| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Ramacass05-02-07, 10:46 PM | Someone told me that in LG Hydras only take AoO with one head per opportunity instead of using all heads per opportunity. I tried to find this ruling but couldn't has anyone else ever heard of this? Thanks |
| ShinAkuma205-02-07, 11:07 PM | I've never seen it, heard it, or had it run that way. I think someone's either pulling your leg, or is full of baloney. |
| JamesMaissen05-02-07, 11:17 PM | Someone told me that in LG Hydras only take AoO with one head per opportunity instead of using all heads per opportunity. I tried to find this ruling but couldn't has anyone else ever heard of this? Thanks That would be the normal rule for AOOs. A hydra has it's *number* of AOOs per round dictated not by 1+DEX as for normal combat reflexes but rather the number is equal to the number of heads it has. There is variation on this as the assumption is that it can make multiple AOOs for a single provocation, James |
| Ramacass05-03-07, 01:08 AM | This is the same debate I've heard elsewhere. It good to know it appears it's the same in LG as it is elsewhere and there is no speacial LG rule. Hydra's attack with all heads for it's full attack or a standard attack. In the beginning of the MM it says that the attack listed for "attack" is usually the one used for AoO and for a hydra that attack is all it's heads. Yes, it's wicked |
| pedr05-03-07, 07:03 AM | I've been confused by this, and not found any clear resolution. In LG I've met hydras as both DM and player and we ended up running it as 'one head per AoO' not 'all heads per AoO'. I think the alternative would have been horrendously overpowered and resulted in reasonably inescapable PC deaths. I'm still not sure what I think the 'correct' rule is. |
| Zanzibax05-03-07, 07:11 AM | I've been confused by this, and not found any clear resolution. In LG I've met hydras as both DM and player and we ended up running it as 'one head per AoO' not 'all heads per AoO'. I think the alternative would have been horrendously overpowered and resulted in reasonably inescapable PC deaths. I'm still not sure what I think the 'correct' rule is. The 'correct' rule is horrendously overpowered and should have resulted in reasonably inescapable PC deaths. |
| Timlagor05-03-07, 12:49 PM | It baffles me that people would think you can attack with all heads on each AoO. Presumably it's the same people who think that each head on a cryo-hydra can breath seperately for damage based ont eh number of heads. It's badly written but I don't see how anyone could claim that the 'all heads' reading makes any sort of sense. |
| Howie2305-03-07, 01:35 PM | It baffles me that people would think you can attack with all heads on each AoO. Presumably it's the same people who think that each head on a cryo-hydra can breath seperately for damage based ont eh number of heads. It's badly written but I don't see how anyone could claim that the 'all heads' reading makes any sort of sense. Ok, I'll bite. :rimshot: To OP: there are no special LG rules about handling hyrdas. I'm one of those people who says that AoOs are bites of all heads. However, I think that the cryo-hyrda breath thing is bunk. The cyro-hydra thing stems from ambiguous and/or badly editted text, in my opinion. The rules argument in favor of all head AoOs stems from two points. First, an AoO is an attack. The hyrda's attack is all heads. A Hyrda can charge and attack with all heads. It doesn't take a full attack to attack with all heads. Second, the Feats text regarding Combat Reflexes says it uses all heads for AoOs. The counter argument that I hear tends to be: That makes the critter too tough. The critter is supposed to be tough to beat. It is supposed to be unique, not just a critter with a bunch of attacks. It takes coordinated tactics and particular skills to beat in melee. It is also rather slow; those who attack it tend to have options about whether or not to engage. David |
| Mattastrophic05-03-07, 01:38 PM | It's badly written but I don't see how anyone could claim that the 'all heads' reading makes any sort of sense. It makes perfect sense. When a creature uses a standard action to make a standard attack, it uses what's listed in its Attack entry. When a creature receives an attack of opportunity, it uses what's listed in its Attack entry. Don't nerf it because it "seems" overpowered. The MM explains that Hydra encounters require utilizing tactics OTHER than the conventional ones. Thus, when players continue to use conventional tactics against a Hydra, they will face a much more difficult encounter than they would if they switched gears like they're supposed to. -Matt |
| Mattastrophic05-03-07, 01:40 PM | Re: Howie23: Wow, great minds do think alike, and with a 3-minute differential in posting. -Matt |
| Howie2305-03-07, 01:49 PM | Re: Howie23: Wow, great minds do think alike, and with a 3-minute differential in posting. -Matt Yes, indeed. We must be baffling. :) David |
| pedr05-03-07, 02:02 PM | The annoying thing about this is that the 'traditional' method of chopping off heads and setting the stumps alight provokes, unless you have Improved Sunder - making it a suicide tactic. In fact when I fought one it was a very tough tactic even with Improved Sunder it was pretty much touch and go. We re-considered our tactics and would probably just attack the thing head on were we to meet a new one. |
| Zanzibax05-03-07, 02:21 PM | The "traditional" method requires a 2nd person blasting heads as you chop them off. I believe the "traditional" method isn't going to work in 3.5e. |
| Howie2305-03-07, 02:33 PM | The annoying thing about this is that the 'traditional' method of chopping off heads and setting the stumps alight provokes, unless you have Improved Sunder - making it a suicide tactic. I suspect that one of the reasons Hyrdas end up being overpowered in LG is that so few PCs take Improved Sunder due to meta-game reasons. Sundering itself is a horribly effective tactic at times, but is anathema due to the possibility of destroying treasure, or even worse, loss of access. David |
