...can someone attack ONLY the swarm and NOT the creature being swarmed?
This came up when I was running Candlekeep Mysteries, and I made a spot-ruling that:
a. you can make an attack roll with disadvantage to carefully try and hit only the swarm, or
b. you can make an attack roll regularly, and if you roll 12 or higher (the swarm's AC) but lower than 16 (the swarmed PC's AC), then you damage only the swarm. But if you roll 16 or higher, then you damage both the swarm and the swarmed character.
I thought it was a reasonable ruling, and the players agreed, so we went with it. But is there an official way to rule that situation? Can a character simply make a regular attack roll to only hit the swarm and not worry about hitting the creature being swarmed?
As written, swarms apply no additional combat penalties. Personally I house rule them as being Resistant to single target damage and Vulnerable to area damage, which is inconvenient when they share a space with a friendly target.
Rules as written, there is nothing preventing a creature from targeting either the swarm or the creature being swarmed with no possibility of damaging whichever is not being targeted.
In this case, you are probably picturing a swarm of creatures that completely covers the target conforming to its skin rather than a carpet of crawling insects that partially surround the target. In the first case, it is hard to imagine attacking the swarm without damaging a the creature targeted by the swarm while in the latter case it is easy to picture stomping on the parts of the swarm that aren't on the target. Alternatively, both the target and the attacker could be constantly knocking members of the swarm off the target and attacking them on the ground with no risk to the target.
But if you roll 16 or higher, then you damage both the swarm and the swarmed character.
This doesn't make any sense. The higher the roll, the more "on target" an attack is presumed to be. That is why if you roll the highest possible (20) it is an auto-hit and double damage ('crit'). This rule means that a barely-accurate (just a 12 or 13) strike at the swarm that almost misses, is less likely to hit the person being swarmed, than a critical perfect strike (a 20), which would not only hit the other character but, presumably, for 2x damage. I can't get on board with that.
If you're going to rule that there is a chance to hit the PC as well as the swarm, I would rule that a *bad* miss hits the PC -- a nat 1, say. It's "kind of" like a "fumble" (although there are no fumble rules in D&D, and probably shouldn't be). Or if you miss it by more than X (say more than 5) you miss so badly that you hit the other guy.
But to say that the more on-target you are for the swarm, the higher your chance to hit your non-target, makes no sense to me at all.
Personally I say just leave swarms as they are - what Lyxen said.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
But if you roll 16 or higher, then you damage both the swarm and the swarmed character.
This doesn't make any sense. The higher the roll, the more "on target" an attack is presumed to be. That is why if you roll the highest possible (20) it is an auto-hit and double damage ('crit'). This rule means that a barely-accurate (just a 12 or 13) strike at the swarm that almost misses, is less likely to hit the person being swarmed, than a critical perfect strike (a 20), which would not only hit the other character but, presumably, for 2x damage. I can't get on board with that.
If you're going to rule that there is a chance to hit the PC as well as the swarm, I would rule that a *bad* miss hits the PC -- a nat 1, say. It's "kind of" like a "fumble" (although there are no fumble rules in D&D, and probably shouldn't be). Or if you miss it by more than X (say more than 5) you miss so badly that you hit the other guy.
This is what I do with monsters that somehow attach themselves or otherwise get all up in a PC's business. Higher rolls are on target, mid-level rolls may hit or miss, and low rolls hit the PC. But this kind of mechanic needs to be considered when determining the threat level of the creature/swarm. If you're using CR as written to design your encounters, adding this kind of thing to a swarm could make a battle more deadly than you intended. It does make swarms scarier and more annoying though, which I am all for.
Like most things I feel like this is very situational and entirely dependent on how your players react to the situation you presented.
What kind of Swarm? Insects? Rats? I really like the idea of single target resistance and multi target vulnerability, however rats may be big enough to effectively swing a sword at where insects... that seems unreasonable.
Are they trying to be careful to not hit the the creature that the swarm is swarming? No? Maybe roll against both creatures AC, the swarm and the swarmed creature. Hitting both on a high roll but only hitting one if only one AC was met. If they are being careful to not damage the other creature, I really like the scaling DC from their roll to hit. High roll, only hits the swarm, higher roll, hitting both, really low roll, hits only the swarmed creature.
