Can a swarm be grabbed?

[eamon]

Nichwee: My preferred house rule is to ban by default all single-target non-damaging effects on swarms. An alternative house rule would be to simply remove their immunity to forced movement.

As to whether swarms are common enough to be worth bother house-ruling: well, it depends on how often you use them. If you never do, for instance, it's obviously not worth it. If you only very rarely use them, removing their special forced movement protection may be preferable. If you use them and find that the "swarm" distinction should be a defining characteristic, you could go whole hog and prevent all single-target effects.

I'm arguing about what the rules should have been all along; in practice simply not using borked bits of rules is just as practical; there's enough other creatures out there.

Nytmare: uhm, what?

Aegeri: Don't spring this house-rule as a surprise on a party including a Brawler. I've yet to see a party with a brawler, and until now I've never included a house-rule without advance discussion and agreement by all players involved. Also, in such a campaign, a brawler is still perfectly playable since swarms aren't that common, and note that other single-target powers are similarly tricky. So, if a player still wants to play a brawler despite the swarm change, that's likely to work just fine. Finally, I'd be quite happy to permit a magic item or feat to specifically address swarms, e.g. by turning some attacks into close attacks, or by specifically providing a means to hurt or hamper a swarm in other ways.

I'm really not out to get the players. If this is perceived as a major balance shift to the player's detriment, I'll find some other way to compensate; it's not that hard to do and in a previous post I suggested a few possible avenues one could explore to achieve that.

[sblock=In-the-why-do-I-bother-column]DracoSuave: you're simply ignoring what I say at times and at other times presenting (then rebutting) arguments as mine that I'm just not making.

The "alpha" fluff doesn't work because (a) not necessarily all swarms follow that structure; using this interpretation would limit swarm mechanics to being applicable to swarms which have a very small number of leaders. A more fundamental issue is (b) because it's inconsistent with the restriction on forced movement. Your idea that moving the "alpha's" away doesn't move the swarm but holding them in place does immobilize the swarm is a neat idea, and is better than the previous fluff you proposed. I'm still not satisfied with it, however; it doesn't explain what happens once you've moved the "alpha's" away. The swarm only follows if alphas move voluntarily (itself a tricky concept) but what then - is a swarm that has been subject to forced movement which removed the alpha's leaderless? Does it provoke CA? Is it immobilized? Can the individual alpha's be targeted outside of the swarm - i.e. what happens if for any reason they can't rejoin the swarm? What happens when they die?

Your description of the tactical utility of grabs is so incompletely as to be worthless. Describing a grab as a sustain minor immobilize is missing all the relevant bits.[/sblock]

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nichwee: My preferred house rule is to ban by default all single-target non-damaging effects on swarms. An alternative house rule would be to simply remove their immunity to forced movement.

That's not so unreasonable. It sounds like a more even-handed house rule, and serves to further underscore the role of the controller in dealing with swarms.

Of course, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'non-damaging effects.' Is the slow effect of Ray of Frost 'non damaging' because being Slowed doesn't do damage, or damaging because ray of frost inflicts damage, for instance?

 

[DracoSuave]

DracoSuave: you're simply ignoring what I say at times and at other times presenting (then rebutting) arguments as mine that I'm just not making.

The "alpha" fluff doesn't work because (a) not necessarily all swarms follow that structure;[/quote]

No, and just like how you have to refluff tripping when dealing with monsters with six legs, or oozes, or what-not, you have to tailor everything to each individual swarm. Every attack in the game has to be tailored in this fashion because of the differences in each swarm.

You expect consistancy in the fluff for an attack, but this is impossible to do for even a melee basic attack, because the swarms -themselves- are inconsistant.

The line you require for fluff to qualify is impossible for -any- single target attack. What you ask for is unreasonable and unrealistic. The problem you're dealing with isn't the inconsistancy resultant from the fluff of a grab; the problem is, and always was, the inconsistancy resultant from the fluff of the swarm. If inconsistancy is the reason to ban grabs, then you have only one logical conclusion:

Ban swarms. That's the source of inconsistancy.

using this interpretation would limit swarm mechanics to being applicable to swarms which have a very small number of leaders. A more fundamental issue is (b) because it's inconsistent with the restriction on forced movement.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up this point. Grabs don't have to be consistant with forced movement. I know I keep having to say this, but they aren't related. Grabs are a form of immobilize. Grabs are not forced movement-related. They are related to immobilizes and restrains.