| JamesMaissen05-03-07, 03:43 PM | Don't nerf it because it "seems" overpowered. While I agree with that sentiment, I'm still on the other side of this issue. Further I would counter with 'Don't accept it just because that's how you've seen it played'. First, the attack line section is just what the creature can use with a standard attack action. The multiple attacks that a Hydra gets are just that, multiple attacks. They do not all happen simultaneously (like magic missles, scorching rays or a manyshot). Second, the text is very unclear in several parts. One area is obviously miss worded and that's the breath weapon part. While most people have played (or seen) a hydra played as getting all it's attacks on an AOO, that's not what the entry says. Let's look at the entry itself, so the SRD says "Feats: A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity". Why is Combat Reflexes being invoked here? What does the Combat Reflexes feat do? It increases the number of times you can make an AOO during the round, but does not allow you to make more than one attack per opportunity. (Also lets you make AOOs flatfooted). Why list the entry under Combat Reflexes if it in reality was modifying how the creature makes AOOs? It should be a note about AOOs if that were the case. Instead it's modifying Combat Reflexes, altering the normal way of determining number of AOOs. -James |
| Howie2305-03-07, 04:45 PM | First, the attack line section is just what the creature can use with a standard attack action. The multiple attacks that a Hydra gets are just that, multiple attacks. They do not all happen simultaneously (like magic missles, scorching rays or a manyshot). This isn't true. See page 6 of the MM, where it describes Attack. It says this is the attack used in an attack action, as well as the attack used by the creature in AoO (in most cases). It isn't limited to using all heads in a standard attack. That they don't happen simultaneously is moot. The burden of proof is to show that this should not be the AoO form of attack. I agree that the language on the feat is not well written regarding the heads and Combat Reflexes. I don't find it compelling enough to overcome the burden of proof that stems from above. Edit: The entry goes out of its way to say that the critter rewards Improved Sunder (not taking AoOs). Why? Because the AoOs are so horrible. David |
| ragecage7905-03-07, 04:50 PM | The "traditional" method requires a 2nd person blasting heads as you chop them off. I believe the "traditional" method isn't going to work in 3.5e. Wait, I thought the traditional method was standing back and blasting/shooting the bejeezecrap out of them. :D |
| Rerednaw05-03-07, 05:39 PM | I've seen hydras run both ways in LG. While getting multiple attacks on an AoO is a terrifying concept odds are you are only going to trigger that once. The survivors will then have to try a different tactic. I've run into hydras several times myself. We usually just attacked the body en masse until we overwhelmed it. Of course, with wis damaged, dex damaged, blinded and prone it was easier to deal with. I Phantasmal Assailed, Glitterdusted and then Greased the hydra. |
| JamesMaissen05-04-07, 01:36 AM | This isn't true. See page 6 of the MM, where it describes Attack. It says this is the attack used in an attack action, as well as the attack used by the creature in AoO (in most cases). It isn't limited to using all heads in a standard attack. That they don't happen simultaneously is moot. The burden of proof is to show that this should not be the AoO form of attack. You are using the entry that starts with the phrase 'singe attack'? And if you are saying that the Hydra is an exception (which it clearly is).. well then haven't you just conceded that part of the argument? Again why list it under 'Combat Reflexes' if it's modifying how many times it attacks with each AOO rather than modifying the number of AOOs it can take? And under the all the heads attacks for each AOO, normally a cork or summon just provokes then the Hydra is out of AOOs. Under the other interpretation it gets an attack for each opportunity. -James |
| Howie2305-04-07, 02:27 AM | You are using the entry that starts with the phrase 'singe attack'? And if you are saying that the Hydra is an exception (which it clearly is).. well then haven't you just conceded that part of the argument? I am using the entry titled "Attack" which describes the single attack that is used as an attack or AoO. The single attack used by the hydra is all heads. That is the listing under the attack line for hydra. If it were only the full attack that used all heads, then the attack line would show a single head. It doesn't. It shows all heads. I have conceded nothing. Again why list it under 'Combat Reflexes' if it's modifying how many times it attacks with each AOO rather than modifying the number of AOOs it can take? I have stated that I think the wording is clumsy in the feats, and this is true for either interpretation. As I see it: the creature has Combat Reflexes. That allows it to take two AoOs when it's Dex is 12. The language is then that it uses all of its heads for attacks of opportunity. So, for each of the AoOs, it uses it's attack: all heads. It is, if anything, redundant, and requires the least modification of Combat Reflexes to fit. And under the all the heads attacks for each AOO, normally a cork or summon just provokes then the Hydra is out of AOOs. Under the other interpretation it gets an attack for each opportunity. Great. Tactically triggering the AoOs bleeds it of attacks. What's the point? I understand that there are alternative ways of viewing this. I've explained the argument for this viewpoint. You have another viewpoint. The text is ambiguous. It isn't going to be resolved through this discussion. David |
| Ariante05-04-07, 03:15 AM | Ok this one drew my attention. Let's look at it from the other side. I play a L12 Arcane Hierophant with a Large animal companion, and up untill the last LGCS would, when combat broke out, Polymorph him into an 8-headed hydra. On average (including Haste and other buffs), he would do 100hp damage per round. Now tell me; how many of you would have let him take AoO's with all heads? Greetz, Maya Deva Who firmly believes the Combat Reflexes entry means the hydra gets 1 attack per AoO, but gets as many AoO's as it has heads. |