I really don't see any bad idea's here, more just different rulings based on how the players react. In fact, I think I'm going to take these and add them to my DM tool kit for future rulings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I dream, I dream of a better future. When I build, I build with many hands. When I speak, I speak with many voices.
We are all a collaboration of our experiences and surroundings. Let them be positive.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
...can someone attack ONLY the swarm and NOT the creature being swarmed?
This came up when I was running Candlekeep Mysteries, and I made a spot-ruling that:
a. you can make an attack roll with disadvantage to carefully try and hit only the swarm, or
b. you can make an attack roll regularly, and if you roll 12 or higher (the swarm's AC) but lower than 16 (the swarmed PC's AC), then you damage only the swarm. But if you roll 16 or higher, then you damage both the swarm and the swarmed character.
I thought it was a reasonable ruling, and the players agreed, so we went with it. But is there an official way to rule that situation? Can a character simply make a regular attack roll to only hit the swarm and not worry about hitting the creature being swarmed?
As written, swarms apply no additional combat penalties. Personally I house rule them as being Resistant to single target damage and Vulnerable to area damage, which is inconvenient when they share a space with a friendly target.
Rules as written, there is nothing preventing a creature from targeting either the swarm or the creature being swarmed with no possibility of damaging whichever is not being targeted.
In this case, you are probably picturing a swarm of creatures that completely covers the target conforming to its skin rather than a carpet of crawling insects that partially surround the target. In the first case, it is hard to imagine attacking the swarm without damaging a the creature targeted by the swarm while in the latter case it is easy to picture stomping on the parts of the swarm that aren't on the target. Alternatively, both the target and the attacker could be constantly knocking members of the swarm off the target and attacking them on the ground with no risk to the target.
This doesn't make any sense. The higher the roll, the more "on target" an attack is presumed to be. That is why if you roll the highest possible (20) it is an auto-hit and double damage ('crit'). This rule means that a barely-accurate (just a 12 or 13) strike at the swarm that almost misses, is less likely to hit the person being swarmed, than a critical perfect strike (a 20), which would not only hit the other character but, presumably, for 2x damage. I can't get on board with that.
If you're going to rule that there is a chance to hit the PC as well as the swarm, I would rule that a *bad* miss hits the PC -- a nat 1, say. It's "kind of" like a "fumble" (although there are no fumble rules in D&D, and probably shouldn't be). Or if you miss it by more than X (say more than 5) you miss so badly that you hit the other guy.
But to say that the more on-target you are for the swarm, the higher your chance to hit your non-target, makes no sense to me at all.
Personally I say just leave swarms as they are - what Lyxen said.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
You can give swarms the Damage Transfer trait (seen on Rug of Smothering) but expect to recompute its CR.
This is what I do with monsters that somehow attach themselves or otherwise get all up in a PC's business. Higher rolls are on target, mid-level rolls may hit or miss, and low rolls hit the PC. But this kind of mechanic needs to be considered when determining the threat level of the creature/swarm. If you're using CR as written to design your encounters, adding this kind of thing to a swarm could make a battle more deadly than you intended. It does make swarms scarier and more annoying though, which I am all for.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Like most things I feel like this is very situational and entirely dependent on how your players react to the situation you presented.
What kind of Swarm? Insects? Rats? I really like the idea of single target resistance and multi target vulnerability, however rats may be big enough to effectively swing a sword at where insects... that seems unreasonable.
Are they trying to be careful to not hit the the creature that the swarm is swarming? No? Maybe roll against both creatures AC, the swarm and the swarmed creature. Hitting both on a high roll but only hitting one if only one AC was met. If they are being careful to not damage the other creature, I really like the scaling DC from their roll to hit. High roll, only hits the swarm, higher roll, hitting both, really low roll, hits only the swarmed creature.
I really don't see any bad idea's here, more just different rulings based on how the players react. In fact, I think I'm going to take these and add them to my DM tool kit for future rulings.
When I dream, I dream of a better future. When I build, I build with many hands. When I speak, I speak with many voices.
We are all a collaboration of our experiences and surroundings. Let them be positive.