|
When is it okay to cdg? I've been told it's illegal unless it's in the scenario, but others who haven't heard this say it's when you think it's appropriate.
I recently fought a gibbering mouther, and the gm informed us that it does grab upon successful attack. He said that it wasn't attempting to grab because it would be more effective to do it on the final attack and if it did so earlier then it would miss it's attacks. That okay to do? Thing has 4 int, but can a gm make a call to optimize it's attacks even if it might seem dishonest to the creature? I feel like I'm expected to aim for accuracy with the scenario.
|
Contributor
|
Another thing in the same vein. In scenarios with demons and other adversaries capable of summoning creatures, if such summoning isn't mentioned one way or another in the tactics, is it off the table?
As for Human Fighter's questions, I would never, as a GM, have an adversary attempt a coup de grace unless it was explicitly called out in the tactics, especially if there were other party members still standing.
The gibbering mouther thing is an interesting case. Sure it only has a 4 intelligence, but animals have even lower INT scores than that and they tend to instinctively use optimal tactics, don't they?
|
Contributor
|
Examples of these creatures and their reasonable optional tactics?
Quite often a ghast or something paralyze a player, and it's just a 5ft hallway. The player is blocking the way, so isn't it brain eating time?
I hope this side convo doesn't derail my questions.
Oops, sorry about that. I spoiler-tagged the potentially derailing stuff. As for animals, I was actually referring to the real world, where predators, for example, tend to use stalking tactics and choose the weakest prey among potential targets in a herd and so on. They also use the best tools available to them. Wasps, after all, could theoretically bite instead of sting, but they "choose" to sting.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Central Europe
|
Normally you don't CDG unless the scenario explicitly calls it out in the tactics. If i remember correctly there was a post about that from the campaign management.
Regarding potions: Unless the tactic calls out something specific like " ... drinks the potion if reduced to X hp" I just use the potions as would be tactically sound for the creature. Normally wasting a full round for retrieving and drinking the potion and risking AoO is not worth it, but there are always exceptions.
Regarding summoning: Depends a lot on the chance for success, the type of summoned creature and most of all on the party.
Chance for success: Is it worth it to waste an action for something that might not work. Normally not worth it for chances below 50%.
Type of creature: Adding 1d3 dretches to a Lvl 6-7 encounter does normally not kill the party. Adding another CR7 creature to an already hard boss fight against a single CR7 creature in tier 4-5 will most likely end in a TPK.
Party: How are they doing, are they already struggling, maybe barely slipped into high tier? Then don't do it. Are they killing everything in 1 round, summon away :)
|
|
Examples of these creatures and their reasonable optional tactics?
Quite often a ghast or something paralyze a player, and it's just a 5ft hallway. The player is blocking the way, so isn't it brain eating time?
I hope this side convo doesn't derail my questions.
You can hop into a helpless players square, so brain fondu or going to the rest of the buffet are both viable options.
|
@Human Fighter,
CDG is actively discouraged but not forbidden to use. In 95% of cases, monster or NPC has something better to do rather then using CDG. If you wish to search more about this topic, there was Mike's post somewhere about it.
Grab tactics make sense for monsters with multiple attacks. Your GM did good call. There was consensus or FAQ somewhere about multiple attacks with grab feature. Long story short, monster loses a lot if a grab ability breaks it's attack routine. The order of attacks is completely under the control of GM.
Adam
|
|
@BNW
I think it was this topic that gave me some insight:
topic about grabs.
Basically if I understood right, a monster with multiple grab attacks, such as octopus, can continue making it's tentacle attacks (during the course of 1st round) after it succeeds on grapple check with grab, but with regular grapple condition penalties. It seemed like better alternative to me then, then making grab, constrict, release and grab again logic. Doing it on monsters seemed cheesy to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@BNW
I think it was this topic that gave me some insight:
topic about grabs.Basically if I understood right, a monster with multiple grab attacks, such as octopus, can continue making it's tentacle attacks (during the course of 1st round) after it succeeds on grapple check with grab, but with regular grapple condition penalties. It seemed like better alternative to me then, then making grab, constrict, release and grab again logic. Doing it on monsters seemed cheesy to me.
