Are standard Swarms shapable?

[DrSpunj]

Hm, well, "Large" in dnd has a specific meaning (i.e. a creature size bigger than M and smaller than H)...

That's true. It's just that the use of "larger" in the previous sentence leads to believe they are talking about "larger" swarms, but if they did that the grammer would be off.

The word swarm is a single unit representation of more than one of its components. A "standard" swarm has a square or cube shape, 10' on a side. A large swarm I have to interpret as "bigger than a standard swarm", meaning two or more standard swarms, especially because of the preceding sentence.

I'd say the "square or cube" reference is the base shape, just as the pic of a doppleganger in the MM shows it in its natural form.

That could be, but when does it take it? When it's alone in the middle of a lifeless plain? What's the point of spelling it out so deliberately if it's never required to take that shape?

I'd agree that if the "Unlike other creatures with a 10' space" bit came immediately after the "Swarms are either a square or cube" bit, there'd be no conflict.

However, as written, the base form seems to me to be a square or cube. That's made very clear early on and it makes a lot of common sense. I keep picturing the scarab beetles from the Mummy movies, or a horde of rats attacking someone. A large mass of individual creatures crawling over & under each other towards whatever the closest target is. If two targets are close together (5' apart) all the better. But I just can't see a single swarm being intelligent enough to spread itself out into 4 squares in a line to attack two individuals 20' away from each other. They would go after one or the other (first, then after it was dead move towards the other one!).

IMO, the rest of the text then goes on to give a couple situations where that's not always the case:

1) Because a swarm can fit through a space big enough for any of its component creatures, the squeezing rules normally used for Large creatures don't apply, and it can move in restricted places (like a 5' corridor) by altering its shape to that of 4 contiguous squares.

2) If a swarm is larger (meaning more than one standard swarm) it has enough component creatures to be able to spread itself out more, and no longer has to keep itself in a square or cube shape. Here it can pretty easily go after two individuals 20' away from each other and still have enough component creatures to keep its "mob mentality".

But if no one else shares this view I'll concede that it'll be a House Rule IMC. I thought about emailing Customer Service but I have no faith in their responses, though "official" they may be. Ditto for Sage advice. Honestly I trust & respect the opinions of those in this Rules Forum far more, especially when they use the RAW to back up their opinions.

Thanks!

DrSpunj

 

[dream66_]

You know, DrSpunj, I was in favor of shapable swarms... just a cloud of bugs why must it mantain a set shape?

But your last post there just converted me, I wasn't thinking about the creatures intelligences. And the nonshapable fits everything we know about flocking creatures. They tend to hold close together.

I'll save the tetris shape swarms for The Sentient Killer Bee swarm from Urban Arcana.

heheheheh *evil laughter*

 

[Nail]

DrSpunj,

On the way home from work yesterday, the "Ask Custserv" approach came to me too. Although I have precious little faith in their rule reasoning, I think it might be fun to ask them.

....And that's what this game is all about, right? Fun!

If you'd like, I can send the email (but not until monday, I'm afraid). I'd include the two relevant bits: "large swarms are shapable", and "a swarm is shapable into 4 5' squares". I'd imagine a page number in the MM would be good too, right?

I don't want to "lead the witness", but I would like them to think through their response before the send it. Any concerns?

<EDIT>: As an aside, as I read back over this.....I agree that "long thin lines of swarms" is silly. They should be roughly in a group. So although a "L" shape is out, a "T" shape seems fine. Larger swarms should have to maintain a minimum "aspect ratio", nes pas?

 

[DrSpunj]

@dream66_: That's one convert! Thanks for the vote of confidence.

On the way home from work yesterday, the "Ask Custserv" approach came to me too. Although I have precious little faith in their rule reasoning, I think it might be fun to ask them.

....And that's what this game is all about, right? Fun!

Asking them because we're going to abide by their ruling I won't do, but...asking them just to see what they'll say I'd certainly go along with!

If you'd like, I can send the email (but not until monday, I'm afraid). I'd include the two relevant bits: "large swarms are shapable", and "a swarm is shapable into 4 5' squares". I'd imagine a page number in the MM would be good too, right?

I don't want to "lead the witness", but I would like them to think through their response before the send it. Any concerns?

Not really, though much of my stance comes from that first part in the subtype about "a swarm is a square or a cube, 10-feet on a side" so I'd want to make sure that was also quoted. I'd appreciate seeing what you type up before you send it. I honestly have little faith that whoever responds will actually "think through their response". Very often from what I've seen posted around here I believe both the Sage and Customer Service just fire back whatever first comes to mind, especially when there's no real page references or quotes to back up their "official" opinion.

<EDIT>: As an aside, as I read back over this.....I agree that "long thin lines of swarms" is silly. They should be roughly in a group. So although a "L" shape is out, a "T" shape seems fine. Larger swarms should have to maintain a minimum "aspect ratio", nes pas?

I could live with that, regardless of what response we get back.

