|
My group has been having a discussion on aquatic combat. Our DM is under the impression that Aquatic Adventures changes the rules from the Core Rulebook. We've found the post on the boards about swimming and full round actions suggesting that the Swim check is essentially a free action and on a successful check you can make a full attack action. The DM says no, that Aquatic Adventures changes that and that it should be considered a move action.
So what is the offical ruling on the Swim check? Does is cost no action as suggested on the boards and in the skill description and allows a full round action or is it some other action? I'm looking for an offical ruling by Paizo.
A swim check is required to move; there is no requirement to make a swim check in order to attack. If you aren't moving, you don't need to make a swim check (edit: technically you do, but if you're already underwater and don't intend to move, then there is no effect whether you succeed or fail on the check) or take any actions in accordance with that, letting you take a full-round action to full attack.
You won't find an official Paizo ruling on this. There is no such rule, and Paizo doesn't issue official clarifications regarding rules that don't exist.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would help us to know which rules you're questioning.
Can you quote the sections from Aquatic Adventures and the Core Rulebook that you think are in conflict?
And a couple of notes about the way you're framing your question:
• You're usually not going to get an "an offical ruling by Paizo". They're busy creating content for the rest of us to enjoy.
• Saying that only "an offical ruling by Paizo" will satisfy you comes off as combative. We're people. We're players. We're GMs. But most importantly, we're a community. We'll be happy to help you as long as you don't slam the door in our face at first meeting. And lastly...
• Even if a Developer came here to answer you, it's still your GM's game, your GM's world, your GM's ruling. Nothing that a Developer says can change that.
|
|
My "combativeness" is more directed at my GM who is irritating me with his contradictions.
First, we've looked at the boards and have found the one post that talks about a Swim check being a free action. He agrees with this, but then states "Well, that was 2 years ago and Aquatic Adventures is a new rule set which supersedes the Core Rules." He also agrees that the Swim skill has not been changed by Aquatic Adventures, but "previous rulings are no longer valid." Also, as far as I know (and read in Aquatic Adventures) the supplement is an expansion and clarification of the rules in the Core book. So the Core book is still valid and the basis for all rules in the game.
Second,is the issue of swim check vs swim speed. The GM has stated improve your swim skill with feats and ranks, but you'll only ever be able to make full attack actions if you have a swim speed because it is otherwise too advantageous to the players to be allowed a full attack action. And it's physically impossible to tread water and make a Full Attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without a quote from Aquatic Adventures demonstrating the supposed conflict with the Core rules, it's going to be difficult to help.
Well 1 thing might be going on is a situation like this.
Rule SWIM is unclear in core.
Rule SWIM gets clarified by a comment
book all about swimming comes and invalidates the comment
Rule SWIM is back to being unclear in core.
He also agrees that the Swim skill has not been changed by Aquatic Adventures, but "previous rulings are no longer valid." Also, as far as I know (and read in Aquatic Adventures) the supplement is an expansion and clarification of the rules in the Core book. So the Core book is still valid and the basis for all rules in the game.
That is very much the case, it's a supplement and not a replacement for the core rules. It's relatively rare for Paizo to contradict previously-stated rules, and when they do it's usually an accident.
What specific rules text in Aquatic Adventures is your GM referencing to justify his ruling?
The GM has stated improve your swim skill with feats and ranks, but you'll only ever be able to make full attack actions if you have a swim speed because it is otherwise too advantageous to the players to be allowed a full attack action
Whether the GM realizes it or not, what he's actually done is disadvantaged certain classes and builds that are dependent on full attacks. Spellcasters generally only need standard actions, and many martial builds are focused around charging rather than full attacking so they're already built with the restriction of only one attack per round in mind. These builds will be, at most, inconvenienced by this ruling. Builds like two weapon fighters, on the other hand, basically are shut down entirely if they can't full attack.
Well 1 thing might be going on is a situation like this.
Rule SWIM is unclear in core.
Rule SWIM gets clarified by a comment
book all about swimming comes and invalidates the comment
Rule SWIM is back to being unclear in core.
Very possible, but without the text, who knows?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see where the DM is coming from. "On a failure, it doesn’t make any progress, and on a failure by 5 or more it goes underwater. This last part, however, doesn’t make any sense if the PC is already underwater. Instead, if a PC fails her check by 5 or more while underwater (or doesn’t spend any actions to swim, thus not even attempting the check), she sinks or rises based on her buoyancy (see the next section for more details)."
So if a PC "doesn’t spend any actions to swim" they sink/rise in the water because of the buoyancy rules. Aquatic and Water Creatures get to set their buoyancy at neutral for a free action to sidestep that need but land creatures end up moving 10' up or down unless they can manage to get a neutral buoyancy and never have to move up or down.
|
|
And there in lies my dilemma, the GM is making grandiose statements, but not providing any examples. Myself and the other players are providing text and examples (including the messageboards), the GM just hand waves them and tells us that Aquatic adventures is a new rule set and that our examples have no bearing since they come from sources other than Aquatic Adventures. But again, Aquatic Adventures is just an expansion of the rules from the Core book and we're being told it's the latest and most current rule set and therefore the only source to be considered.
