastic measures actually seems really in-character for that particular monster.
And, my house rule under the cut does actually allow for the target to shake off the attacker for exactly that reason.
That said, I'm on your side. If we're talking straight RAW, none of this applies.
But in almost all cases, I'd prefer to play under the GM who allows cool stuff like this to happen, as long as they're consistent about how they handle it.
By the way, Kaiju are actually larger than Colossal, like, almost twice the space, and reach.
There just any size category, technically, that covers that.
If you wanted to use the special "Massive" rules, on every creature, then you should limit it to those at least 4 size categories larger.
Meaning, a Small PC could only "climb" a creature of Gargantuan, or larger, or a Fine creature could only "climb" a creature of Medium, or larger.
If you had read my house rule on the subject closely, I already accounted for their beyond colossal size and the three size categories larger was including that. The difference between Huge and Colossal is only two size categories, so an additional size category above that makes three.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still, we are deep in houserule territory.
This is a really hard conversation to have without heading into that territory.
The RAW is downright silly in this case. A house rule is quite naturally warranted here.
The idea that a chihuahua can meaningfully grapple a creature the size of a house just cries out for house rules, because that is NOT the kind of resolution most GMs want to see in their game. (Some do, and they should rock on.)
The RAW runs roughshod over a totally classic trope of clinging on for dear life to the giant monster.
Take your win. The RAW works as you say. Let people talk house rules, because that's more helpful, now that we've established the RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no RAW for it (that I know of), so it is up to the GM.
This was the first reply to the thread, and I haven't ever said otherwise. There is no RAW that says 'Climbing a creature is a Grapple maneuver' either. Your approach* is to force new ideas that are not covered into existing rules, my approach is to make new rules for them. Since it is an area that is not directly covered by the existing rules, both approaches seem equally valid to me. This thread, in my mind, has always been a discussion about what the most reasonable way to handle it is. RAW, climbing a creature other than a Kaiju just isn't allowed, but limiting players to only what the rules specifically permit is a rather boring approach, and to me, defeats half the purpose of a GM.
*Speaking to blackbloodtroll
I think everyone concedes that other than Kaiju, there is no RAW for climbing a monster.
Clearly, grapple is also inappropriate for the effect desired, as it absolutely does not let someone get on a creature and stay with it as they move. Being grappled might give you something vaguely similar, but grappling a creature clearly will not.
Presuming no game effects other than remaining with the creature as it moved, I would think a climb check would be the most appropriate, requiring a move-equivalent action each turn to maintain. I think the Kaiju DC is a fairly appropriate number.
|
|
So, you are hanging on to this creature.
Does it take penalties? Do you?
Let's look at Climb:
With a successful Climb check, you can advance up, down, or across a slope, wall, or other steep incline (or even across a ceiling, provided it has handholds) at one-quarter your normal speed. A slope is considered to be any incline at an angle measuring less than 60 degrees; a wall is any incline at an angle measuring 60 degrees or more. A Climb check that fails by 4 or less means that you make no progress, and one that fails by 5 or more means that you fall from whatever height you have already attained. The DC of the check depends on the conditions of the climb. Compare the task with those on the following table to determine an appropriate DC.
You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand. While climbing, you can’t move to avoid a blow, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You also can’t use a shield while climbing. Anytime you take damage while climbing, make a Climb check against the DC of the slope or wall. Failure means you fall from your current height and sustain the appropriate falling damage.
Look like at least, you do.
Sounds, familiar...
Square Occupied by Creature Three Sizes Larger or Smaller: Any creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories larger than itself.
A big creature can move through a square occupied by a creature three size categories smaller than it is. Creatures moving through squares occupied by other creatures provoke attacks of opportunity from those creatures.
Is the dragon at least 3 sizes larger? Then you can move into its spaces and share spaces with it. For a normal medium creature, the dragon would need to be gargantuan or colossal. Movement within its spaces is as normal provoking for moving through occupied spaces. Now, to climbing up it? No. Can't do it. Unless you have an ability allowing climbing other creatures, you can't climb up and hang out on his back where he can't reach you, or anything like that. Yes its in movies, maybe Paizo should make some abilities that let you get "inside the reach" of gargantuan creatures by climbing on them. The closest one I can think of is Monkey Shine, which requires you stunning fist and move into your opponents square and get some ac bonuses.
The only downside to this, is when the dragon moves, you don't. Though you'd get an AoO for it leaving your threatened space. Sorry, Climb doesn't give you a free (or relatively free) "I get to stay within reach of the dragon always".
