What would casting Grease on a swarm do?

[Kelleris]

Actually, it is a very good example. If a PC has a swarm of Centipedes all over him, why in the world would they "fall down" if the PC does not fall down?

My point, as IanB recognized, is that it doesn't matter one bit who's prone in your example. If the character's prone and the swarm isn't, if the swarm's prone and the character isn't, if both are prone or if neither are prone - the exact same thing happens until one of them tries to move to another square.

And, as I said, I can see how a swarm of fine creatures might be slowed down a bit by having to slurm through an inch or two of sludge. And that slowing is the only effect that being prone has on a swarm.

EDIT - Actually, a swarm of large enough creatures getting their footing would provoke an attack of opportunity. I have little problem with a swarm of cats caught on a greased floor making for some rather humorous target practice until they can find their footing, and the centipede example remains unchanged.

 

[lukelightning]

Isn't greased rat swarm a dwarven delicacy?

 

[the Jester]

Isn't greased rat swarm a dwarven delicacy?

I think you just made it one, at least in my campaign.

 

[KarinsDad]

My point, as IanB recognized, is that it doesn't matter one bit who's prone in your example. If the character's prone and the swarm isn't, if the swarm's prone and the character isn't, if both are prone or if neither are prone - the exact same thing happens until one of them tries to move to another square.

Except that both of you are incorrect.

Swarms are vulnerable to torches and flaming blades.

If they are prone, an opponent has +4 to hit.

So, whether they fall down or not is relevant to the discussion. And, if the entire swarm "falls down", it becomes nonsensical that they could both be prone and be swarming a PC at the same time if the PC does not fall down as well.

And, as I said, I can see how a swarm of fine creatures might be slowed down a bit by having to slurm through an inch or two of sludge. And that slowing is the only effect that being prone has on a swarm.

Where exactly does the Grease spell indicate how thick it is?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

In this case, one must remember that RAW is based on generalizations of pretend physics across a broad base of potentials.

The condition Prone does not need to have anything with the pretend physics of falling to the ground. It merely places limitations on the characters actions. With Swarms, this equates to forcing it to take a moment of time to readjust before moving coherently at full speed again.

With Cats and Spiders, this is fairly obvious. WIth Centipede's, the decriptive text to go along with it has to be a bit different in order to have players not react with a 'WTF?'

{edit.. slow typist..}
If the PC stays standing, then the swarm nibbles at the PC's ankles.. same mechanical effect.

But yes, attacks against them are at +4.. say its because they are busily not cohesive..or whatever flavor text you like.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The condition Prone does not need to have anything with the pretend physics of falling to the ground. It merely places limitations on the characters actions.

We already have a great example of this in swarms.

Being in the same square as three hundred cats can impose the 'Nauseated' condition.

Does this mean cats make people throw up? Or just restrict them to a move action each round?

-Hyp.

 

[Kelleris]

Well, a slight quibble, but "immune to weapon damage" arguably negates the extra fire damage dealt by a flaming weapon or a torch - if so, your supposed counter doesn't work. Even if the "immune to fire damage" thing doesn't cover it, flaming weapons and torches only affect a discrete number of targets, and that also makes a swarm immune to them. But I'll leave that aside since it's not perfectly solid ground to argue from.

Hmm... I still think your example is not much good, but it'll be more productive to start over. I think we can all agree that the RAW doesn't have a black-and-white answer to whether or not a swarm can be prone or not. We're both extrapolating from what's given to what we think is reasonable. I think it makes sense that a swarm can suffer the effects of being prone in unusual circumstance, and I think that grease is such a circumstance. You think it's ridiculous to apply the effects of being prone to a swarm.

I'll assume that you think greasing a swarm of cats would be effective, since greasing a whole bunch of cats makes about as much sense as greasing a single cat (and we know that's possible). I hope you don't think the idea of the cats moving on top of each other to form a pontoon bridge across the grease is very plausible, especially since 300 cats in a 10-foot square doesn't make for very much depth of feline. The pressing issue is the centipede swarm and others like it.

Let's check out exactly what those effects are.

Prone: The character is on the ground. An attacker who is prone has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow). A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks, but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.

Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

Lets go through these effects one by one and see if a reasonable interpretation of the grease spell would allow them.

1) "The creature is on the ground."

That's borderline flavor text, to my mind. I'm okay with stipulating that the swarm aggregate has a somewhat lower profile when prone than when not prone - the bottom row of critters (not that they travel stacked on one another like legos anyway, but...) is churning and trying to keep its footing, so the whole mass is a little lower to the ground than usual.

2) "An attacker who is prone has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls."

Swarms never make melee attack rolls, so this one's irrelevant.

3) "and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow)."

Swarms never use weapons of any kind, as far as I know. Some of them have natural ranged attacks, true, but that's not a ranged weapon so this restriction does not apply.

