| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no RAW for it (that I know of), so it is up to the GM.
Personally I would allow a climb check instead, since you aren't trying to apply the grappled condition or anything to the monster. Then, once you are on its back, an acrobatics check if you want to stand up and full attack, or another climb check to hold on while you perform a single attack as a standard action. I would even reward your ingenuity and say that the dragon is flatfooted against you while you are on them. That's just how I would rule it though, I can't give you anything that would hold more weight than your GM's existing decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd make it a climb check vs the dragon's CMD.
Using Rite Publishing's "101 New Skill Uses" it would be done thusly:
"Against a larger opponent, you grab
hold of its belt, armor, scales, horned plates, or other
footholds to scramble up its body and attack. Against a
creature that is at least two size categories larger than
you are, you may make a Climb check as a standard
action (DC 10 + opponent’s BAB)."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bull Rush, Dirty Trick, Disarm, Drag, Grapple, Reposition, Steal, Sunder, and Trip.
None of these should be replaced with a skill check.
As a Rules Questions answer, this is correct. There is no RAW representation of what the OP is describing.
Outside of that context, the OP is attempting to do something that isn't covered by any of those maneuvers. Rite Publishing's method has merit, though it isn't the only way to house it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a standard action, you can attempt to grapple a foe, hindering his combat options.
Since the character isn't trying to hinder the larger creature, I don't think it should be defined as a grapple.
|
So, you want extra movement, by "climbing" it, and having it move, instead of you.
You want to do this, without a feat, or class, or item investment, without provoking, and with only a skill check.
I get cinematic scene you want to play.
I want you to have a way to do it.
I think just a Climb check is not the answer.
I don't think the idea is to get extra movement. You could already do this by climbing a vehicle as opposed to an enemy.
In general, I'm firmly against requiring feats or class features for this sort of action. Every time a feat or class feature is published that implements something like this, it closes the door on attempting to do it without that feat or class feature. Examples abound.
My advice to the GM: Find a way to map the action to existing rules in a reasonable manner. It's pretty daring, so set the DC appropriately high. It's totally worth it when it pays off (and sometimes when it doesn't). Skill checks are particularly good for this as RAW specifically empowers the GM to invent alternative uses for skill checks.
Characters can sometimes use skills for purposes other than those noted here, at the GM's discretion.
I would require three size categories, though. Anything less might hinder the creature, which takes us back to grappling.
What if he is attempting to climb on the creature in order to make a Ride check? The dragon would be unsuited for riding and therefore he would take a -5 penalty on the check, and an additional -5 for riding bareback, but nothing in the Ride skill says that the mount has to be willing. If he can make the DC 20 check to control a mount in combat even with the -10, could he then force the dragon to move under his direction? Last I checked there is no combat maneuver check to get onto a horse. Really you are right, this shouldn't be a climb check, it should be a ride check. DC 20 for a fast mount.
^Yes, I'm being difficult, but here's something more serious. What if I walked up to the leg of a giant or something and didn't know it was a living creature? If the giant didn't move at all, would I still be trying to grapple it if I started climbing up the leg? Does it only become grappling if they are moving? If it is still grappling when they aren't moving, then what part makes it different from a climb check? If they are moving, what makes it different from climbing a swinging rope, or the rigging of a ship?
|
|
What if he is attempting to climb on the creature in order to make a Ride check? The dragon would be unsuited for riding and therefore he would take a -5 penalty on the check, and an additional -5 for riding bareback, but nothing in the Ride skill says that the mount has to be willing. If he can make the DC 20 check to control a mount in combat even with the -10, could he then force the dragon to move under his direction? Last I checked there is no combat maneuver check to get onto a horse. Really you are right, this shouldn't be a climb check, it should be a ride check. DC 20 for a fast mount.
^Yes, I'm being difficult, but here's something more serious. What if I walked up to the leg of a giant or something and didn't know it was a living creature? If the giant didn't move at all, would I still be trying to grapple it if I started climbing up the leg? Does it only become grappling if they are moving? If it is still grappling when they aren't moving, then what part makes it different from a climb check? If they are moving, what makes it different from climbing a swinging rope, or the rigging of a ship?