Or you can grapple it. Use your successful grapple check to move action adjacent to it somewhere that is off the ground/above it. Now if he turns the grapple around, he can move with you, and if he doesn't, you have immobilized him.
If a player insisted on a climb check DC, I would say it is DC 25 (natural rock wall) + CMD of the dragon. Yes that's absurdly high, and it is much harder than "just" grappling it. Why? Because it probably should be a grapple check anyway.
This is undoubtedly a grapple. You don't climb creatures.
No, the "always threatening" and free movement is all seemingly okay, because "flavor".
Flying creatures moving out of your threatened area?
One skill check solves it all.
Of course, that's cool, and if you don't think so, then you suck, and rules are dumb.
ಠ_ಠ
Or, if given a climb check, I'd let the dragon roll on the ground as a move action, forcing a reflex save from the climbing character as if hit by something the size of the dragon per falling objects (gargantuan is 8d6). Success would half the damage(no evasion reduction past that) and damage would force another climb check to hold on, with the damage as a penalty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the "always threatening" and free movement is all seemingly okay, because "flavor".
Flying creatures moving out of your threatened area?
One skill check solves it all.
Of course, that's cool, and if you don't think so, then you suck, and rules are dumb.
ಠ_ಠ
That wasn't the image I got at all of what was wanted.
I would expect a move action to climb. So no, you can't use a skill check as it moves away from you, you have to be climbing the thing. You obviously are climbing and get all the penalties of climbing.
You are not protected from its attacks. You can only get a single attack each turn. You would be threatening it, but its movement wouldn't provoke attacks of opportunity (you are now part of it's frame of reference for that purpose, just like if two people are on a ship they don't get attacks of opportunity each round just because the ship moves cause them to both leave threatened squares.)
If the creature was tremendously concerned about the guy hanging on it, I could see an increase to the DC do to actively trying to shake the clinger, but for the most part I would expect a big creature like that to be able to grapple a smaller foe if it choose (especially one taking climbing penalties) and at that point the guy isn't climbing anymore....
I don't see anything unbalanced by the basic concept. It is cool and certainly thematically appropriate to have a mechanic to be able to do it, and their isn't one right now.
Obviously if it didn't work out in a game and people weren't happy it should be dropped. It is important to remember that some people and groups are more comfortable with a bit of flex in the rules, while others find such things very uncomfortable and want everything laid out in official sources, but I think the majority of players and groups would be ok with the basic concept outlined.
That free movement, and constant state of threatening is pretty powerful though.
You can get the same "free movement" effect by standing/climbing on a moving vehicle. This mechanic would be no less constraining than that.
I posted this as an opinion piece to the community
If you are wanting opinions, I suggest the Advice forum.
That said, I agree with BBT that climb giving a free "I stay in melee range and can keep attacking him" is too strong for a mere skill-check. Either the climber should take severe penalties, or it shouldn't be allowed at all.
My thoughts on house rules are: Climb check 25 + CMD.
Movement leaving threatened square as you move into the creatures square provokes.
Movement into creatures occupied space provokes.
Damage taken while climbing forces another climb check at same difficulty to remain climbing.
You take a -4 penalty on the climb check if the dragon takes a move action, or -8 for a double move (similar to ranged attacks while mounted).
You hold on with only 1 hand while attacking, and must use a move action to maintain the climb, so only 1 attack per turn.
You must pass concentration checks as if you were grappled if you want to cast spells. (Assume the dragon knows that spells are bad, and actively attempts to hinder you as you try to cast).
With those conditions, I would maybe allow it.
Is the vehicle your enemy? Do you threaten the vehicle?You can get the same "free movement" effect by standing/climbing on a moving vehicle. This mechanic would be no less constraining than that.That free movement, and constant state of threatening is pretty powerful though.
The vehicle might be your enemy if you're trying to, say, disable a small airship. Threatening isn't really relevant, though.
If the beast is massively colossal beast, then it should be something more like climbing, acrobatics, or riding, as you are really on hazardous terrain than an animal.
If the beast isn't trying to knock you off, then it should also be some sort of skill combination of climb, acrobatics, and ride (if it is also moving).
Otherwise, I would argue that it should be an initial grapple check and a new grapple check each turn you want to move up the beast.