The more I think about it, Tetris S's, T's & even L's can all be formed by starting with a 2x2 square and moving a single square elsewhere. Since we've already agreed to avoid diagonals it still has mostly a "nucleus" of sorts. But the 1x4 line really gets under my skin, mostly because with a larger swarm you get some silly "long thin lines of swarms" as you say. Bleah! :\

As to what that "minimum aspect ratio" should be for larger swarms, I'm not sure other than to treat them like separate standard swarms that happen to be next to each other. Any ideas?

Thanks!

DrSpunj

 

[Nail]

No great ideas ...yet. I'd like the swarms to be "organic" in shape, but avoid swarm "snake" shapes. I was thinking along the lines of: minimum width should be half its length. So a swarm could be 2 squares by 4 squares (~about) but not 1 square by 8 squares.

....wandering off into house rule territory.......

I'm also not too keen on a group of two or more swarms, a "large swarm", actually being two separate creatures that happen to be together. The part of the combat that happened last meeting that didn't seem right to me was that there were 4 separate swarms flying around. Looking at the RL flight of flocks of small birds, that doesn't fit well.

Tweet, tweet, tweet, tweet, tweet, tweet, tweet!

 

[the Jester]

Just as an aside, I personally like the long string of killer ants marching through the jungle like a wall (i.e. the wall of swarm).

 

[DrSpunj]

Just as an aside, I personally like the long string of killer ants marching through the jungle like a wall (i.e. the wall of swarm).

See, I can picture that, too, but what happened during our battle last session wasn't like that at all. They literally "appeared" in our midst as 10' cubes, then began spreading out to tag as many PCs as possible. At one point I remember there being a 4-square line with a PC anchoring each end.

If they're a bunch of lemming-like creatures with a mob mentality I can't really see how they can spread themselves out to go after two different targets that far apart without separating into two separate swarms. Since each swarm must maintain a certain "nucleus" of 4 contiguous squares, going after two targets that far apart simultaneously would require a larger swarm. And as an aside, Nail, I personally really like the image of a large swarm splitting up to go after two or more separate targets, then reforming into a large swarm after taking them both/all down.

However, if they march along like the "grass mowing sheep" of the old Droopy the dog cartoons I could actually buy a line formation, though I think because it would actually be a formation that it's probably beyond their animal level mob-like intelligence.

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[FireLance]

Well, I was wondering about the level of intelligence necessary for a swarm to shape itself to go after two or more targets, and then I realised that it wasn't very high. Say, a single (according to D&D definition) swarm of bees moves to attack two perceived opponents 20 feet apart. The swarm doesn't think to itself, "Gee, if I shape myself into a 20 foot by 5 foot line, I'd be able to engulf both of them." What happens is that different bees will (randomly) head for different targets, which, coupled with an instinctive response to "stick together" (remain in contiguous squares) means that a swarm will naturally shape itself into a line to attack both. The same approach of random target selection plus instinctive response to stick together will allow a swarm to shape itself into any contiguous pattern to attack three or four opponents.

 

[DrSpunj]

What happens is that different bees will (randomly) head for different targets, which, coupled with an instinctive response to "stick together" (remain in contiguous squares) means that a swarm will naturally shape itself into a line to attack both.

That's a fair way of looking at it. I guess my hesitation at that working is somewhere the line has to be drawn between their instinctive response to stick together and how many component creatures are necessary to spread themselves out like that. IMO, to go after 2 targets 20' or more apart you need more than a single standard swarm because a larger swarm has enough components to spread itself out like that.

While your explanation makes a lot of sense for that first round (as they approach both targets) I have a real hard time applying it to any later rounds. Assume you have a swarm in an ABCD 4-square line and neither of the targets in squares A & D die with the swarm's first attack. The swarm creatures in A & D are having a good time munching on their targets, while the B & C swarm creatures do what? Just hang out because of their "instinctive need to stick together"?

I just don't see it. It makes a lot more sense to me that when a swarm approaches equidistant targets like A & D that a few creatures would initially head toward both targets, but the majority would randomly pick one or the other (let's say A), and that's where the entire swarm would get dragged to. The few that originally headed towards D realize they're getting left behind, and even if they made it to D's square they wouldn't have enough buddies with them to do any real damage like the swarm does. So they hightail it back to the mob/swarm because majority rules.

Now, I can see someone throwing the argument I used above back at me, here. Namely that since the swarm has a 10' space and only a single target (A), there's 3 other squares of swarm creatures sitting around doing nothing. I just don't see it that way. I picture them crawling, jumping, flying around each other to all attack our poor target A, but since they get in each other's way and keep falling off and getting pushed aside by their comrades they keep spilling out into the other 3 squares the swarm fills up. If another target ends up moving next to A, then they're only too happy to shift their focus to include the new target.

If they tried that in the ABCD configuration I mentioned first, I'd think they'd split themselves into two parts. Since neither is then big enough to be a swarm, I just don't see it happening. Instead the majority ends up picking A or D, unless you have a larger swarm which is big enough to go after both.

Hope all that made sense!

Thanks.

DrSpunj

 

[Nail]

See, I can picture that, too, but what happened during our battle last session wasn't like that at all. They literally "appeared" in our midst as 10' cubes, ....

Heh, heh.

...but anyway, next time will be a bit different. Excellent discussion!