Gibbering Mouther - 6 CON Damage Wat?

[MerlinCross]

So I'm asking around about this as I'm not sure and it seems to have created tension in the group I'm in.

We're playing a session, level 4, and we stumble across a Gibbering Mouther. Oh dears. Now someone charges in to melee and gets grappled. Okay no problem..., no wait here's the issue.

Quote:

Blood Drain (Ex) On a successful grapple check after grabbing, several of the creature's mouths attach to its target. Each round it maintains its grapple, its mouths automatically deal 1d4 points of bite damage and 1 point of Constitution damage as it drains its victim's blood.

Now here's where we get into problems. The DM sees the Mouther has 6 bite attacks. Thus it has 6 Mouths. And while DM ruling is a thing, I'm not sure I agree on the fact it has 6d4 + 6 Con damage Automatically.

How does this work? Was the DM in the right?

[Zarius]

... No.

Gibbering Mouther wrote:

Each round it maintains its grapple, its mouths automatically deal 1d4 points of bite damage and 1 point of Constitution damage as it drains its victim's blood.

This does NOT say 1d4 bite damage and 1 point of con per mouth. It says "it's MOUTHS deal 1d4damage and 1 point of con damage."

While, in deed, several of it's mouths are attached to you, their COMBINATION is doing an extra 1d4 damage and 1 con damage, not each of them do. This is a CR 5 monster. Now, in fairness, I only say this because I'm reading the exact wording of the Mouther. Sarm of Army Ants, another CR 5 critter, deals 3d6 damage (Swarm, no attack roll), so the fact that this thing actually still has to maintain the grapple to do it PUTS a 6d4 + 6 con damage in line with what the Army Ants can do. But, based of the wording, he's wrong.

[blahpers]

1. The damage option for maintaining a grapple allows dealing one attack's worth of damage, not six.

2. Army ants don't do Con damage.

[Pizza Lord]

Like the others have said, the GM is not correct in his interpretation.
Also, a gibbering mouther doesn't just have 6 mouths, it likely has 12–30 or more depending on size. It only gets six bite attacks each round. The number and kind of natural attacks are not always based on limb amount, and a gibbering mouther is quite nearly the definition of unusual physiology. Just like not every eye on the mouther should look the same (one could be big and blue, another could be snake-like or slitted and cat-like), the mouths aren't all suited for biting. Certainly there should be a large variety of such (disgusting) features. There will be the circular leech and lamprey mouths with the ring of teeth, and a mouth with serpent fangs, and one with jagged, brown and yellow blunt crushers. Those will do the biting, but you'll also have slender little anteater mouths or even possibly full, beautiful female lips as red as roses just lick and suck on the target's flesh, trying to draw blood.

If it helps, it should look something like this:

• Gibbering mouther attacks with 1st bite. If it hits it deals 1d4 damage and may attempt to grab (which it probably will.)
  If it succeeds on the grab, then both it and its target are considered grappled. This triggers the Blood Drain description (but not the damage) which says several mouths attach to the grabbed creature (this is basically cosmetic, the mouther has a whole lot of mouths free). It doesn't do damage until the next round if it maintains the grapple.
  
• Gibbering mouther can then continue its attacks, either biting its grabbed target for more damage or attempting to bite a different target (though at a -2 to attacks against targets other than the grabbed one, as per grappled condition, and also on the CMB for grabbing them if it does hit.)

  Note that the gibbering mouther has the grab ability, which gives it an option to take a -20 penalty on its grab attempt and not be considered grappled. This would let it bite at other targets without a penalty, but it probably won't take this option unless your GM is being really, really nice to you and knows you have no chance to beat its CMD.
  

• The round passes and the target fails to escape. The gibbering mouther makes a grapple check to maintain the grab. If it succeeds, the target takes 1d4 damage and 1 Con. (Thematically, consider that the mouths have been nipping and sucking blood during the round, they aren't constantly chomping).
  
• At this point, the gibbering mouther can then make its normal bite attacks if it wishes (at a -2 penalty against targets other than the grabbed one), unless it took the -20, in which case it has 5 bite attacks that it can make at no penalty against anyone. (It is using one bite to hold the grabbed target, as per grab ability, as weird as that sounds, even though descriptively it has multiple mouths latched on. Luckily, this should almost never realistically happen, since its CMB isn't that great in the grand scheme of creatures that grapple.)

