Wonder if someone can clear up or check my rule understand for Swarm Of Rats.
Setup: The party thief is surrounded by six Swarm of Rats.
With the thief surrounded would
1) Only one Swarm be able to enter the character space as explained by the swarm ability, or could I stack three Swarms in the players' space allowing three attacks
2) The Swarm bite has a reach of 0 ft, so I assume that means the creature has to be in the same space as the thief to make an attack and cannot be in the adjacent space.
The swarm feature, to my reading, just completely turns off the prohibition of entering/stopping in an occupied square, it doesn't have a cap.
Swarm.The swarm can occupy another creature's space and vice versa, and the swarm can move through any opening large enough for a Tiny rat. The swarm can't regain hit points or gain temporary hit points.
I can see the perspective that "another creature" is singular, and thus might imply that a swarm can occupy a square with one and only one other creature... which would probably help cap the danger that multiple swarms present, but that's just not how I play it.
As for reach, yes, swarms only attack the creature whose space they are occupying, they don't attack or threaten adjacent creatures.
The swarm feature, to my reading, just completely turns off the prohibition of entering/stopping in an occupied square, it doesn't have a cap.
Swarm.The swarm can occupy another creature's space and vice versa, and the swarm can move through any opening large enough for a Tiny rat. The swarm can't regain hit points or gain temporary hit points.
I can see the perspective that "another creature" is singular, and thus might imply that a swarm can occupy a square with one and only one other creature... which would probably help cap the danger that multiple swarms present, but that's just not how I play it.
As for reach, yes, swarms only attack the creature whose space they are occupying, they don't attack or threaten adjacent creatures.
So you would allow multiple swarms in the same space as the player?
Sure. I might be tempted to whip up some homebrew on the fly though to make the swarm(s) narratively less confusing for the players... maybe a Swarm of Rats can merge with another Swarm by ending its turn occupying the same square, and have Swarms deal 1d6 damage per 10 HP they have (rounded down), and allow them to divide as an action on their turn to create a separate swarm in an adjacent square each with half hit points of the original....
Or, just keep 'em seperate creatures but let them occupy the same squares to stack up and devour things, without tinkering under the hood any further.
That is a good point, the swarm growing by carpeting more of the room is just as narratively coherent as the swarm growing by piling into the same square, and still fairly scary...
Hmmm, maybe I'd split the difference and let a swarm pile into a crowded square to make an attack, but then not let them stay there in a super stack, having to move back out into an unoccupied or only-one-creature square to end its movement?
Nice dm. 1 swarm attacks leaving 5 swarms in adjacent squares. Evil DM. Ring around the Thief. 6 swarms attack at different times during the round. Using move, attack, move.
Even with a 16 AC, I think I could get some hits with the Swarm if I 'carpet bombed' her with all six, so I may start my attack with three and if I miss on all of them I'll add one or two to ramp up the 'terror'. While I want to be a fair DM as I never like being the diabolical DM behind the screen laughing at their troubles I also do not want to give the fight away so I hope players get creative with this encounter.
Up to you, but then why 3 ? If it's hitting that worries you, you could replace that with a swarm of dire rats, give them a greater bonus to hit, decide that they have advantage for some reason. etc.
That's a valid point. The encounter has already started, I stopped the game with the thief surrounded by the rats (a 1 vs 6), so switching out creatures has passed. My OP question was to make sure I understood how the Swarm worked. As for three, that was just the number that popped into my head no true rational and subject to change.
1) RAW, you can likely stack the rats if you want to. A swarm can occupy another creature's space and it doesn't limit whether that creature is the only creature in the space. It could be read either way so ultimately it is up to what the DM wants to do. As DM, I would allow rat stacking honestly since they are not intelligent and would likely swarm the target even if other rats were present. I might decide to use the 1/2 hit point stats for the attack roll and damage though for the additional ones just to reflect the density of rats in the space and the difficulty they might have reaching the target.
2) What level is the surrounded rogue? 6 swarms of rats can be a significant threat to low level adventurers. I just had some level 4 characters knocked to zero hit points fighting swarms of spiders due to some regular hits combined with a couple of crits.
3) Swarms are resistant to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage (magical or not) which can make them harder to take out.