4) "A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks"

Now here's a quirky one. How to justify a +4 bonus to a greased swarm's armor class against ranged attacks? Well, a bunch of slippery cats is liable to be harder to peg with an arrow, I suppose, and a smaller swarm doesn't care about ranged attacks anyway. Even stuff like polar rays, I might add, since ray spells only affect a discrete number of targets. So this effect of being prone is either irrelevant or doesn't pose a logical problem (in the greased kittens case).

5) "but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks."

Again, this one may or may not be relevant. I'll assume for the sake of argument that a character's chance to hit a swarm with a flaming weapon actually matters. To me, this looks like a natural effect of a swarm trying to "pull itself together" - it's not like the swarm travels stacked neatly in rows, after all. The bottom-most centipedes are going to be slipping around in the grease spell and creating confusion for the top-most centipedes when the whole group "wants" to move as a whole. But those topmost centipedes that are already in a characters clothes and hair aren't really going to be affected - they'll keep chewing away independently and dealing swarm damage unless the whole swarm decides to move away as a whole, at which time the fact that the creatures that are actually touching the ground and providing impetus for the swarm's movement are unable to get traction and are creating a lot of confusion in the lower swarm-ranks becomes a pressing issue. Which takes us to the next pronely condition...

6) "Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity."

Well, for starters we know that a swarm can provoke attacks of opportunity when it moves to do something - all swarms automatically provoke and AoO when they move into your square, it's in their creature subtype description.

So let's envision the situation on a failed Reflex save (if the swarm makes its save, what are we arguing about, after all?). The centipedes closest to the bottom are having some real difficulties - they can't get a footing, and when they try to go up higher they just push down more centipedes that can't do anything more than pedal their little legs ineffectually. The whole mass decides to start moving forward, but darn it those under-centipedes are confusing the whole issue with their flailing and their inability to move along the ground. So the swarm as a whole takes a second or two to sort things out, and leaves itself vulnerable for a bit as it reorganizes itself to get across the grease. This provokes an attack of opportunity. Makes sense - the swarm has to fumble around for a bit to find the "configuration" that gets it across the slime. It's just (literally) for a couple of seconds, and the swarm doesn't really care about the attack of opportunity since it's immune to weapon damage.

A couple of seconds of fumbling later, the swarm has "figured out" a way across the slime and moves out of the area to continue its nibblings elsewhere.

Now, to me there's nothing ludicrous about this example or any of the effects of being prone as applied to the swarm. I suppose you might think differently, and I can see that too, but please refrain from saying that the "grease affects a swarm" position is completely nonsensical. Remember in my first post I said that I would make the call depending on which option led to the most interesting situation, and then stick to that call for the rest of the campaign. I still think that's the best solution, since both the pro-grease and anti-grease positions are pretty intelligible.

And now for the last bit...

Where exactly does the Grease spell indicate how thick it is?

It doesn't, it just says that it produces "a layer." You could take that to mean anything from a molecule-thin coating of teflon to a good solid inch of bacon grease. I've always taken it to be the later, because it's a cooler visual and because the spell's material component is "a bit of pork rind or butter." But you could call it either way, really.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, a slight quibble, but "immune to weapon damage" arguably negates the extra fire damage dealt by a flaming weapon or a torch - if so, your supposed counter doesn't work. Even if the "immune to fire damage" thing doesn't cover it, flaming weapons and torches only affect a discrete number of targets, and that also makes a swarm immune to them. But I'll leave that aside since it's not perfectly solid ground to argue from.

It is solid ground.

1) MM page 237, Vulnerabilities of Swarms:

“A lit torch …
“A weapon with a special ability such as flaming or frost …
“A lit lantern …

2) MM page 237 – 240, Bat, Rat and Spider swarms are not immune to weapon damage.

You can affect swarms with certain types of melee and missile attacks.

Hmm... I still think your example is not much good, but it'll be more productive to start over. I think we can all agree that the RAW doesn't have a black-and-white answer to whether or not a swarm can be prone or not.

Agreed. It merely implies it with no Trip, no Grapple, no Bullrush, and the fact that creatures in a swarm crawl over themselves. Not black and white, but a dark shade of gray.

We're both extrapolating from what's given to what we think is reasonable.

Again, agreed.

I think it makes sense that a swarm can suffer the effects of being prone in unusual circumstance, and I think that grease is such a circumstance. You think it's ridiculous to apply the effects of being prone to a swarm.

I think based on what a swarm is, it should be relatively unaffected by certain effects of certain spells. I think the designers were not able to list all of those effects, so they did what was reasonable (not affected by limited creature spells).

I'll assume that you think greasing a swarm of cats would be effective, since greasing a whole bunch of cats makes about as much sense as greasing a single cat (and we know that's possible).