I couldn't come up with logical reason why an animal/monster would develop that tactic. Usually, when you have a creature grabbed, you're planning to keep it grabbed so you can squeeze the life out of it, drag it back to your lair, etc. (Intelligent monsters that can functionally "meta-game" about the mechanics are different issue.)
I'd be more open to the grab-release-grab tactic in monsters if someone could point to a real life example where a constricting animal evolved that tactic.
|
|
@Dorothy
It's all kind of relative on how you interpret it. I personally cannot understand what animal/monster would do the grab-release-grab tactic. Just imagine it for a moment. You are literally slapping person and doing more damage instead of squeezing him initially? It doesn't really make sense.
I have no problem doing the grab-release-grab tactic, but I believe it's generally sending wrong message to the player community.
|
Agree. Typically the monster wants a meal. Once its grabbed a meal, why release it. If the meal was doing a bunch of dam. back, then it would release you and grab something else.
Monster tactics in mod to follow. Must consider Its survival instincts, and it knows how to use its feats. Int. plays a factor too.
|
|
Malag,
Yeah, usually when you have a creature grabbed, you have the upper hand and you're winning the fight. When you're in that situation, you don't let go of the advantage. I know of several animals that evolved with "unbreakable holds" (gila monsters, for instance, lock their jaws on a grip, and you have know the mechanical "trick" to forcing their jaws open), but I don't know of any that evolved with anything resembling a grab-release-regrab tactic.
As a GM, I won't use that tactic on a non-intelligent animal. On an intelligent monster, I'll consider it, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
|
I still don't see why the grab would end the attacks?
Since you can attack with one-handed weapons (or natural ones) while grappled, why can't the critter continue their attacks? Please site specific full rules (with links please)
They can. Here is the Grappled condition from the Glossary.
Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple.
Note that they take a –2 penalty on subsequent attack rolls (another –2 if their attacks are Dex-based). Some GMs have realized that they are more deadly if they use a free action to release the grapple instead. The debate at hand is if this is appropriate.
Edit: To be more clear, the question is whether any or all of these tactics are appropriate for a monster with two (or more) attacks and the grab and constrict abilities:
1. Attack, Grab, Constrict, Drop; Attack, Grab, Constrict.
2. Attack, Grab, Constrict; Attack at –2, Grab, Constrict.
3. Attack, Grab at –20, Constrict; Attack, Grab, Constrict.
4. Attack; Attack, Grab, Constrict.
|
|
@BNW
I think it was this topic that gave me some insight:
topic about grabs.Basically if I understood right, a monster with multiple grab attacks, such as octopus, can continue making it's tentacle attacks (during the course of 1st round) after it succeeds on grapple check with grab, but with regular grapple condition penalties. It seemed like better alternative to me then, then making grab, constrict, release and grab again logic. Doing it on monsters seemed cheesy to me.
I couldn't come up with logical reason why an animal/monster would develop that tactic. Usually, when you have a creature grabbed, you're planning to keep it grabbed so you can squeeze the life out of it, drag it back to your lair, etc. (Intelligent monsters that can functionally "meta-game" about the mechanics are different issue.)
I'd be more open to the grab-release-grab tactic in monsters if someone could point to a real life example where a constricting animal evolved that tactic.
I'm pretty sure that (real) octopuses attack prey with a tentacle, grab, and follow that with attacks from one or more other tentacles. That would correspond, in-game, to the sequence: Attack, Grab, Constrict; Attack at –2, Grab, Constrict.
Remember, even though the (in-game) octopus is taking a –2 penalty on its subsequent attack rolls, its (in-game) prey is also taking a –2 penalty to AC due to the –4 penalty to Dex for being grappled. Thus there is no need for the catch-and-release tactic.
|
|
Because each attack that can grab can constrict on a successful check.catch and release is only useful if the creature has constrict.Why is it useful if the creature has constrict?