1) That's grappling. Just as if someone tried to "ride" your PC.
2) If it's an enemy, it's grappling, and you would provoke, unless you have the Improved Grapple feat.
As I see it, the problem with applying the grapple rules is that the CMD of the dragon is very high - as it should be if you were trying to *pin* the thing. In this case, he's not.
Using Ziere's example of the giant, what if you just wanted to grab its calf and not let go? Ever had a toddler do that to you? Yes, the kid is "grappling" in that it grabs you with its hands. But, aside from having a lead weight on your foot, you're not otherwise inhibited. That same toddler would have zero chance to hold and pin you.
I am with the Climb then Ride camp. And absolutely, the dragon should get an attack of opportunity first.
First of all I'll preface this with, this is my take on what I've read so far. I don't think anyone else has yet fully answered it yet, I don't think I can, and as I say later on I'm not sure it can be fully answered. That warning label applied...
At least off the rules quoted (note: so far), neither camp seems decisively right. Or, maybe more accurately, both camps are right. Why? Because what you want to do is beyond the scope of the rules. It's a core reason GM's exist. Neither the climb/ride rules nor the grapple rules 100% say they cover a situation like this. RAW doesn't fully cover this.
The skills were not written to be used against an active fighting combatant, that's what CMB/CMD is for. However grapple has some specific statements on what it does that you are not trying to do and some of the skills do seem to touch on similar corner cases that might apply.
So where I'm going with this: The correct answer per RAW is whatever your GM says, however he/she decides to use one or reconcile both of those is the RAW.
Now personal opinion? Because of Pathfinders lack of facing and narrative/abstract, not detailed, combat I think it falls closer to CMB/CMD check to initiate and grapple is the best starting basis and could be a good catch all, I'd be inclined to do that just for speed of the game, however because of my above statement I don't think that's the only right answer. It might be easier than a grapple check, I'm unsure how much size modifiers play into it exactly, and if successful the skills could be a good measure of what you want to do next (climbing to scale the creature and/or ride and/or acrobatics to do other things while not falling off). However if the creature wanted to actively buck you that would be another CMB/CMD check you couldn't just avoid with a skill roll and it would get it's size bonus on that (it's mass is definitely adding to the bucking motion) or it could, again Pathfinders no facing, probably just straight up point blank attack you if it wanted (if you're not using the full on grapple/combat maneuver rules you can't really argue you have any way to control it's facing).
This is not toddler clinging to your leg, unless you routinely kick your toddler in the face when he clings to your leg (and let's all agree that's bad), this is trying to climb the leg of a pissed off elephant. With more limbs. That are pointier. And a body that's more lithe. With several limbs which can reach anywhere on it's body surface. And it's smart and born combat trained to fight using it's body.
The only absolute I would say is, this will provoke an AoO unless a GM rules it's just a grapple check and the pc had imp. grapple. Any other way, misc. combat maneuver, skill, mix, it's either going to count as movement which provokes or a maneuver which provokes as no combat maneuver feat would cover it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I see it, the problem with applying the grapple rules is that the CMD of the dragon is very high - as it should be if you were trying to *pin* the thing. In this case, he's not.
Using Ziere's example of the giant, what if you just wanted to grab its calf and not let go? Ever had a toddler do that to you? Yes, the kid is "grappling" in that it grabs you with its hands. But, aside from having a lead weight on your foot, you're not otherwise inhibited. That same toddler would have zero chance to hold and pin you.
I am with the Climb then Ride camp. And absolutely, the dragon should get an attack of opportunity first.
Even if using Climb, I would very much take CMD into account. Yes, the DC is very high. You are trying to climb a dragon that does not want you to climb it. It isn't going to sit there like a video game boss and take it; it will try to dislodge or crush you. I would only leave the CMD out if the monster was so immense that it wouldn't notice you as you climbed it. At that point, it's less a monster and more an environment.