Climbing up a unwilling dragon's back, neck, etc. should be very difficult, more than just a simple set of skill checks, as the thing is likely doing everything it can to get you off. The grapple rules work nicely here.
|
|
The vehicle might be your enemy if you're trying to, say, disable a small airship. Threatening isn't really relevant, though.Is the vehicle your enemy? Do you threaten the vehicle?You can get the same "free movement" effect by standing/climbing on a moving vehicle. This mechanic would be no less constraining than that.That free movement, and constant state of threatening is pretty powerful though.
Who is driving the vehicle?
How are you staying on, and also threatening a moving enemy?
Is the vehicle also a creature, and an enemy?
Replacing an attack roll, with a skill check, is not something that anyone should just be able to "flavor" their way into.
Also, if flavor is what's most important, then why would you need to bypass the need for an attack roll?
Nobody gets Acrobatics their way out of needing a Reflex save, just because they "flavored" different.
Nobody gets to Disable Device, to trip a construct.
Nobody gets to Sleight of Hand, to disarm someone.
You want to do stuff like that, you pay for it, with feats, class abilities, and so forth.
Only then, should one be able to use completely different rules, to do things that the rules already cover.
I guess I have to ask why would it be so terrible if those were options. People are constantly complaining that skills and skill monkey builds are underpowered.
Perhaps this is a step in the right direction towards fixing that.
Some classes are rich in options (feats, special abilities etc) to do cool things in combat. Other classes are rich in skill points. Perhaps one inching into the realm of the other isn't such a bad thing.
As to the specific use in question I feel there's issues with both climb and grapple as a means of modeling what's trying to be accomplished.
and yes we're deep into house rule territory, I don't think anyone is disputing that.
- Torger
The vehicle might be your enemy if you're trying to, say, disable a small airship. Threatening isn't really relevant, though.Is the vehicle your enemy? Do you threaten the vehicle?You can get the same "free movement" effect by standing/climbing on a moving vehicle. This mechanic would be no less constraining than that.That free movement, and constant state of threatening is pretty powerful though.
Who is driving the vehicle?
How are you staying on, and also threatening a moving enemy?
Is the vehicle also a creature, and an enemy?
Here's a more specific example, begging you to bear in mind that (a) the example is contrived for this house rules discussion, and (b) the example is plausible enough that the situation might come up in a typical* campaign (whatever that means) given the right circumstances.
Your task is to prevent the enemy's large, low-flying, powered-by-djinn-farts hoverthing from delivering its cargo to base. You want to bash it to bits with your +1 adamantine bludger of breaking so that it is forced to ground. Alternately, you might be trying to bash a hole in it to get at the vehicle's cargo so that you can steal or destroy it. As the hoverthing passes, you leap up, grab a conveniently-placed handhold, climb over to either the engine area or the cargo hold, and start smashing. The driver is busy driving and can't do anything to interfere--the hoverthing's handling is poor enough that any real counter-maneuvers might crash it.
As a first pass at adjudicating such a situation: I would use an Acrobatics check if the hoverthing is high enough to warrant it, followed by a Climb check to hang on, then Climb checks to scale the vehicle until the character reaches the target location. Bash bash bash, attacking the vehicle's AC. If the hoverthing had better handling, I'd factor the driver's driving skill into the Climb DC and require Climb checks to hang on against the driver's counter-maneuvers.
If the hoverthing was a sufficiently immense living creature instead of a manually-driven vehicle, I'd use similar rules unless the creature was capable of maneuvering well enough to attempt to evade or dislodge the climber, in which case I'd factor in the creature's CMD and/or possibly its Fly skill into the Climb DCs. (No, I don't have hard numbers for this; I'd have to think on it more.)
Edit: We are way outside the bounds of rules questions at this point. The original question has been answered as "no RAW way to do it". Maybe we could continue in a homebrew thread?
*"typical" meaning "mid-to-high-magic campaign world with an average amount of deviation from (or supplements to) the published rules"
A dragon only has to flick his arm, leg, wing tail or whatever to send you flying away.
GRAVITY keeps you in place while climbing. Gravity won't keep you attached to the dragon - not even a little bit.
Vehicles can't flick you away. Gravity and Inertia are the only forces working against you. Staying attached would be difficult due to bumps and turns.
That is way easier to deal with than being thrown around in any random direction at any given second. Put a loose ring on your finger and flick it off. That is what it would be like trying to hold onto a dragon. It is barely even an effort.
As a coincidence, I did pick up 101 New Skill Uses by Rite Publishing yesterday, and noticed that they DO have rules for this under the ride skill.