Ah. I was thinking of creatures whose multiple attacks come from multiple weapons, such as an octopus with 8 limbs. If the multiple attacks are all with the same natural weapon, then that makes sense.
An octopus, for instance, can make all of its eight tentacle attacks, grab and constrict with each one, and it doesn't need to release each time.
Here is part of the stat block for the giant octopus:
Melee bite +13 (1d8+5 plus poison), 8 tentacles +11 (1d4+2 plus grab)
...
Special Attack constrict (tentacle, 1d4+2)
...
CMB +15 (+19 grapple)
It can do the following attacks:
1. bite +13 (1d8+5 plus poison)2. tentacle +11 (1d4+2), grab +19 (1d4+2 constrict)
3. tentacle +9 (1d4+2), grab +19 (1d4+2 constrict)
4. tentacle +9 (1d4+2), grab +19 (1d4+2 constrict)
5. tentacle +9 (1d4+2), grab +19 (1d4+2 constrict)
6. tentacle +9 (1d4+2), grab +19 (1d4+2 constrict)
7. tentacle +9 (1d4+2), grab +19 (1d4+2 constrict)
8. tentacle +9 (1d4+2), grab +19 (1d4+2 constrict)
9. tentacle +9 (1d4+2), grab +19 (1d4+2 constrict)
Only if those attacks are at different creatures will it make a difference whether the octopus releases them or not. If the attacks are at the same creature, it is irrelevant.
|
|
Fox,
Grappling something You're already grappling isn't specifically against the rules but to me it comes across as trying to trip a downed opponent.
Yeah, I don't do that. I spread the attacks around. The catch-and-release tactic bothers me too.
The way the octopus would go down in my game would be that it would spread its attacks around among the PCs within reach. If it grabbed and constricted a given PC, then subsequent tentacle attacks against that PC would just be slam attacks. At the end of the round, the PCs it grabbed would all still be grappled.
|
|
The grab and release has to do with subsequent rounds. On the first round, you certainly grab multiple targets.
But then, to -maintain- a grapple, it is a standard action (without greater grapple, which few non-class-based monsters have). So, you can only maintain one grapple, and all the others get let go, with no attacks on them.
Alternately, you can free action release all the grapples, and do the original multiple attacks again, with the associated grabs and constricts.
Which of those is better on the subsequent rounds? Does it matter if the creature grabbed with the -20 penalty and doesn't have the grappled condition itself?
|
|
he grab and release has to do with subsequent rounds. On the first round, you certainly grab multiple targets
I've seen people do grab and release on the same round to get more constricts in.
I'd never considered having something grab and constrict a separate creature (partially because i'm still used to 3.5 where you couldn't because you can't attack out of the grapple, partially because I'm not sure about grapling multiple creatures without the -20)
|
|
Fox,
Grappling something You're already grappling isn't specifically against the rules but to me it comes across as trying to trip a downed opponent.
Yeah, I don't do that. I spread the attacks around. The catch-and-release tactic bothers me too.
The way the octopus would go down in my game would be that it would spread its attacks around among the PCs within reach. If it grabbed and constricted a given PC, then subsequent tentacle attacks against that PC would just be slam attacks. At the end of the round, the PCs it grabbed would all still be grappled.
I should have replied to this in my last post.
I was talking about spreading the attacks around in the first round, with multiple grabs. This is not grappling something you are already grappling, and I can't find anything restricting the grab ability because the creature has already grappled something else.
With multiple characters grabbed, and thus having the grappled condition, their actions are restricted on their turns. They can try to break free, or do non-movement actions that don't require two hands.