I'll remember that climbing a larger creature is impossible next time I watch big cats take down elephants on a documentary. Actually, next time I see a human try to handle an angry cat will probably suffice.
Less sarcastically: there aren't rules for it, OP. 3.x is very poor at managing large creature battles, especially when it comes to 'scaling' them ALA shadow of the colossus style. Unless your GM houserules something for you, you simply can't do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll remember that climbing a larger creature is impossible next time I watch big cats take down elephants on a documentary. Actually, next time I see a human try to handle an angry cat will probably suffice.
Notice, though, that these are MULTIPLE big cats taking down an elephant.
Also, they're attempting to "take down" an elephant.
This is a Grapple Check as attempted by the main Cat, with its Allies making Aid Another checks.
Once the Elephant is successfully Grappled, the main Cat maintains the Grapple and attempts to Deal Damage as part of the Grapple.
In the meantime, the Cat's Allies are attempting Trip attempts against the Elephant.
Once the Trip attempt is successful, the main Cat will likely attempt a Pin attack, while all its Allies are making attacks against the Elephant.
When the Elephant tries to get up, it provokes Attacks of Opportunities which the Cats take.
Finally, when the Elephant is completely worn down and Helpless, the Cats make Coup de Gras attempts and finally kill the Elephant.
---
There ya go - one "Big Cat Pack vs Elephant" encounter played out, using nothing but RAW rules.
Less sarcastically: there aren't rules for it, OP. 3.x is very poor at managing large creature battles, especially when it comes to 'scaling' them ALA shadow of the colossus style. Unless your GM houserules something for you, you simply can't do it.
Actually, it's perfectly fine for Large, and even Huge creature battles.
it's when you get to Gargantuan that thing get a little odd, if only because there aren't specific rules for "climbing" a creature.
However, a five-second google search led me to this:
Thanks for the input. I was also wondering if the ride skill would be of any use or applicable in this situation?Found the reference I was thinking of. It's the "Hammer and Piton" weapon style feat from the Dungeonscape book by Wotc.
It's useable against foes size large or bigger, as long as you don't mind fighting with a 1-handed weapon in one hand and a piton or climbing spike in the other.
It effectively lets you enter the monsters space and stay with him while he moves. Although if you're hit for more than 10 damage you need to make a climb check to stay on, DC equal to the damage dealt.
So, apparently, this was addressed at some point, but not in SRD books.
I have a feeling that Pathfinder COULD come up with a similar mechanic or rule, but since the whole "I wanna climb the beasty that's trying to eviscerate me" thing doesn't come up terribly often, they haven't thought to do it yet.
Would be nice if there were a Scale Combat Maneuver that can only be performed on Monsters 3 Size Categories larger than you or something.
I miss the 3.5 feat Giantbane :( Climb aboard my friend *pours one out*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody has even answered to what end they wish to "climb" the enemy.
What is the goal?
To look cool? To do something other than just "I swing my sword at the enemy"? It doesn't sound like he is trying to necessarily gain some sort of numerical combat advantage. Its a roleplaying game and he might want to roleplay that his character is so skilled at climbing that he can even climb a large moving creature.
Having it provoke an AoO makes sense, and I'm also in agreement that it would take into account the stats of the dragon...but maybe not CMD. CMD goes up with size, while this sort of check would make at least some sense that it would actually get easier with a larger creature.
So, I would say, remove their size bonus to CMD and add the rest to a somewhat appropriate climb DC based on the skin/shape of the creature, require the creature be at least two sizes larger than the climber, provoke an attack of opportunity, and let the PC perform the action they are skilled in. I would even say that they have to make the check not only on their turn but also every time the dragon performs an action as well. It's a houserule sure, but this sort of thing is the exact reason a GM exists, to allow players to do things that are not formulaic, that are not covered by the rules.
As a somewhat related question, I will ask, what if I hooked a rope+grappling hook to the creature? Could I use a climb check on the rope to get up the creature or would it still be grappling?
