Cave Worm fall damage.

[SuperParkourio]

Cave worm wins initiative.
Cave worm Burrows to surface.
Cave worm Strikes PC.
Cave worm Improved Grabs PC.
Cave worm Fast Swallows PC with MAP
Cave worm regurgitates PC at full MAP, targeting a space at an altitude of 375 feet.
There's no creature there, so secret flat check and secret attack roll don't matter.
PC falls and takes 187 fall damage.

Thoughts?

[Dr. Frank Funkelstein]

360ft would be the maximum distance for a ranged attack with 60ft.
Just limit it to an actual target and you should be fine.

[SuperParkourio]

I used an altitude of 375 feet because the worm is Guargantuan (since it doesn't have the Enormous ability, its space is likely 20 feet tall).

And would a single, hapless pigeon being hit by the regurgitated PC suddenly make all the fall damage okay if it wasn't already?

[SuperParkourio]

The craziest thing to me isn't the high damage so much as the fact that it just works. The attack roll seems to be there only to determine if the target gets hit, not whether the 360 feet of forced movement happens.

Maybe if the attack roll was also compared to the regurgitated creature's Fortitude DC, it'd be less crazy?

[NorrKnekten]

Using such novel and easily replicated tactics with NPCs is generally frowned upon just as it is for PCs in the same vein as other cheesy strats. If a worm already did 3d6+3d10+24 with a few checks that didnt go the PCs way, with chance to poison. Then it also doesn't need to do enough guaranteed damage to instantly down max health characters of its own level with its very next action when its written to assume the worm targets another opponent. Because thats what a -5 int creature would do.

Honestly this is just another special circumstance to adjudicate really, Pathfinder rules are written with a single 2d plane as its base so you are going to find some wonky interactions if you start to think of battles in 3D.

I typically rule that you can only accurately hit spaces within the first range increment and have frequently ruled vertical shots having their increment reduced (similar to the special combat rules, planar gravity rules and ad-hoc penalties)

GM Core pg. 28 2.0 Ad-hoc penalties and bonuses wrote:

Try to use ad hoc bonuses a little more often than ad hoc penalties. If you do think a penalty might be appropriate, ask yourself the following.

Does the environment or terrain create any applicable disadvantages for the character?
Should the character have expected that this would be more difficult based on what they already knew?
Was this circumstance caused by a bad decision on the part of the one taking the penalty?
Is this negative circumstance easy to replicate in pretty much every battle?
Once again, answering yes to most of these questions means it's more likely you should apply a penalty, and answering yes to the final question means it less likely you should do so.

[Trip.H]

Probably should not have unified the boulder spit and the creature spit like that.

At first glance, I had thought you were needing to use lateral thinking to dig a long vertical tunnel to spit them into, a clever way to create fall damage greater than the ground level height.

That fall dmg tactic only requiring one badly written ability, that spit, is pretty damn yikes.

And considering that it actually makes sense for worms to be residing in a pre-built tunnel *before* initiative is rolled, that forced movement spit is that much more dangerous. It's not even GM metagaming to have a worm use such an instinctual strategy as moving prey to it's tunnel.

A worm that exits their tunnel long enough to spit prey into it, then body-plugging their own tunnel as they descend to eat, is uh, an instant game over for any creature that can be hit by the worm's attacks.

Hell, if the worm no-tunnel burrows up to swallow, then no-tunnel digs back to their long vertical shaft *before* spitting, that's even more of a death sentence thanks to hindering pursuit.

That 100ft tremorsense is the chef's kiss on that, as it makes such ambush tactics rather automatic and instinctual for the creature.

The worm can up-swallow-down with a 20ft buffer of solid stone in a single turn, spitting on turn 2.

Or it can increase the buffer of stone if it's willing to end one turn above ground.

[Trip.H]

...what happens if the worm spits/ the creature escapes, only for the GM to say "you are inside solid stone" due to how the worm doesn't need to leave tunnels?

That whole creature needed some more time in the oven. Legacy inclusion's not really an excuse for a rather simple oversight of
"you succeed your Escape" --> "your PC doesn't have a stone burrow ability, they are dead"

[Claxon]

Trip.H wrote:

...what happens if the worm spits/ the creature escapes, only for the GM to say "you are inside solid stone" due to how the worm doesn't need to leave tunnels?