However, on the grabbing creature's following turn, it can only try to maintain a single grapple. The other characters get released. Nothing it can do about that. Or, it can break all the grapples as a free action, and essentially have the same conditions as the first turn. No grappled condition, and the ability to grab on the appropriate attacks. (I'm talking about a creature with multiple grabs, as a creature with only a single grab is the much simpler case.)
So, for people who dislike the grab-and-release tactic, which of those choices is better? Maintain one grapple and release the others? Or release them all and try to grab again? Does the preference change in the creature grabbed with the -20 penalty, and so never gained the grappled condition itself?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you are dealing with a very intelligent attacker (not something with Animal intelligence, or perhaps even something with a penalty to INT checks), I wouldn't do the "catch and release".
It makes far more sense, RP-wise, that the critter just hang on to its prey, and pound away.
Thank you, all, who confirmed that what I thought was the case was indeed correct. When these discussions start flooding with posts, it is sometimes confusing to keep up, and I always want to make sure I am using the correct rulings when possible.
|
|
Not sure how it helps since you get a net +5 on maintaining the grapple.
You cannot grapple (use grab ability) on a creature already grappled. Thus if you want multiple constrict damages per round, you must do catch and release.
I probably didn't explain well enough. I meant even though creature doesn't have constrict, it can still benefit from catch and release tactic (considering it has grab) by keeping single target grappled constantly, without maintaining it.
Now why would this creature use this tactic, I am not into that :)
Evolution would favor whatever tactic was most effective, even if counter-intuitive. The giant octopuses who use optimal tactics when attacked by a school of great white sharks would be the most likely to survive and reproduce.
On the other hand, taking Intelligent Design theory into account, the creatures who use tactics that are most conducive to a fun balanced encounter are the ones most likely to be added to an adventure. So I can see arguments for either side.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Evolution would favor whatever tactic was most effective, even if counter-intuitive. The giant octopuses who use optimal tactics when attacked by a school of great white sharks would be the most likely to survive and reproduce.
On the other hand, taking Intelligent Design theory into account, the creatures who use tactics that are most conducive to a fun balanced encounter are the ones most likely to be added to an adventure. So I can see arguments for either side.
What constitutes optimal tactics in a world that mostly mimics reality and what constitutes optimal tactics in a world restricted to following the Pathfinder rules are frequently not the same. In the real world, if an octopus wanted to kill something and eat it, it would not do catch and release because that might give the prey a chance to get away. In Pathfinder, catch and release is the most efficient way of killing the prey quickly so it can't get away. Which rules are we using for evolution?
|
What constitutes optimal tactics in a world that mostly mimics reality and what constitutes optimal tactics in a world restricted to following the Pathfinder rules are frequently not the same. In the real world, if an octopus wanted to kill something and eat it, it would not do catch and release because that might give the prey a chance to get away. In Pathfinder, catch and release is the most efficient way of killing the prey quickly so it can't get away. Which rules are we using for evolution?Evolution would favor whatever tactic was most effective, even if counter-intuitive. The giant octopuses who use optimal tactics when attacked by a school of great white sharks would be the most likely to survive and reproduce.
On the other hand, taking Intelligent Design theory into account, the creatures who use tactics that are most conducive to a fun balanced encounter are the ones most likely to be added to an adventure. So I can see arguments for either side.
I agree here. Its kinda a bad argument to argue that using a set of rules that are merely an abstract is ok because of a real world concept of evolution.
|
|
Another question I have had is a creature doing claw claw bite tall slap. I was in an encounter which lasted pretty long where 3 large lizard creatures are just doing this repeatedly, and I'm wondering how dizzy they are. I'm pretty sure it's just gm discretion, but I find the constant all attacks to be a little silly with that tail slap. Opinions of how others would deal with it?
|
|
Another question I have had is a creature doing claw claw bite tall slap. I was in an encounter which lasted pretty long where 3 large lizard creatures are just doing this repeatedly, and I'm wondering how dizzy they are. I'm pretty sure it's just gm discretion, but I find the constant all attacks to be a little silly with that tail slap. Opinions of how others would deal with it?
