Wild Empathy and Swarms

[Vegepygmy]

One at a time - it does talk about interacting with the creature for at least 1 minute also. Each requires a separate check.

I disagree. The ability works essentially like a skill check (Diplomacy). If a PC wants to influence a crowd of people, I'm not going to call for a separate Diplomacy check for every individual in the crowd (see DMG II, page 58).

And even if I were, a swarm is treated as a single creature unless there is a specific reason not to do so, and the "immune to any spell or effect" clause doesn't do it, because wild empathy doesn't produce an "effect" as that term is used by the game rules.

effect: One of several possible forms in which a spell or magic effect may manifest. Effect designators include ray, spread, and individual creatures or objects that have been summoned or created. Summoned or created effects appear wherever the caster designates, within the spell's range. A mobile effect (such as a summoned creature) can thereafter move regardless of the spell's range.

Wild empathy is an extraordinary ability; it doesn't produce a magical "effect" to which swarms are immune, even if wild empathy targets a specific number of creatures (which it does not).

More specific than the generic moving text you are quoting since it is specific to the actual ability being described.

Specificity isn't the issue (we all agree that bears and giant lizards are animals). I'm pointing out that the English language doesn't work the way you're claiming. Saying that you can do something to a thing doesn't (in the English language) imply that you can do something to only one thing. "You can break a wooden board with your fist" doesn't in any way suggest that you can't also break two boards with your fist.

 

[irdeggman]

I disagree. The ability works essentially like a skill check (Diplomacy). If a PC wants to influence a crowd of people, I'm not going to call for a separate Diplomacy check for every individual in the crowd (see DMG II, page 58).

But that check is not for changing the attitude of a person - which is specifically what Wild Empathy is used for. In fact the DMG II gives a specific DC (different than the one for changing attitudes) to "direct a crowd".

Specificity isn't the issue (we all agree that bears and giant lizards are animals). I'm pointing out that the English language doesn't work the way you're claiming. Saying that you can do something to a thing doesn't (in the English language) imply that you can do something to only one thing. "You can break a wooden board with your fist" doesn't in any way suggest that you can't also break two boards with your fist.

No the Englaish language works exactly as I'm assuming.

You have given 2 examples to support your argument that apply to entirely different conditions and are saying they work for this one.

Let's look at the entire text for Wild Empathy

From the SRD (not as good as the PHB since it is missing the "example" which serves to clarify the text.

Wild Empathy (Ex): A druid can improve the attitude of an animal. This ability functions just like a Diplomacy check made to improve the attitude of a person. The druid rolls 1d20 and adds her druid level and her Charisma modifier to determine the wild empathy check result.
The typical domestic animal has a starting attitude of indifferent, while wild animals are usually unfriendly.

To use wild empathy, the druid and the animal must be able to study each other, which means that they must be within 30 feet of one another under normal conditions. Generally, influencing an animal in this way takes 1 minute but, as with influencing people, it might take more or less time.

A druid can also use this ability to influence a magical beast with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2, but she takes a –4 penalty on the check.

In multiple places it uses the singular text not the generic or plural text.

From the SRD for Diplomacy

DIPLOMACY (CHA)
Check: You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs. In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

Action: Changing others’ attitudes with Diplomacy generally takes at least 1 full minute (10 consecutive full-round actions). In some situations, this time requirement may greatly increase. A rushed Diplomacy check can be made as a full-round action, but you take a –10 penalty on the check.

Try Again: Optional, but not recommended because retries usually do not work. Even if the initial Diplomacy check succeeds, the other character can be persuaded only so far, and a retry may do more harm than good. If the initial check fails, the other character has probably become more firmly committed to his position, and a retry is futile.

Special: A half-elf has a +2 racial bonus on Diplomacy checks.
If you have the Negotiator feat, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.
Synergy: If you have 5 or more ranks in Bluff, Knowledge (nobility and royalty), or Sense Motive, you get a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks.