Not moving is the opposite of moving.

Your idea that moving the "alpha's" away doesn't move the swarm but holding them in place does immobilize the swarm is a neat idea, and is better than the previous fluff you proposed. I'm still not satisfied with it, however; it doesn't explain what happens once you've moved the "alpha's" away. The swarm only follows if alphas move voluntarily (itself a tricky concept) but what then - is a swarm that has been subject to forced movement which removed the alpha's leaderless?

No, it's a large swarm of angry animals. Again, the forced movement of individual members does not affect the entire pile.

Does it provoke CA?

No. It's still a large swarm of angry animals. The betas aren't suddenly not biting any more just because they're waiting that couple seconds for those alpha critters to return back.

Is it immobilized?

No. On its turn, there's more than enough time for the alphas to rejoin/direct the herd in another direction. The individual components of the swarm move very quickly, it's only the collective that does not.

Can the individual alpha's be targeted outside of the swarm - i.e. what happens if for any reason they can't rejoin the swarm?

Sure they can. Attack the swarm as usual. Given the fluff also includes that most single target attacks on the swarm are only effective when applied against alphas, then you already have a mechanical explanation for how to hit the alphas.

What happens when they die?

The swarm dissipates. That is what is happening when you destroy a swarm, you're not killing each and every individual creature, you're killing enough of the swarm that it 'loses steam' and goes away. Killing the alphas of a swarm is more than enough fluff to describe the depletion of the swarm's hit points.

Your description of the tactical utility of grabs is so incompletely as to be worthless. Describing a grab as a sustain minor immobilize is missing all the relevant bits.

Hi. I'm a fighter. My job is to keep things away from squishier combatants. One way of doing so is with marks combined with Combat Challenge or Agility. Those are pretty cool abilities.

Or, I could execute a grab action, keeping one enemy adjacent to me. Next turn, I can use a pull to bring in a second foe who needs less level of control, only using my minors to keep the first enemy adjacent. Of course, he'll have to beat my Fortitude or Reflex defense in order to get free... if only fighters had a build (sword and board cough) that emphasized Strength and Dexterity (tempest cough)

Hi. I'm an artillery monster. I do high amounts of damage with my ranged attacks. I like to move to positions, and my melee attacks are weak. If there's an attack that a) immobilizes me, and b) keeps me at melee range, then that attack is pretty much going to ruin my day. Oh and using an action to escape a grapple? Well, that doesn't take me out of attack range unless I forgo my attack... and if my attacks are getting negated that's pretty much negating my contribution to the battle....

Hi. I'm a rogue. I don't like monsters that move around too much, cause it's harder for me to take them down through flanking. Good thing my fighter friend has that guy grabbed! He's not going anywhere for a while!


Of course, yes, there is an action you can take with a grabbed creature that forces them to move... but you can't do that to swarms, and that's the -least- of the grab's tactical use. The most important part of a grab is the fact it immobilizes a creature, and doesn't require a saving throw to maintain. It's of primary use to defenders, for when it's more important to keep an enemy still than to do a round of damage.

 

[CovertOps]

That's exactly what I am saying. Read my previous post. No fiction = no mechanics. Otherwise, you're just playing a boardgame.

If one of my players says, "I use my 'Grappling Strike' power to immobilize the swarm!"

My immediate response is, "Awesome. How do you do that?"

If he doesn't have any fictional justification, then it simply doesn't happen. This whole, "if it's in the rules it should happen" is a boardgame mentality. What I'm trying to accomplish is fiction with the rules there to facilitate that.

I'm coming a bit late to this and DS has said just about everything I would say other than this (which may have also been said and I missed it): The players are NOT their characters. Characters have abilities and skills that the players do not have and the reverse is also likely true that the players have skills and knowledge that the character does not have. What you are doing here is asking the "player" to justify something that the "character" can do according to the games "rules". Your phrasing here is basically "If you can't justify your characters abilities to my satisfaction within the fiction of the world then I am nerfing your character and ruling that your "characters" ability doesn't work. While this may satisfy your need for "the fiction" (or whatever word/description you prefer here) it is a horrible use of DM fiat at the table and on the fly. Later in the thread you changed your tune somewhat, but understand that this here is why so many came down on you so hard.