If the characters are level 5+ then the swarms might be less of a threat but at level 4- they are more of a challenge to eliminate ... 6 swarms and some bad rolls could leave the rogue on the ground ... also, since rats aren't intelligent, they might decide to just keep nibbling on the downed character which might be bad since they get advantage to hit and every hit is considered a crit and causes two failed death saving throws. A couple of hits in that case and the character is dead.
1) RAW, you can likely stack the rats if you want to. A swarm can occupy another creature's space and it doesn't limit whether that creature is the only creature in the space. It could be read either way so ultimately it is up to what the DM wants to do. As DM, I would allow rat stacking honestly since they are not intelligent and would likely swarm the target even if other rats were present. I might decide to use the 1/2 hit point stats for the attack roll and damage though for the additional ones just to reflect the density of rats in the space and the difficulty they might have reaching the target.
2) What level is the surrounded rogue? 6 swarms of rats can be a significant threat to low level adventurers. I just had some level 4 characters knocked to zero hit points fighting swarms of spiders due to some regular hits combined with a couple of crits.
3) Swarms are resistant to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage (magical or not) which can make them harder to take out.
If the characters are level 5+ then the swarms might be less of a threat but at level 4- they are more of a challenge to eliminate ... 6 swarms and some bad rolls could leave the rogue on the ground ... also, since rats aren't intelligent, they might decide to just keep nibbling on the downed character which might be bad since they get advantage to hit and every hit is considered a crit and causes two failed death saving throws. A couple of hits in that case and the character is dead.
As the situation is set, the (4th level Arcane Trickster) Rogue is at the base of a cliff where the four remaining party members (4th level Warlock, Wizard, Monk, Ranger) are 50 feet above. There is the rope the Rogued used to climb down and I'm taking into account she may try to climb back up to the party. Also based on player habits I can come up with a few 'How Character X will play this out." with the remaining four. I've taken into account the B/S/P resistance so I don't feel the encounter will be deadly but definitely will provide a challenge it was just unfortunate that only the rogue decided to climb down the ravine. But that is just the way the game is played so I'm trying to make the most of it and trying to get a better understanding of the Swarm ability.
OK, reading the description again, I don't think they should stack: "The swarm can occupy another creature's space and vice versa". It does not say "any number of other creature's space" or anything of the kind. Moreover, a swarm, in itself, is not one creature, it's a swarm of creatures, so it cannot occupy the same space as another collection of creatures, just another creature, singular. For me, not only is it clear when read RAW, but it goes hand in hand with the feeling that I have that you can only pile rats to a certain depth, whatever it is, and that is what you have with a swarm.
I can see your point on this and here it could be simply I did not read enough into the wording to make that judgment on my own. I guess the avoidance of creating a super-swarm is unspoken but is the general idea of looking at this as a singular swarm. Still, as long as things line up I have the Move/In Creature Space Attack/Move method for the Swarm with one OA by the player. Also since the Bit has a reach of 0 OA by the swarm maybe few for the player to get the distance for a possible spell or ranged attack or even an escape.
The rules routinely use singular language like this to mean “any” or “each.” A classic example may be fireball. Should the caster choose a single target to deal damage to? In contrast, I can think of exactly zero instances where “a” has clearly meant “one” (though if anyone else can, I’d be delighted to know).
If “another creature” meant “one other creature,” they’d have said the latter.
OK, reading the description again, I don't think they should stack: "The swarm can occupy another creature's space and vice versa". It does not say "any number of other creature's space" or anything of the kind. Moreover, a swarm, in itself, is not one creature, it's a swarm of creatures, so it cannot occupy the same space as another collection of creatures, just another creature, singular. For me, not only is it clear when read RAW, but it goes hand in hand with the feeling that I have that you can only pile rats to a certain depth, whatever it is, and that is what you have with a swarm.
I can see your point on this and here it could be simply I did not read enough into the wording to make that judgment on my own. I guess the avoidance of creating a super-swarm is unspoken but is the general idea of looking at this as a singular swarm. Still, as long as things line up I have the Move/In Creature Space Attack/Move method for the Swarm with one OA by the player. Also since the Bit has a reach of 0 OA by the swarm maybe few for the player to get the distance for a possible spell or ranged attack or even an escape.
If the rogue lasts until their turn they can either bonus action disengage and climb the rope/run away or they could bonus action dash and take an op attack or two running away from the swarms .. though if there are more swarms in the ravine that might be an issue. You mentioned being surrounded by 6 swarms, are you playing on an hex grid? On a square grid there are 8 surrounding squares leaving a route of escape that doesn't requiring walking through the square of a surrounding swarm.
