Bestiary Gripe

[Sylrae]

So, we were playing Pathfinder last week, and we were playing through Second Darkness, and my players were doing things that were totally derailing the plot and making me have to improvise, which, while OK, led me to this realization.

The player encountered a shark.
Sharks have Bite.
I recall in 3.0 and maybe 3.5, dogs that succeeded in a bite got a successful grapple out of it. The illogicalness of the shark having to let go and bite him again every round baffled me, and the player kept insisting that logic not supersede the rules as written. I gave him the compromise that I'd let it slide this ONE time, but bite will work more logically in the future.

Why is it that if a shark bites you, he can't grab you and keep shaking you to get his bite damage again the next round. It seems more realistic.

Anyways, this is my Bestiary Gripe that I have at present.

If someone has a good reason why it should be this way instead of the way I see it logically working I'm open to hear it.

 

[mkb152]

If someone has a good reason why it should be this way instead of the way I see it logically working I'm open to hear it.

Actually, many types of sharks do not hang on., or have teeth meant for that use. They'll bite you once (or several times), and wait for you to bleed out and be less wiggly.

 

[Sylrae]

Wow, really? Hmm. Alright. I guess I'm just used to seeing the Great White grab onto something and then shake it and rip in further and further.

the dogs and wolves lost their grapple ability too though. hmm.

While I'm prone to houseruling that the general rule is that bite attacks can cause a grapple, unless otherwise stated (such as if I run another encounter with sharks and use the appropriate type of shark), I'm curious why the ability was removed. It definitely works for the dogs. I mean, they don't HAVE to grapple, but that's what dogs usually do when they bite you.

 

[Zaister]

Neither sharks nor dogs and wolves have ever had a "grapple ability" (would have been "Improved Grab" in 3.5) in third edition in the first place. Wolves have a trip ability, both in 3.5 and in Pathfinder.

Of course that would not you from having the shark attempting a combat maneuver to grapple an opponent.

 

[Mark Chance]

Of course that would not you from having the shark attempting a combat maneuver to grapple an opponent.

Bing! We have a winnah!

More importantly, I'm not sure I get the gist of the complaint. If I'm DMing, and I say a shark bites a PC to establish a grapple, then that's what the shark does. The player can argue logic, real-worldisms, and game-whatnot until he's blue in the face, but it won't change what's happening.

Me: The shark swims in and [roll dice] chomps! down on your leg, [roll dice] which is now trapped in its fang-filled jaws! Ooh! Scary!

Player: Nuh-uh! The rules don't say sharks can do that.

Me: My rules say otherwise. Bob, it's your turn now.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Uh yeah, I know it varies from table to table, but for my games, logic ALWAYS superseded RAW. Sometimes that even works in the player's favor when the rules would normally disallow them attempting something that they should reasonably be capable of doing.

But as for the shark, yeah many species bite and retreat, but some do grab on, so all you need to do in the future is let the players know that its not the shark in the Bestiary...which they shouldn't have access to anyways!

 

[Grymar]

My gripe...

I haven't had a chance to go through the book in detail, but it looks like there are no longer lines for Attack vs Full Attack, just a list of attacks.

For instance:

Gargoyle -
Melee 2 claws +7 (1d6+2), bite +7 (1d4+2), gore +7 (1d4+2)


So is a single attack one claw? Why isn't there a -5 penalty on any of his attacks? Many of the entries have this level of ambiguity (or is it poor comprehension on my part?).

 

[Nikosandros]

My gripe...

I haven't had a chance to go through the book in detail, but it looks like there are no longer lines for Attack vs Full Attack, just a list of attacks.

For instance:

Gargoyle -
Melee 2 claws +7 (1d6+2), bite +7 (1d4+2), gore +7 (1d4+2)


So is a single attack one claw? Why isn't there a -5 penalty on any of his attacks? Many of the entries have this level of ambiguity (or is it poor comprehension on my part?).

Because the rules about natural attacks are different from those in 3.5. Bites, gores and claws are all considered primary attacks (page 302 of the Bestiary).

 

[pawsplay]

Bing! We have a winnah!

More importantly, I'm not sure I get the gist of the complaint. If I'm DMing, and I say a shark bites a PC to establish a grapple, then that's what the shark does. The player can argue logic, real-worldisms, and game-whatnot until he's blue in the face, but it won't change what's happening.

While the DM can certainly do that, I hope they have good reasons for it, and I hope their way of doing things is communicated to the players so the players can develop their characters and tactics to work within the DM's game.

 

[Mark Chance]

While the DM can certainly do that, I hope they have good reasons for it, and I hope their way of doing things is communicated to the players so the players can develop their characters and tactics to work within the DM's game.

I'm not sure how much communication is really needed. My take as a DM is simple. I'm the DM. I tell you what happens. You tell me what your characters do. Rinse. Repeat.

"But how do I develop my character and tactics to work within your game?" a player may ask.

Well, you just develop your character how you want. If you treat this as a player-versus-player game, you're going to get upset. My game is you against the conflicts of the story, not you versus me.

So, if I want sharks to have the Grab ability, I don't need a good reason. Or, I guess more to my point, my want for a shark to have the Grab ability is a good reason.

To move back on-topic about Bestiary griping, this relates to my gripe about manuals of monsters: too many players read them and then think the book gets to dictate the parameters of the story. My games don't work that way.

YMMV, of course. This is about goodrightfun versus badwrongfun.