That whole creature needed some more time in the oven. Legacy inclusion's not really an excuse for a rather simple oversight of
"you succeed your Escape" --> "your PC doesn't have a stone burrow ability, they are dead"

Well, they're probably not instantly dead, but likely are now trapped in the earth unable to move and unable to breath in more air. So death is very imminent unless you have a party with the right tools to save you pretty darn quickly.

[Easl]

If you're looking for a GM position about why not to do such an instadeath thing, here are a few.

Idea 1: The way PF2E works, effects that target spaces instead of objects are dealt with via saves rather than AC attacks. I would say a reasonable approach to this would be to convert it into a PC save, with a successful save doing half damage (i.e. 87ish) and a crit success doing none. You're able to guide yourself into a bush or something.

Idea 2: that's 7 range increments away; I might decide that for the worm to successfully regurgitate something that far, it has to make some sort of level based check at -12 and if it fails, the effect is that the regurgitated person falls way short of the mark - i.e. much lower. (Think of this like a watermelon seed spitting competition; you wouldn't just allow a PC to say "I spit it 7 range increments" and succeed at achieving that distance without a roll, would you? So why should you let the worm do it?)

Idea 3: if you want to introduce this possibility but want your players to have fun with it, find a way to hint to them that this is a possibility. "Farmer Bob was once swallowed by a Cave Worm, and then spit out. Flew right over the castle he did. That thing's still out there - you here to kill it?" At L11-15 there are plenty of ways the PCs can nullify the threat of a long fall...if they suspect it's coming. So rather than trying to find some rules reason not to do it, you could just give the PCs a reason to prepare for it as a possible threat.

Idea 4: let it happen, let it be the threat that it is, but give the unaffected characters a chance to do some responsive action before the regurgitated character goes splat. "Okay folks, the Worm has finished it's actions. Wizard Alice is now flying through the air. Looks like if she hits the ground at that speed, it's going to be really bad. But she won't hit until the end of the round. So Chuck, you're up in initiative order next - what do you do?"

Idea 5: no fix needed. A PC at level 13 could have 180+ HP. Particularly martials. So they bump, then they get healed, and life goes on. Obviously this is more instadeath if the PC is level 10 or 11...but why are you doing that to them? As a GM, what is your motive for creating an encounter where you've intentionally created a BBEG one-shot-one-kill-any-PC possibility? OTOH, if the PCs are L15 or more and this is an easy encounter, this could be a really fun thing to do, without a threat of death.

[NorrKnekten]

Easl wrote:

Idea 5: no fix needed. A PC at level 13 could easily have 180+ HP. Particularly martials. So they bump, then they get healed, and life goes on.

A level 13 character can have 180+ health sure, but remember that they probably have taken the damage of a strike in order to have been grabbed, and also takes the swallow whole damage. Thats a guaranteed 210 damage if all dice roll 1s.

Thats enough to down a champion with maxed constitution and toughness, You are more likely looking at a number closer to 230 on average and 240 on the high end. For a creature thats supposed to be a trival on its own and is supposed to come in 4s or additional creatures to make it a moderate encounter.

You shouldn't need to be level 15 with maxed out con and toughness as a 10hp class to even have a chance to not be downed in one instance of this. And if they are even more unlucky they are now poisoned.

Its also not very likely to fail any athletics check with its extreme level athletics mod. (currently our lv13 kineticist gets grabbed on a 5)

[Finoan]

Like unattended objects, you can't by RAW target an empty space with a Strike action. Yes, attacking objects and targeting empty space should generally be allowed with some GM adjudication.

If the GM is using their adjudication privileges to treat the other players at the table in this way, then the GM isn't playing in good faith. Abandon that game.

[Bluemagetim]

Cave worms are subterranean creatures with a -5 int.
They probably don't think about how far up they can regurgitate a PC.

[Ravingdork]

Bluemagetim wrote:

Cave worms are subterranean creatures with a -5 int.

They probably don't think about how far up they can regurgitate a PC.

Perhaps not, but instinctually spitting their food into their very deep burrow seems rather fitting.

[Bluemagetim]

Ravingdork wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Cave worms are subterranean creatures with a -5 int.

They probably don't think about how far up they can regurgitate a PC.

Perhaps nor, but instinctual spitting their food into their very deep burrow is fitting.

Lol, you know i think what I would do with this creature is stick to poisoning a target with the stinger then trying to eat it.

Save regurgitate for two kinds of situations, firing a rock at something it cant reach thats hurting it, or firing a PC at another one when the PC it ate is causing it indigestion.