I mean, Aquatic Adventures states: The basics of the Swim skill are the same in an aquatic campaign. According to page 108 of the Core rulebook...
To me, that means nothing's changed in how the skill works and the GM agrees with that. And all of the text in Aquatic Adventures I find doesn't restrict the use of full-round or full attack actions. Based on everything I've read and other GMs I've talked to agree that there should be no reason a full attack should be disallowed just because you make a Swim check.
So to end this, my suggestion was as follows (and regarded as unrealistic and smacking of player favoritism):
Make a Swim check. On a successful roll, you may move 1/4 your base speed as a move action (as per the rules), 1/2 speed as a full-round action (as per the rules), or stay in place and make a full-round action, including a full attack. If the roll fails, you do not move, but may take a full-round action, including a full attack, but you are off-balance. If the roll fails by 5 or more, you sink or rise (as per buoyancy), you are off-balance, and become may be subject to holding your breath/drowning.
I don't see where any of this is overly beneficial to players and is based completely on the rules as set out by both the Core Rulebook and Aquatic Adventures. Yes, it is a little more clear than what is written in the Core Rules, but am I really that out of line thinking this is a fair interpretation of the rules?
the GM just hand waves them and tells us that Aquatic adventures is a new rule set and that our examples have no bearing since they come from sources other than Aquatic Adventures.
So he's using Aquatic Adventures to justify a rule that doesn't appear in Aquatic Adventures?
It really is this simple: there is no rule preventing player characters from taking full-round actions while swimming. Such a rule doesn't appear in the Core Rulebook, and it doesn't appear in Aquatic Adventures. It doesn't exist at all. If that isn't enough to convince your GM, then nothing is.
but am I really that out of line thinking this is a fair interpretation of the rules?
That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
I have no idea why your GM believes it should be more restrictive, much less putting something in place that blatantly punishes certain classes and character builds but not others.
M_Blackhand: Nothing stops a PC from making a full-round action but there is a consequence of doing so. Not taking a swim action means you move 10' up or down at the end of it's turn.
Now if the PC can manage to get a swim speed: "They can swim through normal water at their full swim speed without needing to attempt a Swim check. They can use the run and charge actions and take 5-foot steps with their swim speed." So they can take a 5' step to maintain buoyancy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Core-wise, you don't have to spend an action to make a Swim check--in fact, you are obligated to make one every round you're in the water. Success means you can (but do not have to) move a certain amount as a move action or full-round action. You only go underwater if you fail by 5 or more.
So make your check, then elect not to move, then do your thing.
Hence why I keep harping on the "what's the text from AA contradicting this" question. I'm curious if this changed in any meaningful fashion other than altering the "go underwater" part to be "move according to buoyancy".
Whether or not you sink due to buoyancy doesn't impact your action economy.
If you didn't spend move action, you still have full-round action remaining and can Full Attack.
It's not really different than falling thru air from large heights.
In that case you may be falling multiple 100s of feet/round, with no impact on action economy.
Same if one character is on land and another is on boat in fast moving river, the river's speed doesn't affect action economy.
Or for another comparison, being Bull-Rushed by an enemy (or ally) doesn't impact your action economy.
(despite potentially entailing more distance than even your own Move Action allows for)
Swim Speed IS still significantly beneficial for anybody involved in underwater combat,
because without it one can't 5' step or use Charge or Spring Attack etc since vanilla Swim Skill is it's own action.
Never mind the distances achieved by vanilla Swim Skill are tiny - 1/4 - compared to regular Move Action.
That is just from Core Rules, without AqAdv, which also adds sinking rules when lacking a Swim Speed,
which is significant impediment even if you can still full attack, your tactical spacing is f~@&ed.
(plenty of spells/(Su)s range is impacted by 10'/round sinking, as well as melee/ranged weapon ranges)
And AFAIK 'environmental movement' whether falling or sinking also triggers movement AoOs.
|
|
Blahpers: there's nothing in AA that contradicts the Core Rules. All they did was add the Buoyancy entry. Hence, why I'm wondering if there was something official or at least guidance. I'm at a complete loss as to why such a simple rule should be disregarded by a GM.
Graystone: I get the consequences and the swim speed stuff. That's why I incorporated it into what I suggested. What I don't get is why players should be punished for not having a Swim speed while making a successful Swim Check. The rules certainly don't suggest this, so why should a GM think so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone: I get the consequences and the swim speed stuff. That's why I incorporated it into what I suggested. What I don't get is why players should be punished for not having a Swim speed while making a successful Swim Check. The rules certainly don't suggest this, so why should a GM think so.
I quoted what the rule was: If you do not use an action to swim, you sink/raise do to buoyancy. The 'punishment' is that swim speed allows run, charge and 5' moves [and don't have to make a check to do so] which is a REWARD for being an aquatic/water creature in its natural environment.
blahpers: The new text in AA says "(or doesn’t spend any actions to swim, thus not even attempting the check)". The only way to take that is that swim checks, even those to stay in place, take actions to do and the only listed actions are Move and Full.
