Stirges grapple their targets at +12...

[eyelessgame]

I'm reasonably fluent at this point with the grapple rules. But I just attacked a low-level party with stirges and I don't think the stirge's attach power is written very clearly.

If a stirge hits with a touch attack, it uses its eight pincers to latch on to the opponent's body. An attached stirge is effectively grappling its prey... Stirges have a +12 special bonus on grapple checks... An attached stirge can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself. To remove an attached stirge through grappling, the opponent must achieve a pin against the stirge.

In the stat block stirges have a grapple of "-11 / +1 when attached".

The problem was that we couldn't envision how a stirge really counts as grappling in all the ways grappling works. The sorcerer, with a stirge attached, couldn't cast a magic missile on it, because he was grappled. He couldn't take a move action to walk over to the cleric without first winning a grapple check, which he made at a disadvantage compared with this cat-sized creature that was attached and draining his blood.

I know I can houserule it. I just wanted to know if I'm missing something. Perhaps the +12 ought to be "only to resist being removed", instead of being a bonus to all grapple checks while being attached. Or perhaps the special +12 should come with a proviso "The stirge's grapple check is at +12, but the target does not count as being grappled, in the same way that a creature may choose to roll grapple checks at -20 to grapple without being grappled."

Does that make sense to others? Am I misreading it to start with?

 

[Nail]

The +12 is already added into the grapple entry of the Stirge. Don't add another +12 on top of that!!!

 

[Nail]

As for the other bits: The stirge is "effectively grappling its prey". That does NOT mean that the target (the Sorcerer, using your example) is actually grappled by the stirge. The stirge is attached--that's different.

They're just using part of the grapple mechanic. After all, the stirge is actually too small to grapple a medium sized creature.

 

[starwed]

This actually came up in the last session I played in; the DM just house ruled that you don't count as grappling for purposes of moving around and the likes. It's a bit annoying that you can't easily attack them yourself, though.

 

[Nail]

It's a bit annoying that you can't easily attack them yourself, though.

Err?

You've misread the Attach (Ex) entry:

"An attached stirge can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself."

 

[eyelessgame]

As for the other bits: The stirge is "effectively grappling its prey". That does NOT mean that the target (the Sorcerer, using your example) is actually grappled by the stirge. The stirge is attached--that's different.

They're just using part of the grapple mechanic. After all, the stirge is actually too small to grapple a medium sized creature.

While I agree with your conclusions, I think that the rules of English and logic are such that your argument is technically wrong. If X is grappling Y, it follows as a direct logical consequence that Y is being grappled by X. If the stirge is grappling its prey, its prey is being grappled by the stirge.

It is modified by a weaselly adverb, though. It is effectively grappling its prey. That is, the effect of the attach is to grapple. But we generally use the word 'effectively' to mean 'in essence', that is, it's happening in practicality even though in some literal sense it's not.

I don't think there's a way the rule can be read, as written, in a sense other than the stirge, by attaching, grapples its target, which is exactly equivalent to saying the target is grappled by an attached stirge (even if the target is 2+ sizes larger than it -- that's what the extraordinary attach ability of the stirge means, in part). But I think the "effectively" was added with the intention of indicating that this does not mean the target is treated as being grappled in all respects -- but the writeup doesn't go on to say what the exceptions might be.

So I'm left to houserule a gray area, and use common sense (something often foreign to the operation of d20 rules). I think a Concentration check for spellcasting, and ruling that the stirge does not impede movement, is a decent choice.

 

[starwed]

You've misread the Attach (Ex) entry:
"An attached stirge can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself."

But this doesn't supersede the fact that, while grappled, you can only attack with light weapons at a -4 penalty. (And it does make sense; it would be hard to attack a tiny creature attached to your body with a greataxe, for instance. ^_^)

 

[Nail]

But this doesn't supersede the fact that, while grappled, you can only attack with light weapons at a -4 penalty. (And it does make sense; it would be hard to attack a tiny creature attached to your body with a greataxe, for instance. ^_^)

If you are already grappling the attached stirge, why does it say:

"An attached stirge can be struck with a weapon or grappled itself."

You can grapple it? Are you not already grappling with it? Do you need a touch attack to start the grapple? Etc.

And if we're going to agrue from "sense": If the Stirge actually grapples, can't it also pin? Since it can use its attack ability on creatures of small size or larger, that implies that a size tiny stirge could pin a size collossal dragon! Etc.

The Attach ability uses part of the grapple mechanic to function. Hence the modifier "effectively". It need not follow that it uses all of the grapple mechanic.

 

[starwed]

I had read the line you quote as referring to anyone, not just the PC the stirge is attached to.

 

[Stalker0]

Since it can use its attack ability on creatures of small size or larger, that implies that a size tiny stirge could pin a size collossal dragon! Etc.

I agree with Nail's argument. However, with a +1 grapple vs the +40 or something of a collasal dragons, I don't think smog will be losing any sleep over grappling stirges