But actually that does give an idea for a more fair way to use the non targeting regurgitate. Have the worm after having swallowed a PC digg down 80ft then spit the PC up the tunnel.
It actually could be fun moment instead of a purely punitive one.
The PC could try to grab the edge or another PC could use a reaction to help grab them before they fall back down. That would be a fun moment.

[Ravingdork]

Bluemagetim wrote:

But actually that does give an idea for a more fair way to use the non targeting regurgitate. Have the worm after having swallowed a PC digg down 80ft then spit the PC up the tunnel.

It actually could be fun moment instead of a purely punitive one.
The PC could try to grab the edge or another PC could use a reaction to help grab them before they fall back down. That would be a fun moment.

"By the gods, it spit me out!"

"No it didn't."

"What?"

"Well, it was burrowing, you see...and it couldn't turn around in the narrow confines of its tunnel."

"Wait. You mean...?"

"Yes, I' m afraid so..."

*Druid casts hydraulic torrent.*

[Bluemagetim]

Ravingdork wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

But actually that does give an idea for a more fair way to use the non targeting regurgitate. Have the worm after having swallowed a PC digg down 80ft then spit the PC up the tunnel.

It actually could be fun moment instead of a purely punitive one.
The PC could try to grab the edge or another PC could use a reaction to help grab them before they fall back down. That would be a fun moment.

"By the gods, it spit me out!"

"No it didn't."

"What?"

"Well, it was burrowing, you see...and it couldn't turn around in the narrow confines of its tunnel."

"Wait. You mean...?"

"Yes, I' m afraid so..."

*Druid casts hydraulic torrent.*

LMAO

[SuperParkourio]

The rules actually do permit choosing unoccupied spaces to Strike at. The GM rolls a flat check and attack roll in secret. If there's actually an undetected creature there and both rolls succeed, the attack hits that creature. One could argue that since the fall damage is "calculated from the height of the target," the worm would need to successfully target a creature (pick a correct space and succeed any flat check) to deal the fall damage, but I don't see why the worm's digestive tract would lose all its propulsive power for lack of a defenseless bird to shoot at.

As for Burrowing with a swallowed creature without leaving a tunnel, there is a basis for disallowing that. "If forced movement would move you into a space you can't occupy—because objects are in the way or because you lack the movement type needed to reach it, for example—you stop moving in the last space you can occupy." The tunnel would be necessary to create a space that the swallowed creature could occupy. This prevents that creature from being softlocked for Escaping in the wrong place, which I think is precisely why that forced movement rule exists. Storywise, I would flavor it as "the worm can't maneuver underground quite as well while a living creature is wriggling in its gut."

I don't think the fall damage is likely to instakill anyone unless the worm is PL+3 or more. And even then, only if the PC is a wizard or other 6 HP/level class with less than +3 CON. And even then, only if the PC has no precautions against fall damage and the rest of the party has no precautions against non-death-trait instakills.

It's common for birds to drop turtles from the sky to break their shells open, so I don't think it's not too strange for a -5 INT creature to deliberately use fall damage against a regurgitated creature. But this worm likely isn't capable of ambushes, seeing as it's untrained in Stealth.

[Easl]

SuperParkourio wrote:

It's common for birds to drop turtles from the sky to break their shells open, so I don't think it's not too strange for a -5 INT creature to deliberately use fall damage against a regurgitated creature. But this worm likely isn't capable of ambushes, seeing as it's untrained in Stealth.

The bird is already X feet off the ground, so it makes complete sense that the drop causes a X feet fall. Birds are also pretty smart, and often do this to crack shells so they can eat the turtle.

Let's contrast this with the worm. The worm, if it just ate a PC, has it's maw at ground level (because that's where the PC it just ate was). So your scenario requires that either the worm rear up 300+ feet in zero actions (because there's no 'rear up' in your action calculus) and then spit the PC out targeting 'a spot in the air,' or that it angles its maw up (away from the threatening enemies around it) and then spits as hard as it physically can, again targeting nothing at all. It doesn't need to do this to crack a shell or otherwise make it's food edible, it's not as smart as a bird to figure out why this might be useful to it (hint: it isn't), it has to ignore the threats on the ground around it to do it, and nowhere in the cannon is either 'launch' action discussed or shown as an instinctive response. So even if it's physically possible, it's kinda like the GM deciding the a giant spider dances the two step - physically possible sure, but why would it do that?

