What would a skeleton do in this situation?

[Seharvepernfan]

A mindless skeleton, like the ones in the monster manual:

A narrow hallway, a portcullis trap on one end, a deadend with an arrow slit at the other. On the other side of the arrow slit is the skeleton, who has a longbow and a melee weapon. The party triggers the portcullis trap, which makes them stuck between it and the arrow slit. The skeleton has orders to shoot anyone in the hallway after the portcullis drops. The fighter runs up and covers the arrow slit with his tower shield. What happens?

Does it even recognize the shield as a target?
Does it uselessly shoot arrows at the shield until it runs out? Then switches to the melee weapon?
Does it switch to the melee weapon first because shooting the shield is stupid? Can a skeleton even decide to switch weapons?

What are the limits of "mindless" in situations like these?

[BowStreetRunner]

I think the rules are pretty clear here:


Total Cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover)
If you don’t have line of effect to your target he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.

[Lapak]

Blocking the whole arrow slit with the shield gives total cover and effectively hides the party from the skeleton.

The skeleton is mindless and has no mode of detection that bypasses the shield, so it has nothing to target. In my campaign it would default back to waiting for a target to appear.

If the party then got creative about baiting it, though - one person waves a hand from behind the shield while others hug the wall by the arrow slit, say - it would burn through its available arrows on hopeless shots that would have a chance at hitting only on a natural 20 at best; worse odds if they are clever about it.

[liquidformat]

A mindless skeleton, like the ones in the monster manual:

A narrow hallway, a portcullis trap on one end, a deadend with an arrow slit at the other. On the other side of the arrow slit is the skeleton, who has a longbow and a melee weapon. The party triggers the portcullis trap, which makes them stuck between it and the arrow slit. The skeleton has orders to shoot anyone in the hallway after the portcullis drops. The fighter runs up and covers the arrow slit with his tower shield. What happens?

Does it even recognize the shield as a target?
Does it uselessly shoot arrows at the shield until it runs out? Then switches to the melee weapon?
Does it switch to the melee weapon first because shooting the shield is stupid? Can a skeleton even decide to switch weapons?

What are the limits of "mindless" in situations like these?

ya this type of thing takes hand waving since it is mindless but still 'understands' how to use a weapon that it is equipped with. I would look at it this way:

It does not recognize the shield as a target but the shield is not thick enough to provide the type of cover necessary for the skeleton to believe there isn't anyone there. Otherwise you open up a can of worms you don't want to deal with like would wearing full plate mail or something like that be enough for the skeleton to not believe you are alive.
So for the purpose of this argument treat the shield like armor~ish, it is simply something the skeleton must break through to be able to kill its target. As such it attacks the shield until it breaks the shield and can attack the meat bag on the other side.

As far as weapon choice, if the undead is standing at the portcullis with bow and melee weapon and the shield is put right up against the portullis it would switch to melee since the target is in melee range. If the shield is more than 5' away then it would use the ranged weapon or reach weapon if it has a reach weapon and target is in reach weapon range.

[Falontani]

ya this type of thing takes hand waving since it is mindless but still 'understands' how to use a weapon that it is equipped with. I would look at it this way:

It does not recognize the shield as a target but the shield is not thick enough to provide the type of cover necessary for the skeleton to believe there isn't anyone there. Otherwise you open up a can of worms you don't want to deal with like would wearing full plate mail or something like that be enough for the skeleton to not believe you are alive.
So for the purpose of this argument treat the shield like armor~ish, it is simply something the skeleton must break through to be able to kill its target. As such it attacks the shield until it breaks the shield and can attack the meat bag on the other side.

As far as weapon choice, if the undead is standing at the portcullis with bow and melee weapon and the shield is put right up against the portullis it would switch to melee since the target is in melee range. If the shield is more than 5' away then it would use the ranged weapon or reach weapon if it has a reach weapon and target is in reach weapon range.

I agreed with you right up until you said weapon choice, and I merely disagree with you due to the fact that they must follow orders to the letter, and his order was,


to shoot anyone in the hallway after the portcullis drops.