So you can still move the same way, not be fatigued or have any other side effects take place once you've used an Encounter or Daily Exploit, use as many At-Wills as you want, etc, but somehow, there is a mental and physical barrier that takes effect and prevents you from performing this specific move again? I'm sorry, but the rule vs. the explanation does not compute with me. I mean, it's not an unsurmontable leap to just forget about it and not care and just play the game, as I said earlier, but if you're not seeing the disconnect, then I don't know what to say.

I like to think of "The Karate Kid" when I think of martial encounter powers. His use of "Crane Technique" in the final fight to win the match is something he could not have done more than once to a given opponent in a given fight because they would be looking for it from then on. I agree with you that I have a harder time with Martial Dailies. The real issue is that the people who seem to be irritated by this the most are prior 3.x players. I demand that my game is fun and everything else sort of takes a back seat. Trying to explain game mechanics is lowest on the list, because as a player I know why they are there. If I can't accept a few outlier rules (like dailies) and gloss over them I'll play something different or if we really like everything else we'll try to house rule. Ad lib DM fiat is a bad way to run a game.

Oh god, wherein he tries to define "roleplaying game"... Gimme a break. I can "roleplay" my banker in Monopoly. Does that mean Monopoly is a roleplaying game? It has some rules and I'm playing a character...

No. Absolutely not.

The roleplaying comes in when my fictional actions and choices have a direct impact on the game. This is why it's important for the mechanics to support the fiction.

First of all, I never once mentioned realism as the stated goal. Never. Plausibility? Yes. Realism? No.

However, my main concern is the fiction. As I just discussed, without that fiction carrying my character and my choices, we're playing a board game and "roleplaying" is just us masturbating with our voices.
<snip>

I think that what you're talking about varies from group to group. Some groups (like mine) are more like roleplay, combat, roleplay, combat. The combat isn't really role playing, but it does have an effect on "the fiction" or as some might say "the narrative". It's part of a bigger picture where the party might be trying to save the princess from the local band of goblins. I could probably invent a bunch of fictional story around this like how you met the prince or that the goblins are really working for the evil duke or other stuff like that and how all the parties actions have "consequences" in "the fiction". I'm not as concerned with "how did you swing your sword" as I am with "now that the goblins are dead you've garnered the (secret) hatred of the duke and a new BBEG.

Having re-read that a couple times I think what I'm getting at is at what "level" do you want your "fiction" to be? Do you want the party to explain every sword thrust or spell they cast (that's not as interesting to me) or do you want to know what groups they pissed off when they killed the duke?

If I was to guess I'd say you're more simulationist in your leanings and I'm pretty sure I'm a mix of gamist/narrativist.

 

[TerraDave]

Well, we now know a rat swarm PC cannot be knocked prone. But still grabbed.

I can see that. But it would be really gross.


You may return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[P1NBACK]

I'm coming a bit late to this and DS has said just about everything I would say other than this (which may have also been said and I missed it): The players are NOT their characters. Characters have abilities and skills that the players do not have and the reverse is also likely true that the players have skills and knowledge that the character does not have. What you are doing here is asking the "player" to justify something that the "character" can do according to the games "rules".

Hey CovertOps, nice of you to join. I quit this thread earlier because people were ignoring my posts (but we've taken it up again in the "4E realism" thread... lol, so ... I may be going insane ) however, since you seem to be actually reading my posts and asking me questions, I'll respond to my best ability.

I know the players aren't their characters. When I ask, "How do you do that?" I'm directing myself to the character, not the player. I often call my players by their character names. It's a habit. What I'm really asking is, "How does your character do that?"

A player can justify their character's actions in any way they see fit. I just don't want to hear, "I use Thromgard's Spinning Assault." Or... Whatever. Why? For one, it doesn't do anything for me to note the effect and how it works. I don't have every power memorized, so I need to know as a DM what's happening in the fiction in order to respond correctly. Secondly, the circumstances will often depend on the fiction of how the actual mechanics are implemented in the game world. This is supremely important for skill checks (more so than combat attacks) and custom maneuvers (like you would adjudicate from page 42 of the DMG - which I suspect most of these "rules hardliners" have never and have no interest in using...).