IMO, the plain meaning of Paizo's description of it's attack behavior is pretty obvious; the worm eats things on the ground (or the 2D 'plane of battle', if you're underground), and also regurgitates rocks at them from this same basic attack position...where it's maw is close to the enemy.

Now, if your PCs are flying 375' off the ground, then your scenario would make a lot more sense. The worm rears up very high to try and snag them. It succeeds. It eats a PC, then regurgitates that PC targeting another PC. So the first PC then falls down from that same height. But other than that, it seems to me to require the GM actively wanting to have this specific event to happen for it to happen, because unlike a bird dropping a turtle, there's no animal motivation or cannon justification for this behavior.

(Now, you could make it cannonical behavior for your campaign. That's kinda cool and interesting. But that would probably then lead to my #3 idea - i.e., people who have a 'worm problem' generally know that worms do this because they see them do it, so the PCs would have a chance to figure it out and prepare for it...at L11-15, flight and levitation is cheap, so falling damage isn't that threatening.)

[ScooterScoots]

As SuperParkourio said the ability to target unoccupied squares is kinda required by how the hiding rules work, because by the hiding rules you can just guess there’s an invisible creature at a location and swing at it.

And it would be outright laughable to have “can i shoot an arrow/fire bolt/thrown dagger at this location” be contingent on “do i in good faith believe there *might* be an invisible zombie on location” or anything of the like. Like what’s stopping you? The air? Obviously you can shoot at the space, that’s how projectiles work. And the hiding rules support that.

[Claxon]

It's just a corner case of issues where being able to target an empty square by itself isn't problematic. But combined with the falling rules, and an ability for a monster to spit someone out, potentially hundreds of feet into the air forcing fall damage unless someone is prepared to counter it....that's a problem.

The simple, if not realistic solution, was to say that the worms spit attack causes a maximum of 25 falling damage (if falling from 50ft or greater) and set some rails.

Of course, I assume Paizo didn't think about malicious GMs trying to kill their PCs by using the regurgitate ability to spit someone straight up into the air.

[Lia Wynn]

My thoughts here.

1. GMs should not be looking to one-hit kill PCs. If a GM did something like that, without a story reason (like, say, a flying PC attacking it), that's a huge red flag, assuming the GM knew that the PCs, for whatever reason, lacked falling damage mitigation.

2. I don't think I've ever seen a cave with a 375' tall ceiling in a published, or homebrewed, adventure. If there was one, and the PCs were aware that there was a cave worm, well, that could lead to a flying PC situation above where a cave worm pulling the move would make sense. In general, though, I've seen 30 to 100 feet ceilings in caves, which is much less than 375.

3. Getting immunity to falling damage, and/or a significant reduction to it, is incredibly easy in PF2. By mid to high level, when you could plausibly face a cave worm, you should have a way to mitigate falling damage. If you don't, well, now you've learned you should.

This feels very whiteboardy, and not even a plausible whiteboard, IMO.

[Claxon]

Honestly, Snapleafs are a commonly available cheap item that can be used as a reaction. In games I play, almost everyone has a few of them by the time you might encounter a cave worm. It would save you from this kind of thing. And so it might be interesting to run it, pop the snapleaf and prevent fatal damage.

But doing it to an unprepared group is definitely not something a good GM should do.

[Ascalaphus]

I think this is a case where if you stack the abilities just so the monster becomes way way deadlier than other monsters of its level. Which defeats the point of having a level-based encounter building system.

We're not trying to squeeze the maximum amount of pain out of the level budget you got from your editor. We're trying to create encounters that are just difficult enough to be really fun. Messing with the metrics doesn't help.

---

So I think Claxon's idea of setting a maximum on the falling damage caused by the spitting makes sense. The damage done by a monster ability should be proportional to its level.

[ScooterScoots]

Claxon wrote:

Honestly, Snapleafs are a commonly available cheap item that can be used as a reaction. In games I play, almost everyone has a few of them by the time you might encounter a cave worm. It would save you from this kind of thing. And so it might be interesting to run it, pop the snapleaf and prevent fatal damage.

But doing it to an unprepared group is definitely not something a good GM should do.