| Howie2305-04-07, 05:00 AM | Ok this one drew my attention. Let's look at it from the other side. I play a L12 Arcane Hierophant with a Large animal companion, and up untill the last LGCS would, when combat broke out, Polymorph him into an 8-headed hydra. On average (including Haste and other buffs), he would do 100hp damage per round. Now tell me; how many of you would have let him take AoO's with all heads? Hi Maya. I never fully digested the polymorph rules, as I never had to. If I remember correctly, there is some question about whether the extra heads are controllable, which is a different issue. For the purposes of your question, I'll assume that the heads are usuable, as I think that's the intent of your question. If so, it gets the full headed AoO. The discussion is about how the creature works, not how it works based upon who gets to use it. David |
| Ariante05-04-07, 06:19 AM | The discussion is about how the creature works, not how it works based upon who gets to use it. Of course. But I've often found looking at an isue both ways helps :) I've met more than one DM/player who changed opinion on a subject when realising the other side could do the same thing and what that would do to a combat. To me, the rules are pretty clear: 1 attack per AoO. Clearly, others read it differently, making it a grey area. Thus, I offer a considderation that I hope will persuade others to my pov :) Here's another one: If a hydra *was* supposed to get all his heads for an AoO, then why bother making the Combat Reflexes entry? Getting that multiheaded attack is the norm, so why point it out again? I read it to mean there is an exception to the norm: a hydra gets only 1 attack per head, But get's as many AoO's as it has heads (regardless of dex). Greetz, Maya Deva |
| SgtHulka05-04-07, 09:35 AM | Ok this one drew my attention. Let's look at it from the other side. I play a L12 Arcane Hierophant with a Large animal companion, and up untill the last LGCS would, when combat broke out, Polymorph him into an 8-headed hydra. On average (including Haste and other buffs), he would do 100hp damage per round. Now tell me; how many of you would have let him take AoO's with all heads? Greetz, Maya Deva Who firmly believes the Combat Reflexes entry means the hydra gets 1 attack per AoO, but gets as many AoO's as it has heads. Table variation on this (would have) been independent of the question as to how many attacks a Hydra gets normally, since it would be based instead on the wording of Polymorph, and then Alter Self. The attack line of the Hydra is not one of the things defined as being gained by Polymorph/Alter Self: it's not an (ex) special attack or quality, racial skill bonus, or racial feat. It's not natural armor bonus or movement type. The best you can argue is that it's a "gross physical quality", but then you are bounced to the phrase: "A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal." So, generally, the polymorph interpretations of this that I've read have led to a restriction of the multilple attack per AoO when polymoprhed. But it is up to DM interpretation. That said, all of the above has nothing to do with whether a regular Hydra can take all of it's heads as a single AoO, much like a Polymorphed Hydra doesn't get fast healing, but that doesn't mean a real Hydra can't use its fast healing. |
| SgtHulka05-04-07, 09:38 AM | Here's another one: If a hydra *was* supposed to get all his heads for an AoO, then why bother making the Combat Reflexes entry? Getting that multiheaded attack is the norm, so why point it out again? I read it to mean there is an exception to the norm: a hydra gets only 1 attack per head, But get's as many AoO's as it has heads (regardless of dex). Greetz, Maya Deva Because the multi-headed attack isn't all that useful if you send a summoned dog to to absorb the AoO. Even if it can take 8 attacks with a single AoO, it is still limited to that single AoO. Send a doggy in, and if it kills it with its first attack, its AoO is still burned, and the rest of the heads are sitting around doing nothing. |
| JamesMaissen05-04-07, 10:45 AM | I am using the entry titled "Attack" which describes the single attack that is used as an attack or AoO. The single attack used by the hydra is all heads. That is the listing under the attack line for hydra. If it were only the full attack that used all heads, then the attack line would show a single head. It doesn't. It shows all heads. I have conceded nothing. So, you are saying that you roll one attack for X heads? No? How is that a *single* attack? It's listed as X bites. Again, a Hydra is an obvious exception here. I have stated that I think the wording is clumsy in the feats, and this is true for either interpretation. As I see it: the creature has Combat Reflexes. That allows it to take two AoOs when it's Dex is 12. The language is then that it uses all of its heads for attacks of opportunity. So, for each of the AoOs, it uses it's attack: all heads. It is, if anything, redundant, and requires the least modification of Combat Reflexes to fit. Then it doesn't modify Combat Reflexes *at all* now does it? So out of two possible interpretations, one that is in line with the wording of the text and one that is not, how is it reasonable to choose the later over the former? I understand that there are alternative ways of viewing this. I've explained the argument for this viewpoint. You have another viewpoint. The text is ambiguous. It isn't going to be resolved through this discussion. David Shrug, to each their own. I think that one has to go into contortions above to see it otherwise. But then I imagine that this is more prevalent based upon having seen it run this way at a table than anything else. -James |
| Ira_Dei05-04-07, 12:06 PM | The SRD explicitly states that hydras get all their heads attacking with an AOO. I'm away from home, but will be sure to check out the MM when I get back. And before anyone starts, yes, I know the SRD ain't official rules. Mark |
| pedr05-04-07, 12:22 PM | The SRD has the same text as the MM, I think (this is from the SRD): "A hydra's combat reflexes feat allows it to use all its head for attacks of opportunity." The meaning of that sentence is what we are debating. The reference to combat reflexes suggests to many that what is meant is that it can take one AoO per head, but not attack with all heads for each provoking act. |