INFLUENCING NPC ATTITUDES
Use the table below to determine the effectiveness of Diplomacy checks (or Charisma checks) made to influence the attitude of a nonplayer character, or wild empathy checks made to influence the attitude of an animal or magical beast.

Diplomacy to change the attitude of a person can be used on multiple people but the check is made on an individual basis.


Also note that the initial attitude of a swarm must be considered "Hostile" since it will "attack" instead of "mislead, or avoid" (which is Unfriendly.

The DC to change the attitude of a Hostile creature is 20 to go to unfriendly

 

[Vegepygmy]

In multiple places it uses the singular text not the generic or plural text.

The number of times the text uses "a/an" is utterly irrelevant, because "a/an" doesn't imply what you think it does, so its repetition doesn't reinforce your conclusion.

But I can see I will not be able to convince you, so I won't argue the point any further.

 

[frankthedm]

Also note that the initial attitude of a swarm must be considered "Hostile" since it will "attack" instead of "mislead, or avoid" (which is Unfriendly.

I beg to differ there. The "Socially expected interaction" is that a hungry creature tries to eat prey. Hostility is hardly part of the equation.

 

[irdeggman]

I beg to differ there. The "Socially expected interaction" is that a hungry creature tries to eat prey. Hostility is hardly part of the equation.

PHB pg 72 Influencing NPC Attitudes - table sidebar at the bottom of the page

Columns read Attitude / Means / Possible Actions

Hostile / Will take risks to hurt you / Attack, interfere, berate, flee

Unfriendly / Wishes you ill / Mislead, gossip, avoid, watch suspiciously, insult

Now MM pg 238 under Hellwasp Swarm

Like any swarm, a hellwasp swarm seeks to surround and attack any living prey it encounters. A swarm deals 3d6 points of damage to any creature whose space it occupies at the end of its move.

Now I don't like that this seemingly swarm trait is included in the entry of a specific swarm type and not in the generic swarm description - but the text is clear that any swarm seeks to surround and attack any living prey it encounters.

Automatically attacking clearly falls under the desription fo "Hostile" for attitudes. And NPC attitudes is what we are talking about here since that is specifically what Wild Empathy affects.

Now under Wild Empathy it states that typically wild animals are unfriendly - but that is very situation specific. Swarms automatically attack the nearest creature, wolves may or may not attack depending on how hungry they are - the same with most wild animals. But per the D&D definitions for attitude if a creature is going to attack then it is considered "Hostile" towards you.

 

[Dross]

Now I don't like that this seemingly swarm trait is included in the entry of a specific swarm type and not in the generic swarm description - but the text is clear that any swarm seeks to surround and attack any living prey it encounters.

Maybe, but given that the trait is mentioned in a SPECIFIC swarm's trait, might this be an exception to the general rule? I'm not up with swarms, but I'd think that maybe if it was mentioned in several other swarm traits then this could be a point for you. It's possible that the creator of this swarm assumed something they should not have. But that leaves RAI (with a couple of assumptions), not RAW.

Also, the use of PREY is probably the real kicker. If they are hungry and are going to attack, animal empathy does not do any good (can you rush AE?).

If they are not hungry, you are not considered prey and thus could use AE. That is how I'd rule it, but I don't think I'm following RAW but "a cool thing to do that kinda follows the spirit of RAI and the druid theme in general"

I'm also wary of tying Dip to AE to closely, otherwise AE would have a note saying "See Diplomacy Skill" or be folded up into Dip and the Druid entry have "You can use Dip on animals."

 

[irdeggman]

Maybe, but given that the trait is mentioned in a SPECIFIC swarm's trait, might this be an exception to the general rule? I'm not up with swarms, but I'd think that maybe if it was mentioned in several other swarm traits then this could be a point for you. It's possible that the creator of this swarm assumed something they should not have. But that leaves RAI (with a couple of assumptions), not RAW.

It would except for the statement "like any swarm" which makes it apply to "all swarms" not just this one.


There are other places in WotC rules that gave the generic included in what would be a specific location - so I guess it is not totally unseuspected that it would be the cse to include a generic rule within a specific. It is, though not logical.