Player may have already spent their reaction on something else or commonly runs a different talisman. You could call that poor play but I don’t see how a grounded player otherwise playing around their lack of fall damage mitigation could reasonably expect a worm to shoot them up hundreds of feet in the air in one turn. This isn’t like a roc or something where you could reasonably expect it to carry someone off and take countermeasures, this is genuinely just unpredictable. Bullshit ability. Hell even if you have cat fall, typically considered sufficient fall damage protection, it won’t do anything for you because haha cave worm spit 360 feet up 50ft of fall reduction don’t matter.

[Claxon]

ScooterScoots wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Honestly, Snapleafs are a commonly available cheap item that can be used as a reaction. In games I play, almost everyone has a few of them by the time you might encounter a cave worm. It would save you from this kind of thing. And so it might be interesting to run it, pop the snapleaf and prevent fatal damage.

But doing it to an unprepared group is definitely not something a good GM should do.

Player may have already spent their reaction on something else or commonly runs a different talisman. You could call that poor play but I don’t see how a grounded player otherwise playing around their lack of fall damage mitigation could reasonably expect a worm to shoot them up hundreds of feet in the air in one turn. This isn’t like a roc or something where you could reasonably expect it to carry someone off and take countermeasures, this is genuinely just unpredictable. Bullshit ability. Hell even if you have cat fall, typically considered sufficient fall damage protection, it won’t do anything for you because haha cave worm spit 360 feet up 50ft of fall reduction don’t matter.

I mean, yes-ish. It's also just called "don't be a dick" as a GM.

If you have a GM that abuses circumstances to kill a character and pretending it's "fair" that's simply a bad GM.

[Ascalaphus]

I think limiting height to one range increment works out quite nicely with design guideline numbers.

The cave worm is a level 13 monster and it's bite has a +28 to hit, which is in between High and Extreme. The damage of 3d10+15 is High. Then as a free action it gets Improved Grab with it's Extreme +30 Athletics. After that as a reaction it can try to Fast Swallow which does have MAP, so "only" +25 vs Fortitude. If it succeeds it deals 3d6+9 damage which is Low. At this point the worm has spent 1 regular action, a free action and a reaction.

Then it spits. Now the damage SuperParkourio calculated, give or take a bit, is 4.5 TIMES EXTREME damage for a level 13 creature. For something it can try doing every round.

That can't be right.

However, if you only allow spitting up to one range increment total up, then you'd get 30 falling damage, which is High for a level 13 creatures. Which seems pretty reasonable; if you look at the design guidelines for damage-dealing abilities they recommend going for damage based on the strike damage table.

[Ravingdork]

If you want to only be halfway awful as a GM (such as in a gritty campaign intended to be difficult), limit it to one range increment of altitude, but go the full range laterally.

They're essentially out of the fight, but unlikely to be killed outright.

[Bluemagetim]

I just don't think its a productive way to think about creature abilities in general.
Your the GM, you literally can homebrew a caveworm to be a PC launcher if thats what you want, and you can make it do fair damage for the level by matching the total effect to the chart in the GM core.

Optimization by RAW is a useless GM endeavor and GMs at least as I see it have a different goal in running creatures more important than pursuing highest DPR.

[Easl]

Claxon wrote:

I mean, yes-ish. It's also just called "don't be a dick" as a GM.

If you have a GM that abuses circumstances to kill a character and pretending it's "fair" that's simply a bad GM.

Mostly agree. Though I think the main problem here is the GM having the worm behave in a way which is not worm-like, PCs have no way to predict, and makes no sense in the context. It's that nonsensicalness that really kills it (for me). This worm is behaving like a bond villain bent on revenge instead of a big dumb worm.

But it's kinda a cool visual, and certainly a Conan story where he gets spat across the sky would fit easily within the genre. So I think if Super wants this to be part of his campaign, the thing needed here is to make it part of the story, the cannon. Make it normal for worms to behave this way. As long as the PCs have a rationale to expect it and they understand what normal worm behavior is, then I think that really re-levels the playing field. Yes it's a massive amount of damage for the level. But also pretty easily addressed with tactics and equipment available at that level.

[Guntermench]

Realistically the main thing stopping this from happening is that Cave Worms are dumber than a box of rocks and probably wouldn't think of it.

[Claxon]

Guntermench wrote:

Realistically the main thing stopping this from happening is that Cave Worms are dumber than a box of rocks and probably wouldn't think of it.

Only valid if the GM cares to run it that way right?

[Bluemagetim]

Claxon wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Realistically the main thing stopping this from happening is that Cave Worms are dumber than a box of rocks and probably wouldn't think of it.

Only valid if the GM cares to run it that way right?