| Howie2305-04-07, 02:11 PM | So, you are saying that you roll one attack for X heads? No? How is that a *single* attack? It's listed as X bites. Again, a Hydra is an obvious exception here. No, I'm not saying the roll of a single die resolves the attack. It gets its attack. The attack is X bites. It is resolved, mechanically, as one to hit roll for each head, and one damage roll for each succesful attack. The dice mechanics of resolving an action are independent of the action. (cue side discussion on immediate actions attempted after attack roll, but prior to damage roll) At least we agree that hyrdas are exceptions. :) Then it doesn't modify Combat Reflexes *at all* now does it? It takes the modification described above in the mechanics of the attack. If you want to isolate that away from Combat Reflexes, you are welcome to. So out of two possible interpretations, one that is in line with the wording of the text and one that is not, how is it reasonable to choose the later over the former? Exactly. The wording says "uses all its heads.." So, which one is in line with the text? The one that takes the text as written (all heads=all heads), or the one that requires adding implied text that the number of AoOs is based upon number of heads rather than Dex, and which also changes the attack used in an AoO to a single head at each of these increased opportunities? The debate follows from: 1) Why is the feat entry for Combat Reflexes there at all? Is it to confirm and reinforce that it uses X bites in a single AoO, or is it there to say it works differently? 2) What does "uses all its heads.." mean? Does it mean that an AoO uses, um, all its heads at one time to deliver an attack of x bites? Or, does it mean that Combat Reflexes works differently for this creature by using the number of heads determine the number of AoOs? Shrug, to each their own. I think that one has to go into contortions above to see it otherwise. Contortions. How ironic. Position 1 (An AoO is all heads): creature runs as written (all heads=all heads)and takes caution to combat. Requires flexibility to recognize that an attack can be a super-set of multiple attack mechanics. Position 2 (An AoO is one head): Requires implied language (all heads=one AoO for each head, only one head per opportunity) to both disassemble attack (x bites) into components and modification of Combat Reflexes regarding how many attacks are granted. Retains attack= single attack roll. Which is more contorted? David |
| Redfist05-04-07, 02:16 PM | I personally agree with David. The least "contorted" interpretation is as it's written. As written, a creature can use it's "Attack" as an AoO. It's "Attack" is all heads. Yes - it's rough. Yes - it's a very tough fight. It may well be under CR'd, but that's no reason to assume that the text as written is more contorted than adding implications to balance the difficulty. my 2gp |
| Howie2305-04-07, 02:29 PM | Of course. But I've often found looking at an isue both ways helps :) I've met more than one DM/player who changed opinion on a subject when realising the other side could do the same thing and what that would do to a combat. Yeah, I knew where you were coming from. Changing minds from the other perspective usually happens when the initial position was motivated by wanting it a particular way. That is most common for players realizing they don't want bad guys to be armed with their interpretation, but can also happen with a bloodthirsty DM. :) David |
| Zanzibax05-04-07, 03:45 PM | While I agree with that sentiment, I'm still on the other side of this issue. Further I would counter with 'Don't accept it just because that's how you've seen it played'. First, the attack line section is just what the creature can use with a standard attack action. The multiple attacks that a Hydra gets are just that, multiple attacks. They do not all happen simultaneously (like magic missles, scorching rays or a manyshot). Second, the text is very unclear in several parts. One area is obviously miss worded and that's the breath weapon part. While most people have played (or seen) a hydra played as getting all it's attacks on an AOO, that's not what the entry says. Let's look at the entry itself, so the SRD says "Feats: A hydra’s Combat Reflexes feat allows it to use all its heads for attacks of opportunity". Why is Combat Reflexes being invoked here? <<snip>> Combat Reflexes is invoked because, as the wording states, the Hydra can use all of it's heads on each attack of opportunity. There wouldn't otherwise be a reason for invoking Combat Reflexes. 10 heads, Dexterity 17, 10 attacks for each attack of opportunity, up to 3 additional Attacks of Opportunity, for up to 30 additional attacks. Special mention because: You don't want to do provoke an Attack of Opportunity against this creature. |
| Zanzibax05-04-07, 03:49 PM | Wait, I thought the traditional method was standing back and blasting/shooting the bejeezecrap out of them. :D Well...it wasn't an LG campaign...but our group has faced 2. In instance 1 was a Cryhohydra. It was killed in a single blow in the surprise round (we surprised it), by a critical hit with a enlarged long-spear and a 30 STR. Instance 2, was a Pyrohydra. It was killed in the first round by a pair of dwarves with full attacks, after dimension-dooring into it's lair quite abruptly (and accidentally), because initiative was won. So all attacks on the body. Traditionally...from my perspective...these things are killed via massive damage...and enormous cajones from the City of Brass on the Plane of Fire. :king: |
| Zanzibax05-04-07, 03:51 PM | You are using the entry that starts with the phrase 'singe attack'? And if you are saying that the Hydra is an exception (which it clearly is).. well then haven't you just conceded that part of the argument? Again why list it under 'Combat Reflexes' if it's modifying how many times it attacks with each AOO rather than modifying the number of AOOs it can take? And under the all the heads attacks for each AOO, normally a cork or summon just provokes then the Hydra is out of AOOs. Under the other interpretation it gets an attack for each opportunity. -James A "single attack" from a hydra, is an attack from each and every head. |
| Zanzibax05-04-07, 03:53 PM | Because the multi-headed attack isn't all that useful if you send a summoned dog to to absorb the AoO. Even if it can take 8 attacks with a single AoO, it is still limited to that single AoO. Send a doggy in, and if it kills it with its first attack, its AoO is still burned, and the rest of the heads are sitting around doing nothing. Which is why they hydra has combat reflexes...but yes...you're correct. |
| Rerednaw05-04-07, 04:09 PM | Hmmm, 5 headed hydra is CR4...so a fiendish 5 headed hydra CR5: DR 5/Magic, 5 attacks (+6 1d10+3)/on a charge, fire resist 5 cold resist and smite good for +5 damage... could show up at APL2? Sweet...*scratches out 'dog' entry in module, substitutes 'fiendish hydra'* :eek: |
