Attacking vehicles - awesome or silly?

[RangerWickett]

The party is on a ship, trying to chase pirates. They're not sure they'll be able to catch up, at least not until the wizard fires off a ray of frost, which, per the Adventurer's Vault vehicle rules, slows the pirate ship.

When they get within range, the party's fighter decides he really doesn't want the ship to escape, so he jumps aboard the pirate ship and uses the Grab action, which immobilizes the ship as long as he remains adjacent.

If this were epic level, I'd probably say, sure, why not? But you can do this stuff at 1st level. What do you think? How should the rules handle attacks on vehicles?

 

[fuzzlewump]

Oh lordie. The ship is already immobilized, the water is constantly applying a PUSH effect to the ship every round causing it to move. You'd have to RESTRAIN the ship to stop forced movement. (EDIT: Similarly, characters don't slam against the wall from being immobilized due to the spinning of the earth, assuming your world does that.)

As far as the principle of grabbing a ship to immobilize it, while on top of it... the short answer is no. For all that is good and holy, no.

Actually, that's my long answer too.

 

[ourchair]

This is why fighters cannot use his Combat Challenge to mark Athas and then attack it as an immediate interrupt whenever Athas makes an attack against Fortitude that doesn't include the fighter.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Can you grab a wheelbarrow? A cart? Can you stop a runaway ore cart on a mining track?

 

[FireLance]

How should the rules handle attacks on vehicles?

By telling the DM to use his judgement.

Frankly, though - stopping a pirate ship sounds like a good place to run a skill challenge.

The wizard wants to use ray of frost to slow it down? Fine - ask him to make an Arcana check to see if he can modify it on the fly to create a lump of ice that hampers the ship's movement (one success).

The fighter wants to prevent it from moving? Assuming he has a reasonable plan (such as using a lasso or a grappling hook while standing on solid ground or another ship), ask him to make an Athletics check (one success).

 

[Saeviomagy]

D&D with silly and impractical vehicle rules? Preposterous!

Mind you, even shadowrun had pretty ridiculous rules, and it had an entire class (...effectively) dedicated to piloting vehicles.

However in this case, D&D has it more-or-less right. Almost every attack power targets creatures. The DM can allow a power to affect an object if he wants, but it's on a case-by-case basis.

Unless of course AV changes that...

and...

It doesn't. It specifically says "vehicles can be attacked just like other objects" and then goes on to give some modifications to conditions that apply when the conditions afflict a vehicle and says anything not on the list cannot affect a vehicle. It never says "oh, by the way DM, anything on this list is sacrosanct", just that IF the conditions are applied to a vehicle, this is how they work.

SO, unless your fighter has some power that explicitly lets him apply the grabbed condition to an object, he can't. Similarly ray of frost targets creatures so it only works on the ship by the good grace of the DM.

 

[Bagpuss]

The party is on a ship, trying to chase pirates. They're not sure they'll be able to catch up, at least not until the wizard fires off a ray of frost, which, per the Adventurer's Vault vehicle rules, slows the pirate ship.

When they get within range, the party's fighter decides he really doesn't want the ship to escape, so he jumps aboard the pirate ship and uses the Grab action, which immobilizes the ship as long as he remains adjacent.

If this were epic level, I'd probably say, sure, why not? But you can do this stuff at 1st level. What do you think? How should the rules handle attacks on vehicles?

Depends if the player can describe in a convincing manner how his power works against such a large object to gain the effect then I'm find.

For example the wizard could describe ice forming on the sails and rigging making them stiff and unable to catch the wind properly. The fighter might explain his grab using a rope and grapple, holding the two ships together.

If he says he jumps on and just hugs the mast, then no I wouldn't allow it to be successful. As long as there is a hint of logic, and they make the effort then I don't have a problem.

This is why we have DM's and not computers running the games.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It is a problem in general with how 3e and 4e both handle sizes (though 3e was a smidge better).

Ultimately, something that big -- big enough that people can walk around on -- isn't a valid target. You can target bits and pieces of it, but to target "the thing" is trivial. Of course you hit the broad side of that barn. It is literally the broad side of a barn. Unless the thing you hit it with is big enough to do some damage to a barn, chances are it is like digging through a dungeon wall: an exercise in futility.

As was mentioned upthread, what you have here isn't a combat situation, it is a skill situation. One that combat abilities can be useful in -- like an archery contest or something.

The same is largely true if you are fighting a creature the size of a ship. It isn't about how much damage you can do, it is about your skill in applying it.

(there's also a problem going in the opposite direction, with flies and pixies and the like, but swarms largely solve that problem...hmm...what about swarm rules for big things?)

Generally, this means the rules are silly, and should be ignored and avoided as if they were radioactive.

 

[Larrin]

The rules for grab state you can only grab something one size category larger (phb 290, HOFL in the grab power description). Unless your fighter has a power that specifically trumps this requirement, then no boat grabbing for him.

 

[TerraDave]

He is really trying to hold the ships together. Its not completely preposterous.

Not completely.