OK, reading the description again, I don't think they should stack: "The swarm can occupy another creature's space and vice versa". It does not say "any number of other creature's space" or anything of the kind. Moreover, a swarm, in itself, is not one creature, it's a swarm of creatures, so it cannot occupy the same space as another collection of creatures, just another creature, singular. For me, not only is it clear when read RAW, but it goes hand in hand with the feeling that I have that you can only pile rats to a certain depth, whatever it is, and that is what you have with a swarm.
I can see your point on this and here it could be simply I did not read enough into the wording to make that judgment on my own. I guess the avoidance of creating a super-swarm is unspoken but is the general idea of looking at this as a singular swarm. Still, as long as things line up I have the Move/In Creature Space Attack/Move method for the Swarm with one OA by the player. Also since the Bit has a reach of 0 OA by the swarm maybe few for the player to get the distance for a possible spell or ranged attack or even an escape.
If the rogue lasts until their turn they can either bonus action disengage and climb the rope/run away or they could bonus action dash and take an op attack or two running away from the swarms .. though if there are more swarms in the ravine that might be an issue. You mentioned being surrounded by 6 swarms, are you playing on an hex grid? On a square grid there are 8 surrounding squares leaving a route of escape that doesn't requiring walking through the square of a surrounding swarm.
I'm playing on a square grid. Pretty much six swarms, none hiding. The layout is the Rogue back against the wall with an open space to the left and right while the swarm is in the shape of a pyramid in front and to the sides.
So like this.
S[]R[]S SSS S
So there are open spaces and the ability to retreat if she deems it necessary. Of course, this is all contingent on how the player rolls on their Initiative.
While Off Topic, I think one of my biggest mistakes is not having a firm underlying the word 'meaning' in cases of 'when Rules use X word' it has a deeper meaning than what is on the surface. This is not a complaint just something I need to work on which I know comes from more experience translating the rules and trusting my gut on the ruling. This is why I have a tendency to ask these, 'Hey do I have this right or what's the proper meaning of this rule' questions on the forum.
The rules routinely use singular language like this to mean “any” or “each.” A classic example may be fireball. Should the caster choose a single target to deal damage to? In contrast, I can think of exactly zero instances where “a” has clearly meant “one” (though if anyone else can, I’d be delighted to know).
If “another creature” meant “one other creature,” they’d have said the latter.
5e uses simple plain english, you don't need to have that level of precision
That's exactly my point. You're reading far more precision into the language than is there. In simple, plain English, there is no number defined (articles can't be that meaningful).
in particular when, by default the game considers that there is one creature per space.
And swarms have a specific feature that overrides that default assumption, so I'm not sure what your point is.
In any case, a swarm is not a creature, it's a group of creatures (as per the SAC), so the swarm rule does not apply to other swarms.
If a swarm is a group of creatures, then the swarm rule obviously applies to each member of that group individually, so that doesn't clarify the actual concern.
I want to be clear about something: I'm not saying that "another" means "any." I'm saying that 1) "a" means "each" elsewhere in the rules and that 2) as a point of how the English language works, "another" simply does not convey the necessary information to base such a ruling on its use.
The consequence of not allowing swarms to occupy the space of other swarms is that it makes them immune to one another. A swarm of rats would be unable to fight a swarm of insects, which I think would be counter-intuitive.
However, swarms of friendly like-creatures should probably just merge together like oozes. Two swarms of rats occupying the same space become a single swarm. They can't technically heal, but this would be more like creating a new creature. They would then move as a single swarm with updated hitpoints, other stats would remain the same.
4+ swarms could functionally act like a single "large" swarm with adjusted HP and could attack 4 squares simultaneously, rather than doing extra damage to a single square.
As they say, you can't have half a hole, you can only have a hole that is smaller or larger.
If you're being attacked by a swarm of rats and a swarm of insects, they should probably both occupy the same space, but might suffer a 50% chance of attacking the other swarm instead of the player. (Unless intelligently controlled.)
That said, it's pretty well established that D&D is not a physics simulator, and some rules simply aren't meant to be heavily scrutinized.
