Hydra heads

[airwalkrr]

There isn't a 'reality' rule. However, there are lots of rules for magic. Magic doesn't exist in reality either, but it is really useful for explaining lots of phenomena in fantasy games that would not be possible in reailty. Notice that hydras are magical beasts....

Also, there are always ways to explain game mechanics in game. Sure, in a mechanics sense all the heads are attacking the same square, but maybe in game the heads are bitting at him a few at a time as he moves by and comes in range of each of them.

Regardless, magical beasts are magic. I agree that in reality 10 heads could not occupy the same space at the same time, but then again, in reality creatures can't regrow 2 new heads in 6-24 seconds to replace one that was just severed.

That is the biggest cop-out response to a coherant argument in the history of the game, and I am not buying it. The "its magic, not reality" excuse does not mean that D&D worlds operate by completely different rules of physics. Besides that, the excuse can be used to justify anything, and therefore it does nothing to prove your side of the argument. If the hydra was really quick enough to have twelve heads attack the same person in the space of 0.375 seconds, I would expect the creature to have a very high Dexterity or AT LEAST something in the description explaining that hydra heads are preternaturally quick if that were the case.

 

[airwalkrr]

If it was 12 individuals (perhaps with reach weapons) all attacking the character, would you have the same difficulty in accepting the attacks as being possible? All the AoO aren't really occurring at exactly the same moment, they are merely resolved that way for the sake of manageability. In any case, I imagine the heads as attacking from all different angles-above, below, curving in from the side and snapping around and amongst each other. I certainly don't see each head as taking up a whole 5 foot square.

Well, they would HAVE to have reach weapons for such a situation to even be possible. Nevertheless, I have a slightly easier time believing that 12 attacks can come from 12 different directions from a small implement like a spearhead than for 12 attacks to all come from the same direction from a large implement like a hydra head (which according to the picture is as large as a human torso).

 

[airwalkrr]

I fully agree here. Regardless of what interpretation you pick, you shouldn't let "reality" play into it, characters and monsters alike can do things that just couldn't happen in reality.

Things like magic require suspension of disbelief. They require us to assume that there is some logical explanation within the context of a fantasy world for magic to exist. What they do not do is require us to assume that the laws of physics are defunct and variable based on who is benefiting from them. If we assumed such a ridiculous thing then there is no standard within the world. We have to assume that standard laws of physics are in place and that magic is a manipulation of these laws, much like technology.

However, despite the fact that we let magic defy what is "reality" in our world, we let "reality" play into decisions continually, especially when we are DMing and our PCs try something off the wall. How many times have you ever had to say "that could not possibly happen" when a PC tries to use an ambiguous wording to accomplish some extraordinary feat that is clearly outside the balance of the game? Technically, the PC may have a legitimate interpretation of the rule, simply because it is poorly written, but you choose your equally-legitimate interpretation because it makes more sense and conforms to balance. You have just based a decision on this so-called "reality." I am not the only person who DMs this way. Playing in the RPGA I have played with probably near a hundred DMs, and I hear it all the time from others.

The reality/fantasy dichotomy is only a card people play when it is convenient for their argument. Saying it is "magic" does nothing to prove your position because the other side can say the exact same thing to support their position.

 

[Stalker0]

What they do not do is require us to assume that the laws of physics are defunct and variable based on who is benefiting from them. If we assumed such a ridiculous thing then there is no standard within the world. We have to assume that standard laws of physics are in place and that magic is a manipulation of these laws, much like technology.

High level characters bend the laws of physics. A fall of 200 feet produces enough kinetic force to crumple a man's body. Now while there's a very minor chance of surviving, you jump off a 20 story building your dead.

High level characters can take that fall and laugh it off, without one bit of magic.

Now considering that hydras are magical beasts with magical heads that can sometimes breathe fire and regenerate themselves, its not that much of a stretch that they attack so fast the heads don't interfere with each other.

 

[TimSmith]

With all due respect

With the GREATEST respect, Sir Humphrey ("Yes Prime Minister" reference meant in good humour, just to clarify)

The party was lucky to have encountered the hydra with a little bit of distance so the hydra does not get a full attack on the first round.

Just to nitpick (but support your argument even more), the hydra DOES get a full attack on the first round if it can reach them at all, as "it can attack with all heads without penalty even if it moves or charges" according to the first line of its combat description in the MM.

Although I appreciate your combat breakdown, I still think you are assuming the party don't use more appropriate tactics. For example, you assume the fighter provokes when he moves in, which is not necessary. Also, you are ignoring the sunder heads option. And when you mention that the fighter will go down if he's not healed, well that's an essential requirement in many combats against heavy hitting opponents. Perhaps the party could rotate combatants out of the front line to heal or something.

Here's a couple of threads on this particular encounter in SC...The Cryohydra a TPK?
Pit of Seven Jaws in Chapter 4

These actual combats by (on average) 6th level party vs CR8 cryohydra show that most parties didn't find it as difficult as one might think on paper.

 

[Jack Simth]

Suppose, instead, the well-prepared Wizard opens with Web. Target is Entangled with no save, takes -2 to attack, -4 to dex, half move, can't run or charge. That Hydra is now making 20 feet per round with no attacks, 10 feet per round with attacks.

And suppose that, after the Web, everyone just shoots arrows; Ranger at 1d8+4 with his +11 standard action attack, Bard with 1d8+0 / +7; Wizard 1d8-1 / +4; Druid at 1d8 / +6.