Go toArchives of Nethys.

Its not only just the int score it is also the established lore around them. The entry on Archives calls them "...notoriously dim witted, driven primarily by purely animalistic needs to feed and reproduce"
Basically I find it hard to believe they would give up what for them is an already secured meal unless it is causing them enough harm inside there or something more dangerous needs to be attacked at range by spitting them at it.

[Claxon]

I don't disagree with you at all, played appropriately the idea of a cave worm spitting "food" up into the air just doesn't seem likely.

But the GM running the creature actually has to agree. And this goes back to the whole, is your GM a dick issue?

A good GM wouldn't do it, not only because it's not appropriate for the RP of a cave worm, but also because it's generally a jerk move.

A jerk GM wouldn't let either of those things stop them.

[Gaulin]

I mean I know the numbers make it nigh impossible to work on an enemy at the level you can summon it, but this creature is fully summonable. The probability of a cave worm grappling and swallowing a creature, when you can summon it (9th level spell slot, so level 17) are super low. But it's possible if you're fighting mooks or debuffing an enemy like crazy. So the argument isn't exclusively for gms using it against players.

(I think this whole thing is silly and no sane gm should allow it.)

[SuperParkourio]

I agree that limiting the range increment vertically is a good way to keep the ability in line, but why not limit it horizontally, too? Spending all 3 actions to Stride 5 or 6 turns in a row doesn't sound like a good time. And if there's a sheer cliff, 500 foot chasm, forest fire, or similar hazard anywhere within 360 feet, we're back to square one.

I also think any such range limitation should be limited to when creatures are being regurgitated, since boulders don't present the same problematic repercussions. The last sentence of the first paragraph could be amended like this:

"A regurgitated creature takes falling damage from the height of the target or from 20 feet, whichever is greater, and can only be fired at a target within the first range increment."

That lets the worm shoot down birds without doing ridiculous damage to regurgitated creatures.

[Guntermench]

Claxon wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Realistically the main thing stopping this from happening is that Cave Worms are dumber than a box of rocks and probably wouldn't think of it.

Only valid if the GM cares to run it that way right?

If the GM has decided that you die now there's not a whole lot you can do about it anyway, so why worry about the method?

[SuperParkourio]

A level 17 spellcaster boss would likely be able to summon a cave worm, in which case would the worm being dumber than rocks matter?

Perhaps it still would.

Summoned wrote:

A creature called by a spell or effect gains the summoned trait. A summoned creature can't summon other creatures, create things of value, or cast spells that require a cost. It has the minion trait. If it tries to Cast a Spell of equal or higher rank than the spell that summoned it, it overpowers the summoning magic, causing its own spell to fail and the summon spell to end. Otherwise, the summoned creature uses the standard abilities for a creature of its kind. It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands.

Immediately when you finish Casting the Spell, the summoned creature uses its 2 actions for that turn. A spawn or other creature generated from a summoned creature returns to its unaltered state (usually a corpse in the case of spawn) once the summoned creature is gone. If it's unclear what this state would be, the GM decides. Summoned creatures can be banished by various spells and effects. They are automatically banished if reduced to 0 Hit Points or if the spell that called them ends.

This seems to suggest that without the ability to communicate with the monster, you can't actually decide which actions it takes when you Sustain the spell. Essentially, if it doesn't understand you, it's basically just an NPC ally. But I've never seen anyone actually run summons like that, since it's much more convenient for both players and GMs to just let the summoning player handle the monster's actions. Otherwise, the GM runs the risk of aggravating a player by "choosing the wrong actions," or the GM needs to waste time brushing up on the player-chosen stat block in order to run it properly.

[graystone]

SuperParkourio wrote:

If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands.

They are animals, so Speak with Animals isn't a particularly hard spell to come by for a 17th level caster if they are going to regularly summon them.

[Easl]

Yes a higher level caster controlling the worm in some way would be a good thematic way to get around the problem of the worm's choice of action not making any sense. It also makes for an interesting long-term villain. But now you have another problem: the encounter you just built for a L11-13 party now has a L17 caster in it, making a worm throw probably the least of their worries.

Still, some sort of magical remote control could work, where the caster isnt in the encounter and shows up much later in the campaign. The villain throwing minion monsters at the party and them getting harder and harder as the party gets closer and closer to the villain is a pretty classic adventure story. And in that case the fact of the worm behaving so strangely could be itself a hint to the party that the worm is not the story villain or big bad.