So, it's kind of important on a couple levels. Like I've said millions of times, I'm not going to disallow a power to function because of the "goodness" of the description. Just give me any description.

Your phrasing here is basically "If you can't justify your characters abilities to my satisfaction within the fiction of the world then I am nerfing your character and ruling that your "characters" ability doesn't work.

Not at all. I'm saying, "If you want to use the Intimidate skill, have your character do something intimidating." That's about it.

While this may satisfy your need for "the fiction" (or whatever word/description you prefer here) it is a horrible use of DM fiat at the table and on the fly.

There's no DM fiat here. There are mechanics and fiction coinciding. You can say, "I bluff him" all day. But, how do I know what the NPC says in response if you don't tell me what your character says? Does the player have to be convincing? Not at all. That's what the dice are for. But, does the player have to describe their character saying or doing something to invoke the mechanic? Of course!

That's not DM fiat. That's called roleplaying.

Later in the thread you changed your tune somewhat, but understand that this here is why so many came down on you so hard.

I never changed my tune, although I did try to clarify my position (and continue to do...). Many people, yourself included, have made rash conclusions based on my simple statement of "to do it mechanically, do it fictionally" - as if these mechanics aren't supposed to be adjudicating the fiction...

What do you do if a player says, "I run up to him and sweep his legs from underneath him, tripping him!"

You don't say, "Sorry! You can't do that! It's not a power you have!"

You say, "Sure! Do you have a mechanical power that does that? If not, let's do a custom move using page 42! If so, roll the dice for me!"

It's the opposite if someone says to me, "Hey, I use Lion's Tail Sweep."

I say, "Awesome! How do you do that?"

"I run up to him and sweep his legs from underneath him, tripping him!"

Same thing.

I think that what you're talking about varies from group to group. Some groups (like mine) are more like roleplay, combat, roleplay, combat. The combat isn't really role playing, but it does have an effect on "the fiction" or as some might say "the narrative".

Sure. Of course different groups have varying levels of narrative in there. 4th Edition is definitely a "Step On Up" game, designed for player's to overcome challenges with their characters. That's a HUGE part of the game. However, you can play a board game with that effect too. To get it into that roleplaying territory, you need those extra bits of fiction and consequences.

It's part of a bigger picture where the party might be trying to save the princess from the local band of goblins. I could probably invent a bunch of fictional story around this like how you met the prince or that the goblins are really working for the evil duke or other stuff like that and how all the parties actions have "consequences" in "the fiction". I'm not as concerned with "how did you swing your sword" as I am with "now that the goblins are dead you've garnered the (secret) hatred of the duke and a new BBEG.

Yeah. See, that's where you're missing me. I agree with all of that. And, "I swing my sword" is fiction. "I use Twin Strike" is not. You feel me?

On the one hand, you have the player describing a fictional action his character is taking. On the other, you have the player describing a power on his sheet. Know what I mean?

"I swing both my swords at the kobold!"

Fiction.

"I use Twin Strike on the kobold!"

Mechanic.

I'd just rather hear "swing both my swords" than "twin strike". It means less work for me as a DM as I try to think up the responding description.

Having re-read that a couple times I think what I'm getting at is at what "level" do you want your "fiction" to be? Do you want the party to explain every sword thrust or spell they cast (that's not as interesting to me) or do you want to know what groups they pissed off when they killed the duke?

I agree. Sometimes, you may just want to say, "Twin Strike!" and roll dice. I'd rather you say, "I drive both swords into him!" and roll dice. Obviously, it's up to the group preference. But, I don't think it's as evil as people are making it out to be to ask for some fiction.

If I was to guess I'd say you're more simulationist in your leanings and I'm pretty sure I'm a mix of gamist/narrativist.

I don't classify myself. I strive for different creative agendas depending on the game I'm playing. If I'm doing 4E, I love gamist Step On Up play. If I'm doing Dogs in the Vineyard or Apocalypse World or Sorcerer, I love me some narrativist Story Now play. I don't think I've ever once played a "simulationist" game as far as I understand simulationist.

However, in all those games, I'm interested in the fiction. Having one creative agenda doesn't mean you prefer fiction over the other.