Not with a Grease spell. Nowhere does it state that grease gets on the creatures touching the surface or object. For all we know, the grease on the object or surface stays put since that is the area of effect, not the creature.

Greasing up even a single cat is an assumption on your part not supported by RAW.

Let's check out exactly what those effects are.

Lets go through these effects one by one and see if a reasonable interpretation of the grease spell would allow them.

1) "The creature is on the ground."

That's borderline flavor text, to my mind. I'm okay with stipulating that the swarm aggregate has a somewhat lower profile when prone than when not prone - the bottom row of critters (not that they travel stacked on one another like legos anyway, but...) is churning and trying to keep its footing, so the whole mass is a little lower to the ground than usual.

The quote from the PHB (page 311) is "Lying on the ground".

An important distinction.

I realize that the DMG states "The creature is on the ground", but in the same section, it also talks about standing back up.

I doubt you will attempt to indicate that prone creatures are actually standing.

So, a prone swarm by defintion is not standing and based on size, cannot really reach the creature it is supposed to be swarming (except the boot leather of the creature in the case of fine).

Prone is not a mental condition or off balance or any such thing. It is falling off your feet.

Either the entire swarm is prone, or it is not.

Does it REALLY make sense to you that the entire swarm (all 1500 centipedes) would be prone if the surface under some of the swarm gets slippery?

2) "An attacker who is prone has a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls."

Swarms never make melee attack rolls, so this one's irrelevant.

3) "and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow)."

Swarms never use weapons of any kind, as far as I know. Some of them have natural ranged attacks, true, but that's not a ranged weapon so this restriction does not apply.

4) "A defender who is prone gains a +4 bonus to Armor Class against ranged attacks"

Now here's a quirky one. How to justify a +4 bonus to a greased swarm's armor class against ranged attacks? Well, a bunch of slippery cats is liable to be harder to peg with an arrow, I suppose, and a smaller swarm doesn't care about ranged attacks anyway. Even stuff like polar rays, I might add, since ray spells only affect a discrete number of targets. So this effect of being prone is either irrelevant or doesn't pose a logical problem (in the greased kittens case).

Based on your words here, I guess it is hard to justify, even though you tried to squirm out of it.

How about the Flaming arrow? According to RAW, the flame portion of it affects all swarms and even the damage portion of it can affect Bats, Rats, or Spiders. In fact, with a powerful enough arrow, you could wipe out an entire Bat, Rat, or Spider swarm. It only takes 26 points of damage for most single Bat or Rat swarms and only 9 points for the Spider swarm.

5) "but takes a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks."

Again, this one may or may not be relevant. I'll assume for the sake of argument that a character's chance to hit a swarm with a flaming weapon actually matters. To me, this looks like a natural effect of a swarm trying to "pull itself together" - it's not like the swarm travels stacked neatly in rows, after all. The bottom-most centipedes are going to be slipping around in the grease spell and creating confusion for the top-most centipedes when the whole group "wants" to move as a whole. But those topmost centipedes that are already in a characters clothes and hair aren't really going to be affected - they'll keep chewing away independently and dealing swarm damage unless the whole swarm decides to move away as a whole, at which time the fact that the creatures that are actually touching the ground and providing impetus for the swarm's movement are unable to get traction and are creating a lot of confusion in the lower swarm-ranks becomes a pressing issue. Which takes us to the next pronely condition...

But others can make a melee attack against them and damage them. Not irrelevant.

6) "Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity."

Well, for starters we know that a swarm can provoke attacks of opportunity when it moves to do something - all swarms automatically provoke and AoO when they move into your square, it's in their creature subtype description.

So let's envision the situation on a failed Reflex save (if the swarm makes its save, what are we arguing about, after all?). The centipedes closest to the bottom are having some real difficulties - they can't get a footing, and when they try to go up higher they just push down more centipedes that can't do anything more than pedal their little legs ineffectually. The whole mass decides to start moving forward, but darn it those under-centipedes are confusing the whole issue with their flailing and their inability to move along the ground. So the swarm as a whole takes a second or two to sort things out, and leaves itself vulnerable for a bit as it reorganizes itself to get across the grease. This provokes an attack of opportunity. Makes sense - the swarm has to fumble around for a bit to find the "configuration" that gets it across the slime. It's just (literally) for a couple of seconds, and the swarm doesn't really care about the attack of opportunity since it's immune to weapon damage.

A couple of seconds of fumbling later, the swarm has "figured out" a way across the slime and moves out of the area to continue its nibblings elsewhere.

Now, to me there's nothing ludicrous about this example or any of the effects of being prone as applied to the swarm. I suppose you might think differently, and I can see that too, but please refrain from saying that the "grease affects a swarm" position is completely nonsensical. Remember in my first post I said that I would make the call depending on which option led to the most interesting situation, and then stick to that call for the rest of the campaign. I still think that's the best solution, since both the pro-grease and anti-grease positions are pretty intelligible.

