D&D 5E There are zero incarnations of swarm rules that I don't hate.

FireLance

Legend

• Sep 26, 2012

• #21

Frankly, I don't see why there can't be different ways of representing large numbers of smaller creatures in the rules. You could have swarm rules AND rules for treating the creatures as individuals (where possible, e.g. for 10 rats) or environmental hazards (e.g. for a swarm of killer bees). It's just another stat block, after all.

Again, this is another issue which I feel is better expressed as "I want this", instead of "I don't want this".

 

log in or register to remove this ad

P

pemerton

Legend

• Sep 27, 2012

• #22

Patryn of Elvenshae said:

I have to say, I really, really like the swarm rules variations that pemerton's mentioned before (where a hobgoblin pike formation could "kill" adjacent hobgoblins to heal) and ... uh ... someone else? mentioned (where a swarm, when defeated, leaves a couple low-powered versions of it behind as survivors).

Click to expand...

Thanks.

I really like 4e swarm mechanics (I don't know 3E's version - it wasn't in the original Monster Manual for that edition, was it?).

There are three things I like that are core to the mechanics:

* The aura attacks, that give the whole "swarm of things nibbling away at you" vibe.

* The contrast between single target and AoE attacks in the way they effect the swarm. If the swarm was single targets, AoEs would still be strong, but maybe overly strong; and single target attacks would be super-weak because of the overkill problem.

* The ability of the swarm to occupy enemy spaces, which means that you can very easily generate the feel of a PC being surrounded and swamped by enemies. I don't just use swarms for rats, spiders etc, but also packs of hyenas, phalanxes of hobgoblins, etc, and the "surrouned by closely-arrayed enemies" has a distinctive and effective feel.

 

M

Magil

First Post

• Sep 27, 2012

• #23

When I DM'd an encounter with swarms in 4E, I leveraged their resistance to melee attacks in order to move into squares the PCs were occupying with impunity (since opportunity attacks were less effective against them). I think this did a very good job at making them "feel" different than other monsters, and they were also harder to escape from, since shifting 1 square wouldn't put you out of their OA range.

I dunno, for me, the 4E mechanics allowed me to use swarms in a slightly different way than I used other monsters, and I think it worked reasonably well. I see this as a "if you don't like them don't use them" kind of thing.

 

S

slobo777

First Post

• Sep 27, 2012

• #24

pemerton said:

I really like 4e swarm mechanics (I don't know 3E's version - it wasn't in the original Monster Manual for that edition, was it?).

Click to expand...

It was IIRC (edit: and I do, MM 3.5 pp 315). Anyway, thanks to the OGL, I can just post it: Swarm :: d20srd.org

 

Last edited: Sep 27, 2012

Li Shenron

Legend

• Sep 27, 2012

• #25

slobo777 said:

It was IIRC. Anyway, thanks to the OGL, I can just post it: Swarm :: d20srd.org

Click to expand...

I have no direct experience of using these rules, but at first sight they look reasonable but already too complicated for my tastes.

Maybe a swarm shouldn't even be treated like a creature but more like an area spell?

I mean, once you're inside a swarm of wasp, it's pretty much impossible to avoid being stung, unless you have some ad-hoc special protective gear. Maybe armor can cover you a bit more than regular clothes, but I don't think the difference would be major (might be harder for wasps to get in, but also harder for you to get them out once they're in). Maybe a high Dex would still allow you make it more difficult for the wasps to land a solid sting.

Hence a reflex save vs fixed DC (every round) could work better than rolling attacks vs your AC, at which point the swarm isn't very much different than an ongoing, moving area spell.

 

Last edited: Sep 27, 2012

Q

quetzyl

First Post

• Sep 27, 2012

• #26

Immunity is a problem

My issue with swarms is that they are totally immune to certain attacks, while being very vulnerable to others. This means their challenge is very party dependant, and can shift dramatically if circumstances change. I think this problem could be solved with a general rule that resistances and immunity are never total protection, and all attacks, regardless of type, do some minimum amount of damage.

 

P

pemerton

Legend

• Sep 27, 2012

• #27

quetzyl said:

My issue with swarms is that they are totally immune to certain attacks, while being very vulnerable to others.

Click to expand...

What system are you talking about? This is not the case in 4e, with one exception: swarms are immune to forced movement from melee and ranged attacks.

 

FireLance

Legend

• Sep 27, 2012

• #28

pemerton said:

What system are you talking about? This is not the case in 4e, with one exception: swarms are immune to forced movement from melee and ranged attacks.

Click to expand...

That said, half damage from melee and ranged attacks can make swarm fights really grindy for a party with only a few close and area attacks. Just last weekend, I was running one 4e module (if you really want to know:

Spoiler

Madness at Gardmore Abbey

) that featured a fight against two deathjump spiders and three spider swarms. The party was under-strength and had mostly melee and ranged attacks, so I replaced one of the swarms with an equal-level spider and dropped the other completely. If I hadn't done that, I'm fairly sure that the fight wouldn't have been half as enjoyable.

[Shameless 4e Plug]I think it speaks to the strength of the 4e system that I was able to estimate the likely difficulty of the fight for the PCs so accurately and make on the fly adjustments so easily and seamlessly.[/Shameless 4e Plug]

I hope that the same will also be true of 5e.

 

Wednesday Boy

The Nerd WhoFell to Earth

• Sep 27, 2012

• #29

For combats that use minis I think it would be interesting if the strength of the swarm depends on how many squares of a swarm are adjacent to one another. And it would be interesting if each square of swarming creatures can move independently of the others. So instead of a large swarm filling a 2x2 square area, you would use four 1x1 areas that move wherever they want but are more deadly if they are adjacent to each other.

I think that would better emulate the flowing movement that a swarm has and it gives the players and GM interesting tactical options in combat. The GM could have the swarm actually envelop a character. (This would work well for emulating slimes and oozes too.) If the characters destroy a square of swarm that bridges two squares of swarms, you get two weaker swarms instead of one more powerful swarm.

And this concept would be simple to use in a gridless combat game too. But instead of relying on the visual cues of the minis you rely on the GM's descriptions for the placement and size of the swarms.

 

Wepwawet

Explorer

• Sep 27, 2012

• #30

Derren said:

The previous swarm rules were all completely silly as the swarm of creatures always had completely different abilities as the creatures had when faced alone.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's the whole point of having swarms...