| SgtHulka05-04-07, 04:23 PM | Hmmm, 5 headed hydra is CR4...so a fiendish 5 headed hydra CR5: DR 5/Magic, 5 attacks (+6 1d10+3)/on a charge, fire resist 5 cold resist and smite good for +5 damage... could show up at APL2? Sweet...*scratches out 'dog' entry in module, substitutes 'fiendish hydra'* :eek: Have a goblin warrior 1 ride it with its best stat in dexterity, four ranks of ride, and mounted combat. That's a +9 ride check to help the Hydra's armor class and it won't bump the ECL of the encounter because the goblin's only CR 1/3. |
| Zanzibax05-04-07, 04:25 PM | Hmmm, 5 headed hydra is CR4...so a fiendish 5 headed hydra CR5: DR 5/Magic, 5 attacks (+6 1d10+3)/on a charge, fire resist 5 cold resist and smite good for +5 damage... could show up at APL2? Sweet...*scratches out 'dog' entry in module, substitutes 'fiendish hydra'* :eek: Samwise :rant: was right. You're evil. :ghosted: |
| Rerednaw05-04-07, 04:35 PM | Samwise :rant: was right. You're evil. :ghosted: Do I know you guys? :thinks: |
| JamesMaissen05-04-07, 06:51 PM | No, I'm not saying the roll of a single die resolves the attack. It gets its attack. The attack is X bites. It is resolved, mechanically, as one to hit roll for each head, and one damage roll for each succesful attack. The dice mechanics of resolving an action are independent of the action. (cue side discussion on immediate actions attempted after attack roll, but prior to damage roll) At least we agree that hyrdas are exceptions. :) But how is that a *single* attack? That's X attacks. And I don't mean by the attack entry as that can't be what it means by 'single attack'. Exactly. The wording says "uses all its heads.." So, which one is in line with the text? The one that takes the text as written (all heads=all heads), or the one that requires adding implied text that the number of AoOs is based upon number of heads rather than Dex, and which also changes the attack used in an AoO to a single head at each of these increased opportunities? The debate follows from: 1) Why is the feat entry for Combat Reflexes there at all? Is it to confirm and reinforce that it uses X bites in a single AoO, or is it there to say it works differently? 2) What does "uses all its heads.." mean? Does it mean that an AoO uses, um, all its heads at one time to deliver an attack of x bites? Or, does it mean that Combat Reflexes works differently for this creature by using the number of heads determine the number of AoOs? But it's talking about *Combat Reflexes* which is *NOT* the same as how a creature takes AOOs. Combat reflexes only deals with when you can make an AOO (ie flatfooted and number you can make in the round) not how you actually make the AOO (ie attacks, with respect to cover, etc). So I purport that it can make AOOs with *all* it's heads, just one at a time. A 5-headed Hydra can make 5 AOOs in a round which decreases or increases with the possible variation in it's number of heads. Sure it could have been worded better (the breath weapon is worded even worse as we both agree) but my reading of it makes sense to be dealing with Combat Reflexes. If it were doing as you claim, then it would be 'Note: A Hydra attacks will all of it's heads when making an AOO' rather than talking about Combat Reflexes which deals with how many times one can make an AOO. But then again from your argument the text is completely superfluous, right? I'm always leery of rules readings that assume that the wording is incorrect or that wording is there for no reason. -James |
| Howie2305-04-07, 08:33 PM | But how is that a *single* attack? That's X attacks. And I don't mean by the attack entry as that can't be what it means by 'single attack'. You are putting an emphasis on single attack that I don't share. You are, and reasonably from a vocabulary standpoint, equating single with one. Seems obvious, huh? For most creatures it is one attack with a single to hit/damage mechanic. We've agreed that hydras are different in some manner, and I think this is one of them. With improved trip a character can trip and make the follow up attack, all as an AoO. A creature with improved grab and constrict can take an AoO that delivers the initial damage, as well as the constriction damage on a successful grapple check. These are a couple of other examples of AoOs that are single attacks, but involve multiple mechanics. Compare the listings on page 6 of the MM for attack vs full attack. The term single attack is category of attacks that includes AoOs, the attack of a charge, or the attack of a standard action. It is a category that is contrasted with the full attack that is a full round action. A hyrda uses its single attack (x bites) for AoOs, charges, or surprise round standard attacks. All are single attacks. In the case of a hydra, the single attack and the full attack are effectively the same. But it's talking about *Combat Reflexes* which is *NOT* the same as how a creature takes AOOs. Combat reflexes only deals with when you can make an AOO (ie flatfooted and number you can make in the round) not how you actually make the AOO (ie attacks, with respect to cover, etc). So I purport that it can make AOOs with *all* it's heads, just one at a time. A 5-headed Hydra can make 5 AOOs in a round which decreases or increases with the possible variation in it's number of heads. Sure it could have been worded better (the breath weapon is worded even worse as we both agree) but my reading of it makes sense to be dealing with Combat Reflexes. I understand what you purport. I'm not sure why there is the emphasis that it is talking about CR. I might be missing the reference to how you are tying that to my quote. If it were doing as you claim, then it would be 'Note: A Hydra attacks will all of it's heads when making an AOO' rather than talking about Combat Reflexes which deals with how many times one can make an AOO. But then again from your argument the text is completely superfluous, right? When I wrote my last post on this, I wrote a section talking about possible rephrasings, and how it could have been worded differently. I took it out because it doesn't go far in prooving anything, and doing so can always be turned around the other way. If you want to go with that exercise, look at how it could be rephased to make it clearly your point of view, and then compare it to what you provided above. Which is closer to what is written? There