[Ghen]

The tower shield in this instance is giving total cover, like walls, etc. You can't shoot anyone who has total cover to you, so the skeleton patiently waits until it can perform the order it was given.

Since the order was to "shoot anyone in the hallway after the portcullis drops", it doesn't matter that he has a melee weapon. He will never use it. It should also not be assumed that the skeleton will use up all of his arrows, since after scoring a hit on each person in the hallway he has completed his assignment, he will cease fire.

I might argue that a skeleton isn't intelligent enough to understand an order of operations, such as doing 'x' after 'y' and 'z' has transpired. An order to the effect of "kill anyone in this room" is common for skeletons and very simple, but that's completely different from "After X happens (the portcullis drop), use specific item (the bow) to do this thing (attack) to these targets (anyone in the hallway) this many times (only until a hit is made, so the number of times can change depending on attack rolls) and then do this thing (stop firing)". That can be pretty complex for a mindless entity.

[PunBlake]

There's plenty of ways to interpret this. The orders are to shoot anybody here after the trap is sprung. I think it comes down to (1) a question of whether mindless things have object permanence and (2) a question of aggro and pathing.

I assume the skeleton saw the targets between when the trap was triggered and when the tower shield was slammed into place. If it remembers the bodies were there but cannot see them now, it may try to find another angle from which to shoot. If it does not remember, it may just stand there perplexed. If it does remember and there is not alternate line of fire, it may attack the shield. Since the order included the word "shoot," it would probably use the bow.

[Seharvepernfan]

Don't get too caught up on the specific command words. "Kill anything in the hallway after the portcullis drops."


You can't shoot anyone who has total cover to you,

It can shoot the tower shield, or attack it with a melee weapon.

[ExLibrisMortis]

BowStreetRunner quoted the relevant rule: the skeleton can't attack anyone, therefore it doesn't. It will keep trying to fulfill its instructions, so when the tower shield is removed, it will start shooting (assuming the PCs are still in the corridor).

As for switching weapons, following instructions, and so on: Mindless skeletons can do all that. Mindless--in the context of D&D 3.5--does not mean "dumb as a literal brick". It means "lacking the ability to learn". Skeletons are just as capable of switching weapons as insects (I'm thinking stinger/mandible in bees, for instance). They have base attack bonus, weapon proficiencies, and a drive to kill--they just can't be instructed to be any more effective than they already are.

[Vizzerdrix]

I'd have it plink away at the shield till it was out of arrows. Grab up any not busted, and keep plinking. Sounds funniest.

[Fizban]

Don't get too caught up on the specific command words. "Kill anything in the hallway after the portcullis drops."
It can shoot the tower shield, or attack it with a melee weapon.
Except that's a much different order.

The response to this order depends on what else the skeleton can do. It's mindless, but the fact that it can use weapons means it has to have some minimum understanding of how they work. If it has a clear path to leave the sniper spot and close to melee, that would be the most aggressive response, so it would do that next. If it's walled in, then in order to kill the targets it has to get the shield out of the way, and weapon proficiency includes the knowledge that arrows don't go through shields. In that case it uses the sword to hack through the shield.

After that things get tricky again, because despite having proficiency it's still supposed to act mindless. I would not expect a mindless creature to carefully stow a weapon (and in fact a longbow is large enough it can't really be stowed). So it would drop the bow to draw the sword, after which it is no longer equipped with a bow. So once it chops through the shield it can't shoot anymore, and starts trying to hack a hole around the arrow slit to get through. It would need to be given orders that would remind it to use the bow, such as "kill anything in the hallway after the portcullis drops using a bow or sword."

[BowStreetRunner]

It can shoot the tower shield, or attack it with a melee weapon.This brings up another interesting rules interaction.

Sunder
You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding.