[Guntermench]

SuperParkourio wrote:

A level 17 spellcaster boss would likely be able to summon a cave worm, in which case would the worm being dumber than rocks matter?

Perhaps it still would.

Summoned wrote:

A creature called by a spell or effect gains the summoned trait. A summoned creature can't summon other creatures, create things of value, or cast spells that require a cost. It has the minion trait. If it tries to Cast a Spell of equal or higher rank than the spell that summoned it, it overpowers the summoning magic, causing its own spell to fail and the summon spell to end. Otherwise, the summoned creature uses the standard abilities for a creature of its kind. It generally attacks your enemies to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with it, you can attempt to command it, but the GM determines the degree to which it follows your commands.

Immediately when you finish Casting the Spell, the summoned creature uses its 2 actions for that turn. A spawn or other creature generated from a summoned creature returns to its unaltered state (usually a corpse in the case of spawn) once the summoned creature is gone. If it's unclear what this state would be, the GM decides. Summoned creatures can be banished by various spells and effects. They are automatically banished if reduced to 0 Hit Points or if the spell that called them ends.

This seems to suggest that without the ability to communicate with the monster, you can't actually decide which actions it takes when you Sustain the spell. Essentially, if it doesn't understand you, it's basically just an NPC ally. But I've never seen anyone actually run summons like that, since it's much more convenient for both players and GMs to just let the summoning player handle the monster's actions. Otherwise, the GM runs the risk of aggravating a player by "choosing the wrong actions," or the GM needs to waste time brushing up on the player-chosen stat block in order to run it properly.

I mean that level 17 spellcaster could also just Power Word: Kill you. Or cast Massacre on multiple party members. Start to Implosion the team. Hit the whole team with a 9th rank Chain Lightning.

There's plenty that's more likely to kill you than this at that point.

[SuperParkourio]

A summoned cave worm would also struggle to pull it off because it's a minion. 2 actions and 0 reactions means the worm would Strike, Improved Grab, Swallow Whole, and wait until next turn to Regurgitate.

And I didn't mean a level 17 boss against a level 13 party. Perhaps a level 14 or 15 party.

There is also the possibility that the worm could suffer a dominate spell, allowing a level 13 or higher spellcaster to control its actions precisely. PCs might try to counteract the controlled condition or spell to "turn the worm stupid again."

[graystone]

SuperParkourio wrote:

A summoned cave worm would also struggle to pull it off because it's a minion. 2 actions and 0 reactions means the worm would Strike, Improved Grab, Swallow Whole, and wait until next turn to Regurgitate.

Haste on the cave worm makes it into a 1 round rotation. strike [quickened], improved grab [free], swallow whole [1 action], regurgitate [1 action]. Just like with getting speak with animals, getting haste by 17th isn't a burden.

[NorrKnekten]

graystone wrote:

SuperParkourio wrote:

A summoned cave worm would also struggle to pull it off because it's a minion. 2 actions and 0 reactions means the worm would Strike, Improved Grab, Swallow Whole, and wait until next turn to Regurgitate.

Haste on the cave worm makes it into a 1 round rotation. strike [quickened], improved grab [free], swallow whole [1 action], regurgitate [1 action]. Just like with getting speak with animals, getting haste by 17th isn't a burden.

It already is a 1 round rotation.

Strike/Grab [action]
-If hit then improved grab(free action)
Fast Swallow [reaction]
Regurgitate [action]

//Edit oh wait you are talking as a minion, nvm then

[Claxon]

Guntermench wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Guntermench wrote:

Realistically the main thing stopping this from happening is that Cave Worms are dumber than a box of rocks and probably wouldn't think of it.

Only valid if the GM cares to run it that way right?

If the GM has decided that you die now there's not a whole lot you can do about it anyway, so why worry about the method?

Yes, but also no.

No in the sense of, this might have some semblance of "being fair" cause "hey, the monster can technically do this, there's nothing in the rules that prevents this it's totally legal" compared to simply "rocks fall, you die". And that difference might matter for other players watching it happen. They may decide that the obviously arbitrary killing of a PC isn't acceptable, but this worm thing is. Of course, someone should point out how unfair having the worm do this actually is but it's less obvious than other methods of a GM killing a PC.

[Trip.H]

Claxon wrote:

Yeah, I do think that "entombed in stone" suffocation death is not being given the "yikes" consideration that it deserves.