I was not saying the pro-Grease position was nonsensical. I was saying that Prone swarms are nonsensical based on what a swarm is (even if half of them fall on their backsides, the other half is still standing). Please don't state that I have said things that I have not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not with a Grease spell. Nowhere does it state that grease gets on the creatures touching the surface or object. For all we know, the grease on the object or surface stays put since that is the area of effect, not the creature.

Greasing up even a single cat is an assumption on your part not supported by RAW.

I don't think he means "Target the cat with the Grease spell to make it greasy".

I'm assuming he means that we know that a single cat in the area of a Grease spell can fall prone as a result of the spell, so why not three hundred of them?

So, a prone swarm by defintion is not standing and based on size, cannot really reach the creature it is supposed to be swarming (except the boot leather of the creature in the case of fine).

If a swarm of centipedes occupy the same square as a beholder, is the beholder subject to the swarm attack and distraction?

If the swarm attack requires someone to have hundreds of centipedes crawling on them, why are there no centipedes crawling on them when they take a five foot step away?

-Hyp.

 

[Kelleris]

It is solid ground.

Not solid ground for me. I don't much care what it is for you.

Though, oddly enough, the SRD doesn't contain the text you cite in the subtype description. That's some weird organization. And according to my SRD, bat and spider swarms are both immune to weapon damage.

Agreed. It merely implies it with no Trip, no Grapple, no Bullrush, and the fact that creatures in a swarm crawl over themselves. Not black and white, but a dark shade of gray... I think based on what a swarm is, it should be relatively unaffected by certain effects of certain spells. I think the designers were not able to list all of those effects, so they did what was reasonable (not affected by limited creature spells).

I'm not sure why they couldn't take an extra two words to say that swarms cannot be rendered prone, especially since they took a paragraph to note the special wind vulnerability and I think grease would come up about as often, but whatever. And, by a really literal interpretation of the RAW, you're wrong anyway - the swarm isn't immune to the effect, so it's affected normally.

Not with a Grease spell. Nowhere does it state that grease gets on the creatures touching the surface or object. For all we know, the grease on the object or surface stays put since that is the area of effect, not the creature.

Greasing up even a single cat is an assumption on your part not supported by RAW.

Okay, two points:

A) A "greased cat" is one that has failed a Reflex save and fallen.

B) So the spell conjures a layer of grease that is them immobile? I think that's an odd interpretation, and doesn't fit terribly well with other conjuration (creation) effects either. But, since what I'm really arguing is that you could call it either way depending on how you think it should go in a particular situation, I think it's worth noting that there are a lot of "for all we know"s in both of our descriptions.

The quote from the PHB (page 311) is "Lying on the ground".

An important distinction.

I realize that the DMG states "The creature is on the ground", but in the same section, it also talks about standing back up.

I doubt you will attempt to indicate that prone creatures are actually standing.

If I think the effects of proneness can be applied to a creature standing, then yeah, I have no problem with that. I doubt I'd ever have reason too, but I think that applying the prone bonuses and penalties to a swarm in the case is reasonable.

As Hypersmurf indicated, we already have an example of this sort of thing in the case of the swarm nausea - do your characters vomit in the presence of large numbers of cats? They might, but I don't think you stipulate that everyone in a swarm and nauseated is "suffering stomach distress", especially since there are creatures that are affected by nausea that don't even have stomachs (elementals, for example, don't eat but are affected normally by nausea).

Based on your words here, I guess it is hard to justify, even though you tried to squirm out of it.

How about the Flaming arrow? According to RAW, the flame portion of it affects all swarms and even the damage portion of it can affect Bats, Rats, or Spiders. In fact, with a powerful enough arrow, you could wipe out an entire Bat, Rat, or Spider swarm. It only takes 26 points of damage for most single Bat or Rat swarms and only 9 points for the Spider swarm.

Actually, I find the possibility of eliminating a 10-foot swarm of several hundred insects with one arrow to be significantly more goofy than the possibility of applying the prone effects to the swarm if it's in a greased area.

But yeah, this is the hardest one to justify. I just don't think it's a deal-breaker if you're inclined to say that a swarm can be rendered effectively prone.

But others can make a melee attack against them and damage them. Not irrelevant.

Good, we agree!

Again, this one may or may not be relevant. I'll assume for the sake of argument that a character's chance to hit a swarm with a flaming weapon actually matters.

I was not saying the pro-Grease position was nonsensical. I was saying that Prone swarms are nonsensical based on what a swarm is (even if half of them fall on their backsides, the other half is still standing). Please don't state that I have said things that I have not.

Considering that by "pro-grease position" I meant the people that take a swarm to be pronable, and considering that that's exactly what I've been arguing those whole time I don't think I'm the one guilty of misinterpretation in this instance.