are a number of creatures that have racial bonus feats as a way of providing the foundation for their unique modes of attack, locomotion, etc. Same thing happens for PrCs and feat chains sometimes. I see hyrda CR in that vein. As for being superfluous, I see it as confirming and reinforcing. If the text on CR wasn't there, the rules could still get you to all heads via page 6. It would be more likely to be missed, so there is a reminder. Ironic that there is disagreement about it, huh? I'm always leery of rules readings that assume that the wording is incorrect or that wording is there for no reason. How do you feel about rules readings that require that you add to the reading? :) BTW, I'm looking for other creatures that have attack line items with multiple attacks. Gauth, beholder, manticore are all I could find in the MM. Chimera, interestingly, does not. Manticore tail spikes are limited by text to standard action. *reminds self not to provoke AoO from beholder* |
| JamesMaissen05-05-07, 02:26 AM | You are putting an emphasis on single attack that I don't share. You are, and reasonably from a vocabulary standpoint, equating single with one. Seems obvious, huh? For most creatures it is one attack with a single to hit/damage mechanic. We've agreed that hydras are different in some manner, and I think this is one of them. Well a single attack is indeed one attack. There might be free follow up attacks like Cleave and the like, but still single means one. Compare the listings on page 6 of the MM for attack vs full attack. The term single attack is category of attacks that includes AoOs, the attack of a charge, or the attack of a standard action. It is a category that is contrasted with the full attack that is a full round action. Incorrect. Forgive my quibbling but the term 'single attack' is not a category. The *entry* is 'attack' and that's defined as a 'single attack' which is *not* defined in the monster manual except by English meaning. I understand what you purport. I'm not sure why there is the emphasis that it is talking about CR. I might be missing the reference to how you are tying that to my quote. There are a number of creatures that have racial bonus feats as a way of providing the foundation for their unique modes of attack, locomotion, etc. Same thing happens for PrCs and feat chains sometimes. I see hyrda CR in that vein. As for being superfluous, I see it as confirming and reinforcing. If the text on CR wasn't there, the rules could still get you to all heads via page 6. It would be more likely to be missed, so there is a reminder. Ironic that there is disagreement about it, huh? But this is adding to a feat what you claim is normal rules. It's not only superfluous, it's missleading and incorrect. It's not the Hydra's Combat Reflexes feat at all now is it? Your contention is that the creature has it regardless of it's having the CR feat, right? If there were a spell that temporarily removed a feat as usable for its victim and a Hydra were to loose Combat Reflexes as a result, how many heads would attack for a given AOO? BTW, I'm looking for other creatures that have attack line items with multiple attacks. Gauth, beholder, manticore are all I could find in the MM. Chimera, interestingly, does not. Manticore tail spikes are limited by text to standard action. *reminds self not to provoke AoO from beholder* Beholders are errata'd, the eye attacks are free actions. The Beholder's primary attack is the bite and that's what it makes AOOs with rather than ranged attacks (which don't threaten either). Anyway, back to what I was getting at about your line of thinking: You are claiming that it is simply a function of the Attack entry here. If that's the case then not only is there no point in bringing up Combat Reflexes, it is actually incorrect for them to do so. It is not a reminder for a fringe case, but rather a missdirection on their part saying that is has something to do with a feat, right? So rather than modifying the feat as the text claims, instead it is merely a reminder about something else that doesn't have to do with the creature having the feat? Is that about right? -James |
| bitznarf05-05-07, 02:33 AM | Hmmm, 5 headed hydra is CR4...so a fiendish 5 headed hydra CR5: DR 5/Magic, 5 attacks (+6 1d10+3)/on a charge, fire resist 5 cold resist and smite good for +5 damage... could show up at APL2? Sweet...*scratches out 'dog' entry in module, substitutes 'fiendish hydra'* :eek: If that beast ever made it through editing at that APL multiple people really dropped the ball. And as soon as it is noticed, the mod should be errata'd or pulled. Note that the rules about modifying/creating monsters talk about changing the CR if the normally calculated one does not properly represent the threat the the monster presents. Against a APL2 party, that is an incorrectly calculated CR. |
| King Kashue05-05-07, 03:42 AM | If that beast ever made it through editing at that APL multiple people really dropped the ball. And as soon as it is noticed, the mod should be errata'd or pulled. Note that the rules about modifying/creating monsters talk about changing the CR if the normally calculated one does not properly represent the threat the the monster presents. Against a APL2 party, that is an incorrectly calculated CR. You'd think the Circle would do the kind of editing that catches mathematically legal, but practically broken, creatures... Unfortunately, one of the current active modules is a shining example demonstrating they don't... |
| Rerednaw05-05-07, 01:19 PM | You'd think the Circle would do the kind of editing that catches mathematically legal, but practically broken, creatures... Unfortunately, one of the current active modules is a shining example demonstrating they don't... Two that I know of. And a ton more from Year 5...fortunately retired. Invisible templated fliers with spells at APL2? Ick. |
| Lightblade05-05-07, 06:00 PM | Hopefully this is something that the Rules Compendium will clean up for us. If not there, maybe they could take the goblin w/ mounted combat example and put it in Complete Riding Dog. |