It's generally assumed that increasing the number of monsters in an encounter increases the difficulty non-linearly, so if swarms have to "wait in line", then more swarms doesn't really scale appropriately. In fact, a clever player could use one swarm as a defensive ward against the others and make the encounter substantially easier than it ought to be.
Except that that interpretation leaves you unable to attack swarms with Attack Actions, single-target spells, etc., and is clearly not RAI for interacting with swarms as "a creature." I don't think you want to go down that route.
yes - if it's one stat block, it's one creature, though note that a swarm might have special abilities that interact with things like opportunity attacks."
@MikeMearls
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wonder if someone can clear up or check my rule understand for Swarm Of Rats.
Setup: The party thief is surrounded by six Swarm of Rats.
With the thief surrounded would
1) Only one Swarm be able to enter the character space as explained by the swarm ability, or could I stack three Swarms in the players' space allowing three attacks
2) The Swarm bite has a reach of 0 ft, so I assume that means the creature has to be in the same space as the thief to make an attack and cannot be in the adjacent space.
The swarm feature, to my reading, just completely turns off the prohibition of entering/stopping in an occupied square, it doesn't have a cap.
I can see the perspective that "another creature" is singular, and thus might imply that a swarm can occupy a square with one and only one other creature... which would probably help cap the danger that multiple swarms present, but that's just not how I play it.
As for reach, yes, swarms only attack the creature whose space they are occupying, they don't attack or threaten adjacent creatures.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So you would allow multiple swarms in the same space as the player?
I would, absolutely. Swarms of rats should be horrifying.
Sure. I might be tempted to whip up some homebrew on the fly though to make the swarm(s) narratively less confusing for the players... maybe a Swarm of Rats can merge with another Swarm by ending its turn occupying the same square, and have Swarms deal 1d6 damage per 10 HP they have (rounded down), and allow them to divide as an action on their turn to create a separate swarm in an adjacent square each with half hit points of the original....
Or, just keep 'em seperate creatures but let them occupy the same squares to stack up and devour things, without tinkering under the hood any further.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That is a good point, the swarm growing by carpeting more of the room is just as narratively coherent as the swarm growing by piling into the same square, and still fairly scary...
Hmmm, maybe I'd split the difference and let a swarm pile into a crowded square to make an attack, but then not let them stay there in a super stack, having to move back out into an unoccupied or only-one-creature square to end its movement?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Nice dm. 1 swarm attacks leaving 5 swarms in adjacent squares. Evil DM. Ring around the Thief. 6 swarms attack at different times during the round. Using move, attack, move.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Even with a 16 AC, I think I could get some hits with the Swarm if I 'carpet bombed' her with all six, so I may start my attack with three and if I miss on all of them I'll add one or two to ramp up the 'terror'. While I want to be a fair DM as I never like being the diabolical DM behind the screen laughing at their troubles I also do not want to give the fight away so I hope players get creative with this encounter.
That's a valid point. The encounter has already started, I stopped the game with the thief surrounded by the rats (a 1 vs 6), so switching out creatures has passed. My OP question was to make sure I understood how the Swarm worked. As for three, that was just the number that popped into my head no true rational and subject to change.
1) RAW, you can likely stack the rats if you want to. A swarm can occupy another creature's space and it doesn't limit whether that creature is the only creature in the space. It could be read either way so ultimately it is up to what the DM wants to do. As DM, I would allow rat stacking honestly since they are not intelligent and would likely swarm the target even if other rats were present. I might decide to use the 1/2 hit point stats for the attack roll and damage though for the additional ones just to reflect the density of rats in the space and the difficulty they might have reaching the target.
2) What level is the surrounded rogue? 6 swarms of rats can be a significant threat to low level adventurers. I just had some level 4 characters knocked to zero hit points fighting swarms of spiders due to some regular hits combined with a couple of crits.
3) Swarms are resistant to bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage (magical or not) which can make them harder to take out.
If the characters are level 5+ then the swarms might be less of a threat but at level 4- they are more of a challenge to eliminate ... 6 swarms and some bad rolls could leave the rogue on the ground ... also, since rats aren't intelligent, they might decide to just keep nibbling on the downed character which might be bad since they get advantage to hit and every hit is considered a crit and causes two failed death saving throws. A couple of hits in that case and the character is dead.