There is no facing in this game. Combat is an abstract and is not meant to reflect reality exactly.
As such, there is nothing to deal with. If a creature wants to attack a single target with all of its attacks, then it does so.
|
|
Another question I have had is a creature doing claw claw bite tall slap. I was in an encounter which lasted pretty long where 3 large lizard creatures are just doing this repeatedly, and I'm wondering how dizzy they are. I'm pretty sure it's just gm discretion, but I find the constant all attacks to be a little silly with that tail slap. Opinions of how others would deal with it?
Full-round attacks are kind of abstract thing. I sometimes reflavor them as a GM into a single big attack while making sure that players know that mechanic wise it was several attacks. Rules shouldn't really confine you when telling a story.
|
|
catch and release is only useful if the creature has constrict.
Andrew, there is at least one (intelligent) creature that doesn't have constrict, but has a special ability that goes off on a successful grab.
When I ran that creature, I didn't have it do the catch-and-release. When I played that same adventure, later, the GM did do that, and it not only felt unfun, it was purely nasty.
Int 25
Melee 4 claws +10 (1d4+3 plus grab)
[/b]Special Attacks[/b] evisceration, grab, sneak attack +2d6
CMB +8 (+12 grapple
Evisceration (Ex) A mi-go's claws are capable of swiftly and painfully performing surgical operations upon helpless creatures or those it has grappled. When a mi-go makes a successful grapple check, in addition to any other effects caused by a successful grapple, it deals sneak attack damage to the victim. A creature that takes this damage must succeed at a DC 18 Fortitude save or take 1d4 points of ability damage from the invasive surgery (the type of ability damage dealt is chosen by the mi-go at the time the evisceration occurs). The save DC is Dexterity-based.
In the module, it has class levels added:
THE VISITANT CR 8
Int 23
Melee 4 claws +14 (1d4+4 plus grab)
[/b]Special Attacks[/b] evisceration, grab, sneak attack +2d6
CMB +8 (+12 grapple
Evisceration (Ex) A mi-go's claws are capable of swiftly and painfully performing surgical operations upon helpless creatures or those it has grappled. When a mi-go makes a successful grapple check, in addition to any other effects caused by a successful grapple, it deals sneak attack damage to the victim. A creature that takes this damage must succeed at a DC 18 Fortitude save or take 1d4 points of ability damage from the invasive surgery (the type of ability damage dealt is chosen by the mi-go at the time the evisceration occurs). The save DC is Dexterity-based.
Just... ugly.
|
|
catch and release is only useful if the creature has constrict.Andrew, there is at least one (intelligent) creature that doesn't have constrict, but has a special ability that goes off on a successful grab.
When I ran that creature, I didn't have it do the catch-and-release. When I played that same adventure, later, the GM did do that, and it not only felt unfun, it was purely nasty.
** spoiler omitted **
Just... ugly.
The Visitant cares not for your displeasure.
|
|
The Visitant cares not for your displeasure.catch and release is only useful if the creature has constrict.Andrew, there is at least one (intelligent) creature that doesn't have constrict, but has a special ability that goes off on a successful grab.
When I ran that creature, I didn't have it do the catch-and-release. When I played that same adventure, later, the GM did do that, and it not only felt unfun, it was purely nasty.
** spoiler omitted **
Just... ugly.
Maybe not. But the GM should care to make the table fun, yes?
And it turns out that I haven't run this level, yet. Might be running it on Saturday. If I do, I will definitely clear it with the players as to whether they want it ugly mode, or just painful.
But a CR 8 encounter in a Tier 3-5 module? That is into the Epic definition on the challenge table in the Gamemastering chapter...
6 5th level PCs should be able to handle it, albeit with some difficulty, since their APL would be 6. On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum, a table of 4 3rd level PCs would be in the "Who runs slowest?" area, since their APL is 3, so an APL+5 encounter...
And both tables would be legal for this module...