Ranger hits 95% of the time, and averages 8.075 points of damage.
Bard hits 75% of the time, and averages 3.375 points of damage.
Druid hits 70% of the time, and averages 3.15 points of damage.
Wizard hits 60% of the time, and averages 2.1 points of damage.

That's an average of 16.7 damage per round, after the first, using only a standard action, leaving the move action free for everybody. With fast healing 15, that's an average of 1.7 damage per round.

Everyone in the party can get 30 feet in a round and still attack; the Hydra can get only 10 feet in a round and still attack, or 20 feet in a round and not attack. It can't keep up. The party can stay at range, pelting the stupid (Int 2!) hydra for as long as they have arrows and a retreat path. It goes down in 32 rounds, and is dead after that, provided everyone happens to have lots & lots of arrows.

Granted, Web is probably overpowered for it's level, and there's better strategies to follow that will kill the hydra faster. However, if the party goes first, they take no damage, use up one 2nd level spell, and lots of arrows. Sounds a lot like a CR 4 encounter.

 

[Halcyon]

That is the biggest cop-out response to a coherant argument in the history of the game, and I am not buying it. The "its magic, not reality" excuse does not mean that D&D worlds operate by completely different rules of physics. Besides that, the excuse can be used to justify anything, and therefore it does nothing to prove your side of the argument. If the hydra was really quick enough to have twelve heads attack the same person in the space of 0.375 seconds, I would expect the creature to have a very high Dexterity or AT LEAST something in the description explaining that hydra heads are preternaturally quick if that were the case.

Reading through the thread your argument seems to consist of two points.
1. That having 10 heads attack something at the same time is not realistic.
2. That the hydra is too hard for its' CR.

With regard to the first point, I hardly think it is a cop out to dispute your assertion that reality should be a criteria since that is one of the two arguments you make. If you wish for 'reality' to hold sway in your games, they are you games and subject to your perceptions of reality. However, in the game there is a system that allows these laws to be bent or outright broken. It is called magic. In most cases anything that is magic in some way accomplishes something that is not possible in reality. Hydras are magical creatures with many abilities that already defy what would be possible in reality. You don't find it reality-defying that they can heal wounds almost instantaneously or breathe fire? As you said, we let magic defy what we consider 'reality,' and so it does not seem to be consistent to argue that a magic creature with several other impossible abilities is unable to accomplish bitting rapidly with its' many heads. As I've said there are many ways to rationalize this in game. Who knows, perhaps the heads do collide but the hydra is unaffacted due to its' fast healing?

As for the second argument, CR is an extremely variable and subjective rating system. There are many factors such as the environment, the weather, a particular party's magic items, if anyone has the element of surprise etc that can greatly alter how difficult a party finds it to defeat a particular creature or encounter. CR is only a guideline. If you believe that the abilities of a creature according to the RAW are too difficult for your party despite its' CR rating, then the party need never encounter it.

My argument in favor of interpretation 1, that the hydra gets its' full set of attacks on each AoO but can take only two per round is based on the RAW. According to the SRD

Making an Attack of Opportunity: An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack, and you can only make one per round.

The description of the 'Attack:' entry for monsters in the SRD begins

This line shows the single attack the creature makes with an attack action. In most cases, this is also the attack the creature uses when making an attack of opportunity as well.

An example of the 'Attack:' entry for a hydra in the SRD is

Attack: 5 bites +6 melee (1d10+3)

You could argue that hydras are one of the instances that falls outside of 'most cases,' however I see no rules based reason for this to be the case. The 5 heads attacking is just the creature's default single attack, which it gets to make if it takes an attack of opportunity. You can almost imagine the hydra as a creature with only one attack that does a hefty amount of damage. If, for arguments sake, we imagine the entry for 'Attack:' on a five-headed hydra's stats to be '+6 melee (5d10+15)' instead of '5 bites +6 melee (1d10+3)' it would obviously get to make that one attack when it took an AoO. For a hydra all of its heads biting is equivalent to one attack, so it gets to use all of them when taking an AoO. The fact that it is multiple attacks is actually beneficial in some cases since, depending on the target, it is unlikely that all of the attacks will land.

In summary, I respectfully disagree with your reasons for why interpretation 1 should not be the case. I believe that by the RAW that the hydra gets to use all of its' heads when taking an AoO since that is a single standard attack for it. However, your game, your rules obviously RAW does not equal immutable

 

[Garnfellow]

To me, what makes this an easy question to adjudicate is that the Attack line for the hydra reads:

Attack: 5 bites +6 melee (1d10+3)

Compare this to the Chimera:

Attack: Bite +12 melee (2d6+4)

or the Giant octopus:

Attack: Tentacle +10 melee (1d4+5)

Clearly, the hydra has something different going on than these other monsters. And this strongly supports option 1. Sure, the designers should have added a special ability like "Simultaneous Attack (Ex): Whenever this creature is able to attack, it is always able to use all of its natural weapons as if using the Full Attack action." to clarify the situation.

If the hydra only had a single head on its attack line, I'd be inclined to support option 3.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The "5 bites" doesn't really tell us much. Unless you think the "2 claws" in most monster entries tells us the same.

 

[Halcyon]

The "5 bites" doesn't really tell us much. Unless you think the "2 claws" in most monster entries tells us the same.

The key difference is that for most things that have "2 claws" written somewhere (e.g. a lion), there is only a single claw attack listed for 'Attack:' (e.g. 'Attack: Claw +5 etc). The word 'claws' is only found in the 'Full Attack:' entry. This makes it pretty clear that if there is supposed to be a difference in the number of attacks taken as a standard vs full action it is distinguished in the difference between those two entries. For the hydra there is no difference, hence option 1 holds.