• At the start of the round, also note that the gibbering mouther could have chosen to use its Engulf ability (basically a different-looking kind of Swallow Whole), which it probably will, since it starts its round with a creature grappled. If it succeeds at the check, it would engulf the target (dealing bite damage), and the next turn, if the target didn't get free, it would deal 6d4 and 2 Con (because it's probably got a lot more mouths forming inside it and biting at the creature from all sides). This would take away the grappled condition from it, and leave it with 6 bites attacks (which it can't direct at the engulfed target, but they're taking the equivalent damage each round anyway) which it can direct at new targets.
  

[DarkPhoenixx]

It does not say "per mouth". Maintaining a grapple is standard action that allows Mouther to deal 1 attack worth of damage (1d4) and use its Blood Drain ability (kind of like constrict) for 1d4 damage and 1 CON damage.

[Warped Savant]

I can totally see why the DM thought the way they did as it's a poorly worded ability.
"...its mouths automatically deal 1d4 points of bite damage and 1 point of Constitution damage as it drains its victim's blood" should be worded more like "...its mouths automatically deals a total of 1d4 points of bite damage and 1 point of Constitution damage as the gibbering mouther drains its victim's blood."
Your DM assumed that each mouth that can attack in a round (6) deals 1D4 damage and that the "it" in "...as it drains..." meant each mouth rather than the creature as a whole.

[MerlinCross]

Meh, while I wanted to address this with the DM, game up and ended so this was all pointless other than addressing my own concerns about it

[Zarius]

Leave a flaming poop sack on his front porch? o.o

[MerlinCross]

It was online but I feel the death and mishandling of the rules were the tipping point of the game.

[Pax Miles]

MerlinCross wrote:

It was online but I feel the death and mishandling of the rules were the tipping point of the game.

Maybe another issue was tipping things, but sounds like the GM legitimately misread the rules and isn't really at fault. Players misread their own abilities all the time, can't expect the GM to be perfect.

And even reading the ability as dealing 6d4+6 CON damage (which is definitely incorrect), it still only applies the round after you are grappled. That gives the party an action each to either kill it, or break you free of the grapple. Its a tough creature, but a party where this CR 5 encounter is appropriate should be able to deal with it.

Since it hasn't already been posted, Gibbering Mouther. Definitely a tough creature, but as a CR 5 encounter, it's designed to face off as an "average" encounter against a party of 4-5 players, each with 5th level characters.

More info on CRs as they related to encounters here.

[MerlinCross]

Pax Miles wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

It was online but I feel the death and mishandling of the rules were the tipping point of the game.

Maybe another issue was tipping things, but sounds like the GM legitimately misread the rules and isn't really at fault. Players misread their own abilities all the time, can't expect the GM to be perfect.

And even reading the ability as dealing 6d4+6 CON damage (which is definitely incorrect), it still only applies the round after you are grappled. That gives the party an action each to either kill it, or break you free of the grapple. Its a tough creature, but a party where this CR 5 encounter is appropriate should be able to deal with it.

Since it hasn't already been posted, Gibbering Mouther. Definitely a tough creature, but as a CR 5 encounter, it's designed to face off as an "average" encounter against a party of 4-5 players, each with 5th level characters.

More info on CRs as they related to encounters here.

Math might be a bit off, we were level 4. Techially 5 players but someone had to bow out earlier so it was 4 PCs of level 4

[Zhayne]

This is one of those situations where any sane GM would realize how stupidly broken that ability would be, and think 'I must not be reading this right'.

[Claxon]

Yeah, even if you thought you were reading it right you would have to realize "This monster can in two rounds successfully drain away the health of most PC characters of appropriate level". Few PCs start with much more than 12 con, which would only be 2 rounds under that GM's interpretation. Which sounds obviously insane to me.

[Pax Miles]

MerlinCross wrote:

Math might be a bit off, we were level 4. Techially 5 players but someone had to bow out earlier so it was 4 PCs of level 4

So it was an APL +1 encounter, which is classified as a "Challenging" encounter. Should be doable for the party, but requires caution and party should have to actually think about what they are doing (as opposed to blindly charging the mass of mouths...).

I do think that creature is a nasty one (even when played right), regardless of how approiate it was for your party to deal with. My sympathies for your party.

Zhayne wrote:

This is one of those situations where any sane GM would realize how stupidly broken that ability would be, and think 'I must not be reading this right'.

Sometimes the players or the GM don't really look at an ability until it comes up. Sure they skim it, but they don't really examine the impact on the game until it actually occurs in-game. Dunno, I give the GM the benefit of the doubt. I don't think this requires the GM to lack sanity, it just requires them to overlook something obvious, which is normal human behaviour.

[pauljathome]

Zhayne wrote:

This is one of those situations where any sane GM would realize how stupidly broken that ability would be, and think 'I must not be reading this right'.

I'd change that to "any experienced GM".