Quandary: Don't forget it also causes off-balanced in addition to the 10' move in addition to moving out of combat and the AoO. Also the base swim skill says "Make a Swim check once per round while you are in the water". Add that to the "(or doesn’t spend any actions to swim, thus not even attempting the check)" and it seems like you #1 are required to make a swim check every round and #2 swim checks use actions [move and full listed].
I suggest conveying all the negative aspects of vanilla Swim Skill per RAW (I mentioned some in prev post) and suggest he consider how encounter dynamics can be impacted by those. (which he may very well not have considered when designing encounters/ NPC tactics) The potential AoO from sinking is probably a significant one he overlooked, most especially as it directly relates to his concern re: # of attacks/ round to detriment of non-sinking combatant. And Swim Speed creatures can set their buoyancy for free so can benefit from 'free movement' when appropriate, taking into account this happens AFTER the turns' actions, and non-Swim Speed PCs must spend Move Action to move even 5' (potentially equalling 10' sink if they have natural 40 move speed, but still reduced to Standard Attack then) Even without his house-rule, in fact vanilla Swim Skill is significantly suboptimal.
Quandary: A small correction. It's aquatic creatures [not swim speed] that get to change buoyancy to neutral as a free action so it really can't be used for 'free' movement.
So a non-aquatic creature that gains a swim speed can't take the free action.
blahpers: The new text in AA says "(or doesn’t spend any actions to swim, thus not even attempting the check)". The only way to take that is that swim checks, even those to stay in place, take actions to do and the only listed actions are Move and Full.
I see! Thanks for that. In that case, they did actually change the rules for swimming in a fundamental way, one which I will happily ignore.
Reading between the lines, it sounds like the real issue here is personality conflicts between the GM and some of the players about how rulings should be made and how much "evidence" needs to be accumulated for them. If that's the case, the group has a lot more to worry about than just the Swim rules.
Quandary: A small correction. It's aquatic creatures [not swim speed] that get to change buoyancy to neutral as a free action so it really can't be used for 'free' movement.
So a non-aquatic creature that gains a swim speed can't take the free action.
Yup, aquatic/swim speed is part of 'bigger picture' of rules elements which often 'co-habitate' with swim speed but aren't per se part of it.
I think I was imagining a sequence like: 1) Neutral Buoyancy is 'set' at sea floor OR at surface (etc) 2) Move to surface OR move to deep water (i.e. away from 1)) 3) Do stuff that isn't moving 3a) Turn Ends 3b) Buoyancy kicks in, moving towards where it was last set as neutral. There could be mechanical/legal detail to the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
blahpers: The new text in AA says "(or doesn’t spend any actions to swim, thus not even attempting the check)". The only way to take that is that swim checks, even those to stay in place, take actions to do and the only listed actions are Move and Full.I see! Thanks for that. In that case, they did actually change the rules for swimming in a fundamental way, one which I will happily ignore.
While it IS a change, I don't think it really changes the majority of games as any any water/swim heavy game has characters quickly get a way of gaining swim speeds and then you don't need swim checks to move anymore. This is more a once off or occasional thing in other games and its suboptimal to fight underwater without a swim speed so I don't see it as a big deal: in these situations, swim is more to get out of water than it is to flurry/two weapon fight or multiple two-handed swings. Most people don't jump INTO the water to fight a croc in its natural environment if they can help it.
Quandary: that sequence can do that but it can also work against you it you're hit with something prevents you from making an action, like dazed. You can find yourself moving involuntarily and collecting some AoO instead of the voluntary free movement you planned for.
While it IS a change, I don't think it really changes the majority of games as any any water/swim heavy game has characters quickly get a way of gaining swim speeds and then you don't need swim checks to move anymore. This is more a once off or occasional thing in other games and its suboptimal to fight underwater without a swim speed so I don't see it as a big deal: in these situations, swim is more to get out of water than it is to flurry/two weapon fight or multiple two-handed swings. Most people don't jump INTO the water to fight a croc in its natural environment if they can help it.
Agreed... And to re-iterate, nobody is directly prevented from taking Full Action, the distinction is about sink/float movement, although to avoid that non-Swim Speed characters may choose to spend a Move Action to stay at the same level or within 5'.
Quandary: that sequence can do that but it can also work against you it you're hit with something prevents you from making an action, like dazed. You can find yourself moving involuntarily and collecting some AoO instead of the voluntary free movement you planned for.
OK, glad I got it right, although it can also work against you like you point out (although being Dazed usually is bad enough as is, and triggering the AoO may also be putting you out of Full Attack range). Another advanced tactical movement option akin to Kraken/Non-Immobilized Grab + Move (out of target reach).
One question I can see springing from all this would be "can you stay in same square as 5' step"?
I'd allow it, but it probably should trigger stuff like Barbarian Unexpected Strike.
One question I can see springing from all this would be "can you stay in same square as 5' step"?
No, but it's much less of an issue in 3D combat as you can move to any of the nine squares on a side to flank. It might be an issue with large creatures if you can manage to cover each 'side' of it's space with a creature so it can't move.
PS: Of course I'm thinking underwater = open space, In in an underwater enclosed space, it could be an issue but it also can't move very far because of buoyancy.