Giantbane - Climb aboard maneuver

[Amarylis_Fastfoot]

Heya there,

is there any FAQ about the "Climb aboard" maneuver of the Giantbane feats (complete warrior) ? I have so many questions...

The feat says when you climb aboard, you move in the creature square.
- Which square exactly ?
- Can you still flank with allies on the other side of the creature ?
- Since you are not in grapple, are you threatening all around the creature you are on ?
- Can you use two weapons (since it is not mentionned that you need an hand free to climb aboard) ?

It also mentionned that the creature can shake you off with a grapple check opposed to your climb check and that you wind up randomly.
- Is this shaking off a standard action ?
- Do you wind up prone or on feet ?

So many questions... hope to find lots of answer !

Amarylis Fastfoot
Halfling rogue !

 

[Amarylis_Fastfoot]

Nobody has any kind of answer about thoses questions ?

Nor an idea where I could find these answers ?

Amarylis

 

[Shallown]

The feat says when you climb aboard, you move in the creature square.
- Which square exactly ?
- Can you still flank with allies on the other side of the creature ?
- Since you are not in grapple, are you threatening all around the creature you are on ?
- Can you use two weapons (since it is not mentionned that you need an hand free to climb aboard) ?

It also mentionned that the creature can shake you off with a grapple check opposed to your climb check and that you wind up randomly.
- Is this shaking off a standard action ?
- Do you wind up prone or on feet ?


Answers based on my Opinion.

Which square would be all. Like being on a mount you are considered to be in all squares.
Since you are in the square yoou no longer flank your "mount" but can flank from there.
Since you are not in a grapple I would say yes you threaten. But if it requires a climb check to do it. (I don't rmember and don't have the book in front of me) Then I would say you are climbing in which case yu lose dex etc as if climbing.
two weapons would depend on if it is a climb check if so appropriate penalties for climbing with no hands would occur. Which I would think would be very steep.

Shaking off with a grapple check would be an attack action since a grapple attempt is an attack action so they could try several times a round if they had multiple attacks.
You fall landing prone. I would allow a tumble check to land right side up standing with a dc as if reducing damage for a fall.

just my thooughts, loosely based on the rules.

later

 

[Lord Pendragon]

is there any FAQ about the "Climb aboard" maneuver of the Giantbane feats (complete warrior) ? I have so many questions...

I don't know if there's been any official clarification of the feat, so the answers below are how I personally would rule it. Check with your DM to see what he says or, if you're a DM, take the answers below as advice, rather than a statement of RAW.

The feat says when you climb aboard, you move in the creature square.
- Which square exactly ?

I'd use the same rule that mounts/riders use. That is to say, all of them. You occupy the same space that the giant does, because you're now on his back, shin, whatever. Just as a rider "expands" to fill out the entire space of his large mount, so too would you, when climbing aboard a foe.

- Can you still flank with allies on the other side of the creature ?

No. There are no longer any allies on the other side of the creature. You're on the creature, not on one of its sides, so you don't split its attention directionally in the same way.

- Since you are not in grapple, are you threatening all around the creature you are on ?

Yes.

- Can you use two weapons (since it is not mentionned that you need an hand free to climb aboard) ?

I would rule no. It's not mentioned, perhaps, but my DM spidey-sense is tingling. At least one hand to hang-on, I'd say.

It also mentionned that the creature can shake you off with a grapple check opposed to your climb check and that you wind up randomly.
- Is this shaking off a standard action ?

It's a grapple check, so yes, a standard action.

- Do you wind up prone or on feet ?

As it says he "shakes you off" I'd say it's more a matter of you losing your grip, rather than him actually grabbing you and throwing you to the ground. You end up standing.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think this merits a slight correction. Since characters can use an attack to start a grapple and get iterative grapple attempts based on BAB, I would think that it's an attack action rather than an independent standard action.

If the creature in question has two attacks, it could use the first attack to smash your friends and the second to make a grapple check and throw you off. Alternatively, it could use its first attack to make a grapple check and throw you off and its remaining attacks to beat you into a pulp with its greatclub (or whatever it's got).

.It's a grapple check, so yes, a standard action.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Climbing on Others

I do not have the book, nor have I read the Feat. From what is upthread, I am presuming that the following steps are used:

Attempt to enter the opponents square, drawing an AoO
Attempt a touch attack
Attempt a climb check

Success at all three leaves you 'riding' the opponent and not in a grapple.

The usual ride rules can be applied for lots of stuff here.
Use your Move action to stay active on the mount, failure results in not being able to do anything that round except hang on.
You occupy the mounts area
You gain a +1 bonus to hit and damage for being on 'higher ground'
If you are thrown, you fall prone and take damage, yes, this is in the Ride section...
Etc.

The usual rules for climbing can be applied for lots of stuff here.
Lose your Dex mod.. which means no AoO's. IIRC this also means you do not threaten any squares.
Climb checks for movement.. with penalties for not using both hands.
Etc..

Personally I would rule that a 'mounted' character threatens the mount and can be used as the other side of a flanking manuever by other characters, but cannot gain the flanking benefit themselves.

I kinda like the visual of a PC climbing up on top of the BBEG and slamming home a two handed stroke with a Great Axe...

I will have to go look at the book sometime....

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I think this merits a slight correction. Since characters can use an attack to start a grapple and get iterative grapple attempts based on BAB, I would think that it's an attack action rather than an independent standard action.

Ah, yes, good point. An attack action.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Lose your Dex mod.. which means no AoO's. IIRC this also means you do not threaten any squares.

I don't think that's quite the case.

Flat-footed characters cannot make AoOs (barring Combat Reflexes).

Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. You can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) while flat-footed. Barbarians and rogues have the uncanny dodge extraordinary ability, which allows them to avoid losing their Dexterity bonus to AC due to being flat-footed.
A flat-footed character can’t make attacks of opportunity.

People who are denied their Dex bonus are not flat-footed, however.

Moreover, being denied your Dex bonus does not prevent you from threatening squares:

Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity.

If being flat-footed prevented you from threatening squares, then there would be no need for the additional text at the end of the flat-footed rules specifying that you can't make AoOs, since you can only make an AoO into squares that you threaten. Combat Reflexes merely relaxes the stricture on making AoOs, since it does not need to give you the ability to threaten squares.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

The usual rules for climbing can be applied for lots of stuff here.
Lose your Dex mod.. which means no AoO's. IIRC this also means you do not threaten any squares.
Climb checks for movement.. with penalties for not using both hands.
Etc..

Not only do you not lose your Dex modifier while performing this maneuver, but the giant you climb onto takes a -4 penalty to hit you. So this maneuver has very little in common with ordinary climbing, mechanically.

 

[Amarylis_Fastfoot]

Thank you all,

since my character rely on sneak attack to do most part of her damage, I guess I won't be staying on the giant since I loose my flanking possibility. But I may climb anyway to get the -4 to hit from the giant (and to piss him off a little) and then get down on my next initiative to wack him in da nuts !

Exact description of the maneuver goes like this :

"Climb aboard : To use this maneuver, you must move adjacent to a foe at least two size categories larger than you. In the following round, you may make a DC 10 Climb check as a free action to clamber onto the creature's back or limbs (you move into one of the squares the creature occupies). The creature you're standing on takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls against you, because it can strike at you only awkwardly. If the creature moves during its action, you move along with it. The creature can try to shake you off by making a grapple check opposed by your Climb check. If the creature succeeds, you wind up in a random adjacent square."

There is so many things in that feats that goes against normal rules that it makes it kinda hard to rule... I might email Wizards of the coast someday...

Amarylis