This sounds like EXACTLY the kind of mistake an inexperienced GM could make.

[Stephen Ede]

Never attribute to malice what can be explained to brainfart without supporting evidence.

[Matthew Downie]

Claxon wrote:

Yeah, even if you thought you were reading it right you would have to realize "This monster can in two rounds successfully drain away the health of most PC characters of appropriate level". Few PCs start with much more than 12 con, which would only be 2 rounds under that GM's interpretation. Which sounds obviously insane to me.

Using the GM's (bad) ruling, it takes at least one round to grapple, and then two more rounds to kill the PC through Con damage; three more if they've got a decent Con and someone to heal the HP damage. So that gives the entire party three rounds to kill it while it's stuck there, maintaining its grapple. Dangerous, but I wouldn't call it insane.

A CR4 hydra can also probably kill a PC in three rounds, if it's allowed to focus on them; it does 37 damage a round on average if all its attacks hit.

[Pax Miles]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Yeah, even if you thought you were reading it right you would have to realize "This monster can in two rounds successfully drain away the health of most PC characters of appropriate level". Few PCs start with much more than 12 con, which would only be 2 rounds under that GM's interpretation. Which sounds obviously insane to me.

Using the GM's (bad) ruling, it takes at least one round to grapple, and then two more rounds to kill the PC through Con damage; three more if they've got a decent Con and someone to heal the HP damage. So that gives the entire party three rounds to kill it while it's stuck there, maintaining its grapple. Dangerous, but I wouldn't call it insane.

A CR4 hydra can also probably kill a PC in three rounds, if it's allowed to focus on them; it does 37 damage a round on average if all its attacks hit.

Well, the GM's ruling was 6d4+6 con damage, so between 12 and 30 con damage per round. Should kill just about anything if it's allowed to grapple and then make the blood drain attack a round later.

Still doable to kill and defeat with 4x 4th level characters, but the GMs misreading was definitely making the creature overpowered in that one attack. I still give them benefit of the doubt, but I agree that it's a pretty OP interpretation.

Regarding this particular creature, it has a speed of 10ft. You should be able to kill it a range without any trouble. It's DR is 5/bludgeoning, so it will die to those slings or thrown clubs (both weapons with no cost). It doesn't really have the range or speed to deal with ranged attacks, especially ones that pierce it's DR.

On the other hand, if it's encountered when only about 20ft away, this thing is extremely dangerous.

[Cavall]

Whoa whoa whoa. He was reading the 1d4 as CON damage too?

Yeahhh that's either a newbie GM or a guy that is purposely misreading that.

Few things in the game could live through 30 CON damage a turn. That's beyond common sense.

[VoodistMonk]

Stephen Ede wrote:

Never attribute to malice what can be explained to brainfart without supporting evidence.

Well said.

[Matthew Downie]

I'm pretty sure it would have been 6d4 HP + 6 Con damage, which the OP abbreviated as 6d4 + 6 Con damage. I guess that's why some people saw the GM as insane and some as merely inexperienced.

[MerlinCross]

Matthew Downie wrote:

I'm pretty sure it would have been 6d4 HP + 6 Con damage, which the OP abbreviated as 6d4 + 6 Con damage. I guess that's why some people saw the GM as insane and some as merely inexperienced.

Okay that's my fault. That is completely my fault. Yes I meant 6d4 HP damage + 6 CON damage. If this confused people I'm sorry.

Stephen Ede wrote:

Never attribute to malice what can be explained to brainfart without supporting evidence.

The only evidence can provide is that part of the pitch was "Death happens" when recruiting players. He even allowed a death save per character in book 1 letting us have some breathing room.

But he made it clear this wasn't an easy AP and that he wasn't going to pull punches in the other books.

[Thirdhorseman]

yeah, if it was a new GM I can perfectly understand, hell, when I was just first starting out and was basically teaching myself from the core rulebook and some stat blocks online, I read a stat block of a monster dealing something like 1d8+5 X3 damage as actually dealing X3 damage on each hit (rather than the spear they were wielding dealing the X3 on a crit)

[Zhayne]

Okay, that makes it a more understandable mistake. I don't think your GM is bat-crap crazy now. :)

[MerlinCross]

Zhayne wrote:

Okay, that makes it a more understandable mistake. I don't think your GM is bat-crap crazy now. :)

I'm just so used to reading the first number/dice as damage and the second number as extra damage/specially defined damage, that I assumed everyone reads it the same way. That is a goof on my part.

As for new GM, well maybe? He claimed to have run games before and ran us through usually smoothly and quickly. But looking into the AP this week, he just fully followed the book to the letter. So maybe he's just an on rails guy.