 

[CovertOps]

I know the players aren't their characters. When I ask, "How do you do that?" I'm directing myself to the character, not the player. I often call my players by their character names. It's a habit. What I'm really asking is, "How does your character do that?"

A player can justify their character's actions in any way they see fit. I just don't want to hear, "I use Thromgard's Spinning Assault." Or... Whatever. Why? For one, it doesn't do anything for me to note the effect and how it works. I don't have every power memorized, so I need to know as a DM what's happening in the fiction in order to respond correctly. Secondly, the circumstances will often depend on the fiction of how the actual mechanics are implemented in the game world. This is supremely important for skill checks (more so than combat attacks) and custom maneuvers (like you would adjudicate from page 42 of the DMG - which I suspect most of these "rules hardliners" have never and have no interest in using...).

One reason I like to hear "I use Twin-Strike" more than "I hit it with both my swords" is because then there is no question what mechanical effect the player is doing. It's sad that I have to do that for the 1-2 players at my table who do stuff like...I rolled 20...sweet....umm...I was using my daily...yeah that's the ticket. Now I'm not trying to imply that every table has these kinds of players, but when the player says "I hit it with both my swords" it could me "I Twin Strike" or it could mean quite a few other powers that they have to choose from that allow the player to "hit it with both swords". It removes a layer of ambiguity.

So, it's kind of important on a couple levels. Like I've said millions of times, I'm not going to disallow a power to function because of the "goodness" of the description. Just give me any description.

This here is the first time I've seen you make a comment like this. Your other posts have been of the form..."if you don't justify it in the fiction then it doesn't work". That reads as pure DM fiat and this is what I've been trying to point out, but you're not seeing it.

Not at all. I'm saying, "If you want to use the Intimidate skill, have your character do something intimidating." That's about it.

There's no DM fiat here. There are mechanics and fiction coinciding. You can say, "I bluff him" all day. But, how do I know what the NPC says in response if you don't tell me what your character says? Does the player have to be convincing? Not at all. That's what the dice are for. But, does the player have to describe their character saying or doing something to invoke the mechanic? Of course!

That's not DM fiat. That's called roleplaying.

I was never talking about skill usage. Only powers where there is a clear mechanical effect. Where (as some are annoyed by this part of 4e) the effect drives the fiction and sometimes you have to "refluff".

I never changed my tune, although I did try to clarify my position (and continue to do...). Many people, yourself included, have made rash conclusions based on my simple statement of "to do it mechanically, do it fictionally" - as if these mechanics aren't supposed to be adjudicating the fiction...

What do you do if a player says, "I run up to him and sweep his legs from underneath him, tripping him!"

You don't say, "Sorry! You can't do that! It's not a power you have!"

You say, "Sure! Do you have a mechanical power that does that? If not, let's do a custom move using page 42! If so, roll the dice for me!"

It's the opposite if someone says to me, "Hey, I use Lion's Tail Sweep."

I say, "Awesome! How do you do that?"

"I run up to him and sweep his legs from underneath him, tripping him!"

Same thing.

Here here....pg 42 FTW!

Sure. Of course different groups have varying levels of narrative in there. 4th Edition is definitely a "Step On Up" game, designed for player's to overcome challenges with their characters. That's a HUGE part of the game. However, you can play a board game with that effect too. To get it into that roleplaying territory, you need those extra bits of fiction and consequences.

Yeah. See, that's where you're missing me. I agree with all of that. And, "I swing my sword" is fiction. "I use Twin Strike" is not. You feel me?

First, I'm so glad I know what "You feel me" means. When the player says "I use Twin Strike" it is the same as saying "I swing both my swords" (or in the case of the archer "I shoot him twice")

On the one hand, you have the player describing a fictional action his character is taking. On the other, you have the player describing a power on his sheet. Know what I mean?

"I swing both my swords at the kobold!"

Fiction.

"I use Twin Strike on the kobold!"

Mechanic.

I'd just rather hear "swing both my swords" than "twin strike". It means less work for me as a DM as I try to think up the responding description.

I agree. Sometimes, you may just want to say, "Twin Strike!" and roll dice. I'd rather you say, "I drive both swords into him!" and roll dice. Obviously, it's up to the group preference. But, I don't think it's as evil as people are making it out to be to ask for some fiction.