| Ramacass05-05-07, 08:56 PM | Well a single attack is indeed one attack. There might be free follow up attacks like Cleave and the like, but still single means one. Incorrect. Forgive my quibbling but the term 'single attack' is not a category. The *entry* is 'attack' and that's defined as a 'single attack' which is *not* defined in the monster manual except by English meaning. Well yes and no. There is no definition in the MM that defines "single attack" but the Hydra clearly isn't limited by the notion that it means one attack. A Hydra's "attack" or "single attack" based on your reading is all it's heads. Just look at the entry in the MM. I believe the feat entry is a misguided attempt at clarification. So when someone provokes and the DM running the hydra grabs 10 d20s and the argument is raised that "hey it only gets two of those attacks because it's dex modifier is a +1" the question of how many attacks does it get is then answerd by the text "A hydra's combat reflexes feat allows it to use all it's heads for attacks of opportunity" Rama |
| JamesMaissen05-05-07, 09:19 PM | I believe the feat entry is a misguided attempt at clarification. So when someone provokes and the DM running the hydra grabs 10 d20s and the argument is raised that "hey it only gets two of those attacks because it's dex modifier is a +1" the question of how many attacks does it get is then answerd by the text "A hydra's combat reflexes feat allows it to use all it's heads for attacks of opportunity" Rama But that's the problem.. Combat Reflexes dictates how many times you can make separate AOOs not how many or with what you make those AOOs. So why ascribe this to Combat Reflexes if that's what they meant? There's no correlation here. If that was the intent, or as 'Howie23' purports that it is simply a function of the attack entry, then it's got nothing to do with Combat Reflexes. That doesn't make any sense. However, what if it does have something to do with Combat Reflexes? What if the entry intends to modify something that Combat Reflexes *DOES* affect? What if it means that the number of times a creature can make an AOO is what is being changed here rather than what form those AOOs take? Then it *would* make sense to refer to Combat Reflexes as otherwise you would think that the creature would only get 2 AOOs a round rather than 1 AOO for each head. And it would be easy to say 'it gets an AOO for each head' meaning the total number allowed in a round. It seems reasonable to me and explains why we're talking about *feats* rather than racial abilities. The other reading assumes that they just randomly wish to tie it to a feat for no reason. There is no prereq to the feat so it can't be 'lost' so it serves no mechanical purpose and only obfuscates matters. -James |
| Howie2305-06-07, 03:34 PM | Well a single attack is indeed one attack. There might be free follow up attacks like Cleave and the like, but still single means one. Incorrect. Forgive my quibbling but the term 'single attack' is not a category. The *entry* is 'attack' and that's defined as a 'single attack' which is *not* defined in the monster manual except by English meaning. Here's what just happened. I acknowledged your point of view from the perspective of just the vocabulary. I then said that there is more there then just the vocabulary, that there was also the contrast stemming from the context. You then said (pardon the paraphrase), "No, it's just the vocabulary." You also created a strawman and knocked it down (that there is no definition). I think we're done; we don't agree on the basic mechanics of how to carry out a discussion. If you want to continue, refute my position. Otherwise, I think we just have a disagreement. The rest of what you've said about CR stems from above, and I won't reply to it at this time. Beholders are errata'd, the eye attacks are free actions. The Beholder's primary attack is the bite and that's what it makes AOOs with rather than ranged attacks (which don't threaten either). Cool. Thanks for the info. DAvid |
| JamesMaissen05-06-07, 10:37 PM | Here's what just happened. I acknowledged your point of view from the perspective of just the vocabulary. I then said that there is more there then just the vocabulary, that there was also the contrast stemming from the context. You then said (pardon the paraphrase), "No, it's just the vocabulary." You also created a strawman and knocked it down (that there is no definition). I think we're done; we don't agree on the basic mechanics of how to carry out a discussion. If you want to continue, refute my position. Otherwise, I think we just have a disagreement. The rest of what you've said about CR stems from above, and I won't reply to it at this time. DAvid Okay, beyond the actual english of 'single attack' you believe that there is some other compelling reason to believe it doesn't mean 'one attack' by 'single attack'? Absent of the Hydra entry and just reading the Attack entry on it's own where would you get that from? You then put forth scenarios by which one attack would trigger other things to occur. I don't see how that ties to making multiple AOO attacks as a single AOO. I think its at best trying to confuse the issue with them. Consider the free extra attacks granted by the Cleave and Improved Trip feats. Both fit into your scenario here (one being my example and the other yours) but both can not be lumped together with the attack that triggered them as a 'single attack'. Rather the extra granted attacks are just that, 'extra' and separate attacks. They are additional attacks that are triggered by specific events. Dropping someone with an AOO can trigger a Cleave attack which grants another attack. It is NOT part of the first attack, but rather is a bonus attack (with conditions). Likewise cleaving after an AOO does not require Combat Reflexes and is not an AOO in and of itself. Your examples were all things that trigger other events to occur (say improved grab, or a wolf's trip) rather than still being part of that first attack. A wolf's successful bite deals damage and then grants it a free trip attempt, but this trip attempt is not part of the initial attack. Imagine a creature that instead of trip or grapple was able to make a free disarm (or sunder) attempt after a successful strike. Would a true strike cast the prior round apply to both the initial hit and the follow up disarm (sunder)? Lets consider the X bites that a Hydra makes and the manor in which it does so. It rolls the attacks and resolves them separately. It doesn't need to pick targets all at once (like a magic missle or scorching ray). Each of the heads is a separate natural weapon (otherwise it would get + 1 1/2 STR dam) and nature's fang would apply to each separately. Each of those attacks could be used, like any other natural weapon, for things like trip attacks. These are all qualities of separate attacks. As to the term 'single attack' from the attack entry, it seems merely to be defining things so the English, absent any definition, would be what one needs to use, right? Your position as I understand it is: 1> A hydra makes a bite attack for each and every head for a single AOO. 2> The above follows from the generic rules in the MM without any special rules for the Hydra beyond what's listed in its 'attack' entry. 