I do thank you for your time though

[JoeElf]

The Gibbering Mouther does do 1 point of Con damage with its initial bite using the Blood Drain, but the next round, it can often maintain its grapple (using a +7), plus swallow whole using the Engulf ability, and then you suffer 2 points of Con damage - not 1 and not 6.

"Special Attacks: blood drain, engulf (6d4 damage plus 2 Con damage, AC 13, hp 4), gibbering, ground manipulation, spittle (+6 ranged touch)."

They are no joke for a party of level 4 characters. And you'd surely want to run them correctly: 1 Con damage per round isn't too bad since the monster only has 46hp, and 6 Con damage will kill the average character in just 2.5 rounds. The 2 Con damage is the right level of threat for a character that's engulfed for the CR of this monster.

[Egil Firehair]

We ran into one of these this afternoon. We had 6 level three characters, including myself. It was part of a module, so maybe it was toned down a little for level three characters: lot's of attacks of which not many hit, lot's of hit points. But the Hunter's Animal Companion owlbear put out 12-18 hp per round, and the Pyromancer did about the same. The judge ran it with only 1 con loss per round.

The judge told us that this fight, the first of the day, was also the hardest. He was right.

[Pax Miles]

Egil Firehair wrote:

We ran into one of these this afternoon. We had 6 level three characters, including myself. It was part of a module, so maybe it was toned down a little for level three characters: lot's of attacks of which not many hit, lot's of hit points. But the Hunter's Animal Companion owlbear put out 12-18 hp per round, and the Pyromancer did about the same. The judge ran it with only 1 con loss per round.

The judge told us that this fight, the first of the day, was also the hardest. He was right.

I love owlbears. How did the hunter get an owlbear as an animal companion?

But yeah, the Gibbering Mouther has only 46 HP. Sure, DR 5/Bludgeoning, immunity to critical hits and precision damage, but it really isn't that durable. If you have a couple of strong characters able to deal bludgeoning damage, it should die pretty quick. A ranged DPS character or two would be even more impressive.

I will note that it only has INT 4, so if you could lower that to zero, you could potentially take it out with poison or another means of INT damage. It does have a good saves, but the potential is there.

[MerlinCross]

We had maybe 3 spell casters(Alchemsit, Magus, Battle Shaman) and I think a Fighter with a magic sword, we killed it in about 3-4 rounds.

I will admit we played it stupid. Should of backed up and out as much fire in it as we could. And we should have had a 5th but he left due to weather.

[Pax Miles]

MerlinCross wrote:

We had maybe 3 spell casters(Alchemsit, Magus, Battle Shaman) and I think a Fighter with a magic sword, we killed it in about 3-4 rounds.

I will admit we played it stupid. Should of backed up and out as much fire in it as we could. And we should have had a 5th but he left due to weather.

Sounds like an even match, but you weren't taking it seriously. No worries, learning for next time is all that you can do now.

Fighter probably should have switched to a bludgeoning weapon, but it may have been better to keep the magic sword, I don't know.

[MerlinCross]

Pax Miles wrote:

MerlinCross wrote:

We had maybe 3 spell casters(Alchemsit, Magus, Battle Shaman) and I think a Fighter with a magic sword, we killed it in about 3-4 rounds.

I will admit we played it stupid. Should of backed up and out as much fire in it as we could. And we should have had a 5th but he left due to weather.

Sounds like an even match, but you weren't taking it seriously. No worries, learning for next time is all that you can do now.

Fighter probably should have switched to a bludgeoning weapon, but it may have been better to keep the magic sword, I don't know.

We took it seriously after the DM informed us of the damage. Even with the right damage, we goofed on tactics.

It was poor all all round

[Isaac Zephyr]

I remember my first encounter with a mouther. We were a party of 4 level 1 characters, the intention from the GM obviously to "run you fools!". Our newbie cleric really wanted to save the unicorn it was engulfing though.

Long story short, I dropped a building on it. A barrel of gunpowder goes a lot longer way on a support pillar than a hundred shots against the creature.

It's been said though, it only deals 1-2 Con damage based on which of it's abilities it's using. And like most creatures, it can only do those 6 bites if it's offered a chance to full attack. Keep out of it's reach and you've got an okay time.

[Egil Firehair]

Pax Miles wrote:

I love owlbears. How did the hunter get an owlbear as an animal comp?

I have no idea. It was in a PFS module, so presumably it was legal. The judge didn't question it and he had the most reason to; it had bite/claw/claw at +4 STR bonus...

[Cavall]

Best I could find was an old 3.5 druid archetype that did it. Doubt that was pfs