I don't classify myself. I strive for different creative agendas depending on the game I'm playing. If I'm doing 4E, I love gamist Step On Up play. If I'm doing Dogs in the Vineyard or Apocalypse World or Sorcerer, I love me some narrativist Story Now play. I don't think I've ever once played a "simulationist" game as far as I understand simulationist.

However, in all those games, I'm interested in the fiction. Having one creative agenda doesn't mean you prefer fiction over the other.

I pretty much covered this above.

 

[P1NBACK]

One reason I like to hear "I use Twin-Strike" more than "I hit it with both my swords" is because then there is no question what mechanical effect the player is doing. It's sad that I have to do that for the 1-2 players at my table who do stuff like...I rolled 20...sweet....umm...I was using my daily...yeah that's the ticket.

Now I'm not trying to imply that every table has these kinds of players, but when the player says "I hit it with both my swords" it could me "I Twin Strike" or it could mean quite a few other powers that they have to choose from that allow the player to "hit it with both swords". It removes a layer of ambiguity.

I just let my players tell me what happens. I don't memorize every power, so I assume if they tell me, "Yeah, I run up and sweep his legs. Does 25 hit? Well, it does 15 damage and he falls down." Well, then that's what their power does.

I don't say, "Well, what's that power name? Is that an encounter or daily?" Etc... I just don't care. I trust my players to track all that stuff, just like I trust them to track all of their surges and HP.

This here is the first time I've seen you make a comment like this. Your other posts have been of the form..."if you don't justify it in the fiction then it doesn't work". That reads as pure DM fiat and this is what I've been trying to point out, but you're not seeing it.

Nah. That's what I have been saying since post 1 on page 3. I think people are getting "justify" in their brains and getting all out of whack and having hernias about whack-job tyrannical DMs or something. It's a gross overreaction.

When I say justify, I mean, "say how you do it."

That's it. So, in order to use a power/skill/etc... you have to say how you do it. If you want to Bluff someone, you have to say how you bluff them, not just "I bluff them." (And, because I know someone will try to pull this argument out again for the hundredth time, no you don't have to bluff me, you just have to say how your character bluffs the NPC. It has nothing to do with "player skill" or whatever.)

I was never talking about skill usage. Only powers where there is a clear mechanical effect. Where (as some are annoyed by this part of 4e) the effect drives the fiction and sometimes you have to "refluff".

I agree. The effect can drive the fiction, or vice versa. But there are to BE fiction. End of story.

Here here....pg 42 FTW!

I'm glad someone agrees.

First, I'm so glad I know what "You feel me" means. When the player says "I use Twin Strike" it is the same as saying "I swing both my swords" (or in the case of the archer "I shoot him twice")

No, it's not the same. Again, "I use Twin Strike" is a player-action. And, "Legolas fires two arrows at the orc" is a character-action.

What it sounds like to me is people "skip" the character-action part of the equation - and that sounds boring to me (and I think this is why skill challenges fall flat the way they are written and the way people use them).

Instead, I'd rather skip the player-action.

To each his own.

Now, way, way back in this thread I said I can see how people would do that because 4E's combat mechanics are somewhat divorced from the fiction. It's a flaw of 4E. But, I'm still going to strive for that fiction, otherwise I might as well play D&D Minis with a "backdrop" for saving a princess or whatever.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A player can justify their character's actions in any way they see fit. I just don't want to hear, "I use Thromgard's Spinning Assault." Or... Whatever. Why? For one, it doesn't do anything for me to note the effect and how it works. I don't have every power memorized, so I need to know as a DM what's happening in the fiction in order to respond correctly.

What? Are you just freestyling it? You don't want to hear what power a character is using? How are you supposed to DM if you have to guess at what your players are doing based on IC descriptions?

 

[P1NBACK]

What? Are you just freestyling it? You don't want to hear what power a character is using? How are you supposed to DM if you have to guess at what your players are doing based on IC descriptions?

Did you even read my posts? The name of the power is irrelevant. It does nothing for me to determine the effect of the power mechanically, or fictionally.

I'd rather hear the description of the action in the fiction (I try to push him), and its effects at the table (he is shoved back 1 square). I don't care that that attack is called "Bull Rush".