As the situation is set, the (4th level Arcane Trickster) Rogue is at the base of a cliff where the four remaining party members (4th level Warlock, Wizard, Monk, Ranger) are 50 feet above. There is the rope the Rogued used to climb down and I'm taking into account she may try to climb back up to the party. Also based on player habits I can come up with a few 'How Character X will play this out." with the remaining four. I've taken into account the B/S/P resistance so I don't feel the encounter will be deadly but definitely will provide a challenge it was just unfortunate that only the rogue decided to climb down the ravine. But that is just the way the game is played so I'm trying to make the most of it and trying to get a better understanding of the Swarm ability.
I can see your point on this and here it could be simply I did not read enough into the wording to make that judgment on my own. I guess the avoidance of creating a super-swarm is unspoken but is the general idea of looking at this as a singular swarm. Still, as long as things line up I have the Move/In Creature Space Attack/Move method for the Swarm with one OA by the player. Also since the Bit has a reach of 0 OA by the swarm maybe few for the player to get the distance for a possible spell or ranged attack or even an escape.
The rules routinely use singular language like this to mean “any” or “each.” A classic example may be fireball. Should the caster choose a single target to deal damage to? In contrast, I can think of exactly zero instances where “a” has clearly meant “one” (though if anyone else can, I’d be delighted to know).
If “another creature” meant “one other creature,” they’d have said the latter.
If the rogue lasts until their turn they can either bonus action disengage and climb the rope/run away or they could bonus action dash and take an op attack or two running away from the swarms .. though if there are more swarms in the ravine that might be an issue. You mentioned being surrounded by 6 swarms, are you playing on an hex grid? On a square grid there are 8 surrounding squares leaving a route of escape that doesn't requiring walking through the square of a surrounding swarm.
I'm playing on a square grid. Pretty much six swarms, none hiding. The layout is the Rogue back against the wall with an open space to the left and right while the swarm is in the shape of a pyramid in front and to the sides.
So like this.
S[]R[]S
SSS
S
So there are open spaces and the ability to retreat if she deems it necessary. Of course, this is all contingent on how the player rolls on their Initiative.
While Off Topic, I think one of my biggest mistakes is not having a firm underlying the word 'meaning' in cases of 'when Rules use X word' it has a deeper meaning than what is on the surface. This is not a complaint just something I need to work on which I know comes from more experience translating the rules and trusting my gut on the ruling. This is why I have a tendency to ask these, 'Hey do I have this right or what's the proper meaning of this rule' questions on the forum.
That's exactly my point. You're reading far more precision into the language than is there. In simple, plain English, there is no number defined (articles can't be that meaningful).
And swarms have a specific feature that overrides that default assumption, so I'm not sure what your point is.
If a swarm is a group of creatures, then the swarm rule obviously applies to each member of that group individually, so that doesn't clarify the actual concern.
I want to be clear about something: I'm not saying that "another" means "any." I'm saying that 1) "a" means "each" elsewhere in the rules and that 2) as a point of how the English language works, "another" simply does not convey the necessary information to base such a ruling on its use.
The consequence of not allowing swarms to occupy the space of other swarms is that it makes them immune to one another. A swarm of rats would be unable to fight a swarm of insects, which I think would be counter-intuitive.
However, swarms of friendly like-creatures should probably just merge together like oozes. Two swarms of rats occupying the same space become a single swarm. They can't technically heal, but this would be more like creating a new creature. They would then move as a single swarm with updated hitpoints, other stats would remain the same.
4+ swarms could functionally act like a single "large" swarm with adjusted HP and could attack 4 squares simultaneously, rather than doing extra damage to a single square.
As they say, you can't have half a hole, you can only have a hole that is smaller or larger.
If you're being attacked by a swarm of rats and a swarm of insects, they should probably both occupy the same space, but might suffer a 50% chance of attacking the other swarm instead of the player. (Unless intelligently controlled.)
That said, it's pretty well established that D&D is not a physics simulator, and some rules simply aren't meant to be heavily scrutinized.
It's generally assumed that increasing the number of monsters in an encounter increases the difficulty non-linearly, so if swarms have to "wait in line", then more swarms doesn't really scale appropriately. In fact, a clever player could use one swarm as a defensive ward against the others and make the encounter substantially easier than it ought to be.
Except that that interpretation leaves you unable to attack swarms with Attack Actions, single-target spells, etc., and is clearly not RAI for interacting with swarms as "a creature." I don't think you want to go down that route.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Re: Singular creature [SageAdvice]