How does burrowing work?

[wraithstrike]

How does burrowing work?

I ask because when Pathfinder was made a few definitions/rules did not get copy and pasted over, but the abilities made the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder. With Pathfinder wanting to be its own game we can't just say "well use 3.5".

Here is 3.5 burrow:

Quote:

Burrow (Ex)
A creature with a burrow speed can tunnel through dirt, but not through rock unless the descriptive text says otherwise. Creatures cannot charge or run while burrowing. Most burrowing creatures do not leave behind tunnels other creatures can use (either because the material they tunnel through fills in behind them or because they do not actually dislocate any material when burrowing); see the individual creature descriptions for details.

I am not suggesting that Paizo use 3.5's definition, but I am suggesting that we get a rule so we know how it works. It would help to know if the creature does or does not leave an hole behind, as an example.

The purpose of this is to get it FAQ's so Paizo can give us an official definition/rule.

[Ravingdork]

I strongly support the above post.

[wraithstrike]

shameless bump

[Joesi]

There's the burrow spell though:

Ultimate Magic wrote:

The subject can burrow at a speed of 15 feet (or 10 feet if it wears medium or heavy armor, or if it carries a medium or heavy load) through sand, loose soil, or gravel, or at a speed of 5 feet through stone. Using burrow requires only as much concentration as walking, so the subject can attack or cast spells normally. The burrowing creature cannot charge or run. Loose material collapses behind the target 1 round after it leaves the area. This spell does not give the target the ability to breathe underground, so when passing through loose material, the creature must hold its breath and take only short trips, or else it may suffocate.

One could probably assume that this is how creature that naturally burrow function as well. The only real difference from 3.5 is the ability to move through stone, but that could be disallowed for certain creatures that would be unlikely to be able to do that.

There's also the small difference that it's specific on the timeframe that the tunnel collapses, meaning it would allow a couple creatures of the same size (or more smaller ones) to trail behind carefully

[Mighty Squash]

A spell you can imply from is well and good, but universal monster rules need to be in the universal monster rules.

[Trekkie90909]

In the absence of publication to the contrary the burrow spell is a pretty good basis to rule from. It would be really nice if one didn't have to look up a spell to figure out how a monster ability works though.

[Qaianna]

I don't think the spell itself even truly changes the intent of whether you can burrow through stone--remember, the original 3.5 definition says that you can't unless the descriptive text says otherwise. So the spell would be a specific example that adds stone in for burrowing through.

[Cuuniyevo]

Since there are differences between magical flight and non-magical flight, it is not unreasonable to think there may be differences between magical and non-magical burrowing. I hit the FAQ button but personally, I rule that normal burrowing can go through anything but solid rock or harder, which require a form of earth glide to pass through. Magical burrowing can slowly go through rock, as it says. This keeps it relatively in line with the fly spell which avoids the maneuverability issues of winged flight.

As for the issue of "tunnels", I rule that burrowing creates an immediately collapsing tunnel behind them unless the monster's write-up specifically says otherwise. This tunnel is impassable without a burrow speed, but someone trying to dig through it would probably get a +2 circumstance bonus.

[Joesi]

Qaianna wrote:

I don't think the spell itself even truly changes the intent of whether you can burrow through stone--remember, the original 3.5 definition says that you can't unless the descriptive text says otherwise. So the spell would be a specific example that adds stone in for burrowing through.

3.5 does say that for monster rules, but Pathfinder is its own game. Not only that, but D&D has no burrow spell that I can see, and even if it did and it was different, that would have been an intentional move on Paizo's part.

What 3.5 says for a monster ability is irrelevant with regards to what Pathfinder says to a spell; it's like comparing the stem of an apple to the leaf of an orange [tree]. Just like regeneration spell is not the same thing is regeneration monster ability, and spells in 3.5 aren't all the same as spells in Pathfinder (in this case it seems they don't even exist)

That said, I think it's perfectly fair to apply with regards to monster burrow rules not obtained from spells. Any monster that doesn't specifically say it can burrow through stone (or seem like it would) shouldn't be able to do so. With regards to the spell though, it's explicitly a granted ability to go through stone.