Then, once you are on its back, an acrobatics check if you want to stand up and full attack, or another climb check to hold on while you perform a single attack as a standard action. I would even reward your ingenuity and say that thedragoncreature is flatfooted against you while you are on them.
Here are my houserules for things they could once they climbed up, from the beginning of the thread. If a player can come up with some other ingenious idea I would find a way to work with them to make that idea at least a possibility, if it is within reason for their character. They would also move with the creature when it moved, as long as the PC succeeds at the climb (or acrobatics if they are standing already) check to stay on.
Such advantages would not be without risk though. Unlike with a grapple check, falling off the creature would have the risk of fall damage, and I would even increase the 'distance fallen' based on how poorly they failed the check, in order to represent them getting flung off. It would also follow the normal climb rules of characters losing their Dex bonus to AC.
|
|
Okay, if thematics, alone, are the goal, then using the grapple rules should not matter.
You don't need to alter the rules, just work within them.
Flavor the grapple as climbing.
We have had this exact scenario play out, in on of the games I was in.
We used the grapple rules, and the scene played out cool, without complications.
Characters good at grabbing, and holding on to creatures, should, well, be good at grabbing, and holding onto creatures.
The rock climber shouldn't beat the wrestler in this, because someone decided to use a different word to describe the same situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rock climber shouldn't beat the wrestler in this, because someone decided to use a different word to describe the same situation.
In my rules, I would be fine with the wrestler using CMB instead of a climb check, I'm not suddenly forcing everyone to use the climb check, just making it an option. I just don't agree that a grapple against CMD is correct, since again, larger creatures get bonuses to CMD. That bonus makes sense for making it harder to hold the creature in place, since the larger a creature is the harder it is to grab them in a way that they are restricted by it. The creature being larger would not make climbing on that creature more difficult though. In the case of a dragon, it would be fair to assume that larger dragons would actually get easier to climb, as their scales would get larger and easier to get a handhold on. Climbing on a creature, as has been pointed out by several people, is not an attempt prevent them from moving, so that part of the grapple rules doesn't fit.
My human brawler is incredibly skilled at putting people in a chokehold, because he is strong and invested the feats into it. My grippli ranger, on the other hand, can't even perform a chokehold because he has no training in it, and is usually smaller than his opponent and therefore less effective anyway. However, he has a natural climb speed, skill foucus, and full ranks into climb, so he is pretty amazing at climbing even in the worst conditions. If he wants to use his climbing abilities instead of his grappling abilities, I personally feel that it makes sense. I've never said that climbing a creature would somehow be as easy as climbing a rock wall, but this is a fantasy world where superhuman feats can be achieved.
Even a champion rock climber wouldn't be able to hold onto a wall that was moving and shaking like an angry dragon in combat.
On the other hand, grappling doesn't make a lot of sense since:
A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity.Size (both relative and absolute) makes a big difference. A tick crawling up my leg has not 'grappled' me, neither has the kitten climbing up my leg for a piece of turkey, painful though it may be.
Even the elephant 'grappled' by the lions in the above example could move.
That said, while looking through relevant monsters and abilities in the bestiary (like 'attaching'), I found out that attached stirges seem to inflict the 'grappled' condition. Does anyone really run that an attached stirge prevents someone from moving?
Yes.
Is it an automatic hit against you when the dragon drops prone, as a free action, on top of you?
So it would be a climb check to ride a bucking bull or bronco? I don't think so.
I think the mechanics of the Halfling Opportunist are probably the closest rules you'll find for this kind of maneuver.
That prestige class uses a generic "combat maneuver check" to gain a mechanical benefit from an enemy's actions.
I would just call an undefined maneuver, so a CMB check. If the character had a trained combat maneuver that could reasonably be used to climb a creature, I'd probably let them use that instead: grapple is a good one, but I'd allow dirty trick. For a successful grapple or dirty trick, I'd give the character some mechanical benefit. Grappling has its own benefit already, and with dirty trick, I'd let you find a location where the dragon couldn't use its bite or claws on you.