3> The entry under 'Feat' is merely an attempt to make things clear in the first two parts. But my question to you is, and has been if that this is the case why then is it tied to a feat? Combat reflexes doesn't change how one makes AOOs, but rather the number of separate AOOs one can take during the round. Shouldn't modifying this feat with a number be dealing with the number of separate AOOs one can take during the round? And MOST importantly, how is this ability then given to it by the Combat Reflexes feat? I'm sorry if I didn't satisfactorily address your point, I hope this has better addressed things. I still don't see how this being granted by the Combat Reflexes feat in your line of reasoning. Anyway, the entry is certainly poorly worded, but I think that your reasoning on it is clearly flawed. There is ambiguity on what's intended. But just as the breath weapon can be interpreted differently, I don't think that an AOO from a Hydra should have multiple attacks. And while I can understand (based on how people have seen it played) believing hydra's can attack multiple times for one AOO, I don't understand nor do I agree with your reasoning for it as it seems inconsistent with what is present. -James |
| copper_wyrmling05-07-07, 04:14 AM | For what it's worth, I agree with James. It came up in a mod I playtested, and after some discussion we went with that ruling. I don't really have much to add to the argument, just posting to indicate that his argument isn't something new or particularly odd. Also, my experience with hydras is that the best way to win involves flight and ranged blasting. The move + all-heads-attack makes them very dangerous to fight on the ground even if you avoid unnecessary AoOs. I've never seen a group defeat a hydra by chopping off the heads. |
| Howie2305-07-07, 01:12 PM | Okay, beyond the actual english of 'single attack' you believe that there is some other compelling reason to believe it doesn't mean 'one attack' by 'single attack'? Absent of the Hydra entry and just reading the Attack entry on it's own where would you get that from? How many attacks does a hydra get on a charge, move and attack, or if slowed? 1 bite, or X bites? The six tail spikes from a manticore can be made as a standard action. Is that a single attack? I will readily admit that in the absence of creatures that have multiple attacks in the attack line, I would have the preconception that the reference to a single attack meant one attack (one attack roll, one damage role). If a creature that violated that preconception never existed, it would be moot. The compelling reason(s) to view this differently is the context that MM page 6 Attack and Full attack provides to distinguish between the two two stat block lines, my first question above, and the fact that the hydra and manticore entries DO exist. Are you claiming that if a hydra moves more than 5' to attack, it cannot attack with x bites? If so, how does that reconcile with your position that attack only provides a single bite? If not, why is the attack entry x bites in the first place? You then put forth scenarios by which one attack would trigger other things to occur. I don't see how that ties to making multiple AOO attacks as a single AOO. I think its at best trying to confuse the issue with them. I provided those examples primarily to illustrate that a single action isn't limited to a single die mechanic. I'm not trying to confuse anything. Please assume that I have non-deceptive motivations. If the result was to cloud things, my apologies. Your position as I understand it is: 1> A hydra makes a bite attack for each and every head for a single AOO. 2> The above follows from the generic rules in the MM without any special rules for the Hydra beyond what's listed in its 'attack' entry. 3> The entry under 'Feat' is merely an attempt to make things clear in the first two parts. But my question to you is, and has been if that this is the case why then is it tied to a feat? Combat reflexes doesn't change how one makes AOOs, but rather the number of separate AOOs one can take during the round. Shouldn't modifying this feat with a number be dealing with the number of separate AOOs one can take during the round? And MOST importantly, how is this ability then given to it by the Combat Reflexes feat? As you've pointed out in your summary of my view above, this isn't tied to the feat. The presence of CR attempts to model the creature. The hyrda is a mythological creature that has a literary background. That has then been molded a bit over the past 30 years in gaming. When creating the creature from scratch, the designers would have been looking at the idea of how best to communicate that image. A swirling mass of heads, each under its own nervous system control. With all respect, under your view, which head takes the AoO? "Excuse me, George, but it's my turn." "Ah yes, after you, Demetrios. I'll take the next one." "Um, guys, we can't talk...." "Ah true. And stupid and voracious, too. Let's all take a bite. Good thing we're fast...we can try again later." "No, really, we can't talk." "Alright then. Hiss, hiss, hiss." Anyway, the entry is certainly poorly worded, but I think that your reasoning on it is clearly flawed. There is ambiguity on what's intended. Just for kicks... Since my reasoning is so clearly flawed, in what way is the entry ambiguous at all? It is only illogical fools such as myself who could possibly see it this way? Seriously, I don't see that you've demonstrated that it is flawed, much less clearly so. This topic comes up repeatedly. Gordon's weighed in on one side, Tracy has weighed in on the other. Both of them are people for whom I have a great deal of respect from their postings on this board and through chat convo. Others will fall on either side as well, and it will be a regular subject of debate until there is an authoritative statement or revision on it. Thanks. David |