It's a landmine for the GM as much as it is for the PCs.
The worm swallows, then the PC can hit the Rupture threshold while the worm is halfway dug to its lair, in no-tunnel mode.

The GM is kinda screwed if they *don't* want to kill the PC.
Are they going to then have the worm try to 'rescue' the PC by swallowing them again to get them to an air environment? Even though they just demonstrated to worm that they will violently bust out of their swallow?

If the GM is savvy on the details, even that'll backfire. Once the worm burrows with a meal inside, no one has vision on the worm.
A which means the swallowed PC doesn't know where it is; no idea if they are inside solid stone or in a dugout lair.

[Claxon]

Trip.H wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Yeah, I do think that "entombed in stone" suffocation death is not being given the "yikes" consideration that it deserves.

It's a landmine for the GM as much as it is for the PCs.
The worm swallows, then the PC can hit the Rupture threshold while the worm is halfway dug to its lair, in no-tunnel mode.

The GM is kinda screwed if they *don't* want to kill the PC.
Are they going to then have the worm try to 'rescue' the PC by swallowing them again to get them to an air environment? Even though they just demonstrated to worm that they will violently bust out of their swallow?

If the GM is savvy on the details, even that'll backfire. Once the worm burrows with a meal inside, no one has vision on the worm.
A which means the swallowed PC doesn't know where it is; no idea if they are inside solid stone or in a dugout lair.

Well, to clarify, I never said it wasn't a yikes. It certainly qualifies as a dick move. My previous post in response to the line of thought was simply to say I don't think it was instant death as it was implied to be. It's something that GMs (and players) shouldn't do.

And the monster description does effectively state the worm leaves tunnels by default.

[ScooterScoots]

“Giant worm swallows you and tunnels away, never to be seen again” -> reasonably anticipatable by player for a giant worm to do. Like from dune. If you get got you gotta respect it at least a bit, it makes sense. Bro got eaten by the bigger fish. If you were prepared you’d expect it, and there are some counters you can bring such as vital earth, teleports, ingested poisons, pucker pickles. Some of those you should have on you at all times anyways, and you’ll have the actions to use them once swallowed.

“Giant worm swallows you, shoots you 360ft up into air, die instantly from massive fall damage” -> not exactly in the genre conventions for giant worm battles. Feels like a bullshit Instadeath move and you’d never prepare for it going out to fight the worm. Sure there are counters, really good ones, but you’d never anticipate needing them for this fight, and even if you do have them everything happens so fast you may not get to activate them.

[Claxon]

ScooterScoots wrote:

“Giant worm swallows you and tunnels away, never to be seen again” -> reasonably anticipatable by player for a giant worm to do. Like from dune. If you get got you gotta respect it at least a bit, it makes sense. Bro got eaten by the bigger fish. If you were prepared you’d expect it, and there are some counters you can bring such as vital earth, teleports, ingested poisons, pucker pickles. Some of those you should have on you at all times anyways, and you’ll have the actions to use them once swallowed.

I agree, but also somewhat disagree.

It's reasonable to bring along those items, but shouldn't be a requirement to avoid being quickly killed by a cave worm that decides to eat you and run away, and then leave you in the earth where your friends can't reasonably find you and come back in a few minutes to actually eat your corpse.

[Easl]

ScooterScoots wrote:

“Giant worm swallows you and tunnels away, never to be seen again” -> reasonably anticipatable by player for a giant worm to do. Like from dune.

Yeah, but one of the distinguishing differences between a movie/book and a game is the concept of fairness as applied to the characters. Authors and screenplay writers often treat characters unfairly as part of the plot. Heck, that can make for a great plot. GMs should not treat players unfairly merely because it makes some plot sense. In that case, modify the plot so that the game remains fun. Yes this means when playing the game there is some level of 'suspension of disbelief' needed when a game rule intended to keep the game fun and even doesn't make plot- or physics- sense. I'm sure we've all encountered that. But should the GM kill a PC no-save-no-choice because the plot warrants it? Mostly no.

[Finoan]

Yeah, I sometimes think that people forget that this is a cooperative storytelling game.

If you want a competitive game, play a board game or deck building game with your friends. There are plenty of those that have an RPG fantasy style theme to them.

And if you are wanting to create a story where one person has total control over all of the characters, then just write a story. Plenty of authors do that too.

The game rules for this cooperative storytelling game are created and balanced the way that they are in order to avoid a lot of common pitfalls involved in cooperative storytelling.