You would take the AoO. 'There is no facing in pathfinder' is what people will tell you. Its an aspect of the rules intended to make things less complicated, but it does have its oddities. Since there is no facing (and since the fly rules specifically say so*), the dragon can move in the opposite direction on its next turn without making a check; that 180 degree turn check is only for turning in the middle of a move action.
As for the climbing, Bob Bob Bob has generously pointed out that there are existing rules for climbing a creature, even if it is a specific type of creature. You could ask your GM to work with you and modify those rules to apply to different monsters. A kaiju, while marked as a Colossal monster, seems to be roughly twice the size of other colossal monsters, on average. That would make Huge creatures the equivalent of three size categories smaller, so adapting the rules to more general terms, a creature has to be three or more size categories smaller to climb another creature.
At the beginning of the next turn, you can move in a different direction than you did the previous turn without making a check.
The problem is that grappling is wrestling. Trying to climb a moving thing for the purpose awesomeness or favorable position. Think about the stories or movies where some climbed a giant or dino or dragon. Not once were they trying to wrestle it down. They were hanging on for dear life hoping to get to a better spot to strike.
Should it still provoke an attack of opportunity of course.
But it is not a grapple because the person not trying to place the enemy in the grappled condition. I would even suggest that the rider is grappled but the dragon wouldn't be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We need this sorted before the Giantslayer AP comes out...
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
Hey all! I just thought I'd offer up this article from my blog, the Encounter Table, which deals with climbing on large opponents and the mechanics for doing so.
The Encounter Table - Combat Clinb
Hope it helps you guys! :)
|
|
It does not always need to be flavored as "wrestling". For example:
Trying to hold a guy, so doesn't escape? Grapple.
Trying to sneak up on a guy, and choke him out? Grapple.
Trying hold on with a bite? Grapple.
Trying to "climb" on a creature, and attack it?
Grapple.
The mechanic represents a number of scenarios.
Don't get to caught up in the name.
All of your examples are exactly what I mean be wrestling, using your strength to manipulate another.
Climbing a dragon attempts to stay on the dragon not manipulate it or over power it.
|
|
Holding on to a creature. Attack whilst holding on to said creature?
That is Grappling.
You just have to get past the name.
Imagine if someone wanted to use Profession(Wrangler), instead of an attack with a Lasso.
Would you let them?
Imagine if someone wanted to use Perform(Comedy), instead of the Dirty Trick maneuver?
Would you let them?
Using a skill check, instead of an attack roll, is not something a PC should just be "flavor" themselves into.
I would be pissed, that the "flavor" guy, gets to hold on, and move with a creature, and even attack, using only a skill check, when I have a Tetori Monk, designed to do the same thing. Only with investment, feats, and attack rolls.
Heck, there isn't even a critical failure chance.
The high Climb PC, with a high enough bonus, just auto succeeds.
That don't sit right with me, and it don't sit right with the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a house rule:
Clinging is a combat maneuver for "grappling" any creature two or more size categories larger than yourself. You attempt a Clinging Maneuver using your CMB, Acrobatics, or Climb check, vs. the target's CMD. All modifiers that affect attack rolls affect this check. If you make the cling attempt by dropping down on the giant opponent from above, you gain a +10 to the initial cling check.
If you succeed on the initial check, you are clinging. You count as grappled, but your opponent does not and is not impeded in any way. You may attack a creature you are clinging to (as per the normal grappling rules) or you may attempt to move to a point where the target creature cannot attack you. This is something like "pinning"; you make another check on your turn at a +5. If you succeed at this check, you gain the "Hidden" condition vs. the target creature. (Hidden: +2 to attack rolls, no dex to AC, no line of sight) If you succeed on the initial Cling manuever roll by a margin of 10 or more, you start with the Hidden state.
The creature may attack you normally if you are not hidden. Even if you are hidden, the creature can try to shake you off with a standard action. This forces another CMB, Acrobatics, or Climb check for the clinging character. Failure causes the character to be flung (as per the Snatch monster feat).
It's even been tested on an ancient white dragon!
|
|
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.