From a certain point of view, this would constitute a sunder attack - the skeleton is attacking a shield that his opponent is holding. In this case a piercing weapon (arrow) cannot be used. So the skeleton would need to change to a slashing or bludgeoning weapon. The skeleton would then provoke an attack of opportunity - which makes absolutely no sense as the shield is providing total cover in both directions. And then there would be the opposed roll - which again seems a little strange since the defender isn't moving the shield around to avoid allowing it to get hit, he's just holding it there. :smallconfused:

[Fizban]

Using a tower shield for cover requires you to "give up your attacks," which can easily include attacks of opportunity. The FAQ says that using a tower shield for cover should be the same as the total defense action IIRC, which specifically includes forfeiting AoOs.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'd rule that you can only stab through an arrow slit, not slash or bludgeon, so the shield is generally safe. At the very least, the shield still has cover from the arrow slit. You can't really melee through a narrow gap like that, even if the shield is held still.

[icefractal]

I'd say it just waits until it can see people again. Or possibly shoots arrows into the shield. It was told to "shoot anyone in the hallway". If that included inanimate objects, it would already have spent all its arrows on the walls, so it depends whether it thinks of the shield as "part of the fighter" or "a wooden wall". Also, given it was specifically told to "shoot them", not "kill them", I don't think it would use the sword either way.

And personally speaking, I think mindless things should be pretty dumb. Dumber than animals, who do have an Int score. Easier to fool than, say, a particularly dumb Ogre with Int 3, who is still an order of magnitude smarter than them. Mindlessness is supposed to be a disadvantage.

This does mean skeletons and zombies will sometimes not be very scary. So use Ghouls when you want frightening, or one of the various other non-mindless undead.

[Psyren]

Don't get too caught up on the specific command words.

But we have to; the specific command words matter a lot.

Even putting aside the "total cover = no attack" rule correctly cited above, if the tower shield is blocking the arrow slit, how can the skeleton even see if anyone is in the corridor to shoot at? From its point of view, there's a wall with a hole in it, through which it sees another wall.

[Calthropstu]

I have a different take.

It must shoot anyone in the room. There are people in the room. It can't shoot them through the tower shield. Simplest answer: destroy the tower shoeld. It would put away its bow, draw its sword and attempt to sunder the shield blocking it from carrying out its orders. It would continue this for all eternity until it got new orders, was shown there were no people in the hall, or until it could once again execute its orders.

[Remuko]

I agree with many others here. Mindless undead and constructs (the mindless ones as well) are like a machine. They only do explicitly as theyre told. If you give a skeleton a sword and tell it to "kill anyone who comes into this room except me", it will do so. If disarmed it will use its claws. If it had other weapons it would use those too. If you told the same skeleton "use this sword to kill anyone who comes into this room except me" and then someone who isnt you comes into the room and takes and/or breaks that specific sword, I refuse to personally believe the skeletons would do anything further as the limits of the specific parameters of its orders have been exceeded. It cannot complete its task as ordered, so it would idle and wait for new orders.

[Necroticplague]

Undead are computers made out of corpses and negative energy.

In this situation, their order is simply impossible, as covering up the arrow slit would provide everyone with total cover from it. Thus, it would do nothing, because it can do nothing. Just like if you Disintegrated its bow, it would just calmly stand there, because its orders have become impossible.

Skeletons are stated to 'take no initiative'. Thus, it wouldn't have any ability to act outside its order to make it's orders possible.

Note, however, all this is purely based on the MM/SRD statement as to how skeletons act. Libris Mortis has some other possibilities for how mindless undead react that would have their default behaivor be 'kill everything they sense when you have nothing else to do', which would grant it enough initiative to wail at the shield until its orders are possible.

[Calthropstu]

I agree with many others here. Mindless undead and constructs (the mindless ones as well) are like a machine. They only do explicitly as theyre told. If you give a skeleton a sword and tell it to "kill anyone who comes into this room except me", it will do so. If disarmed it will use its claws. If it had other weapons it would use those too. If you told the same skeleton "use this sword to kill anyone who comes into this room except me" and then someone who isnt you comes into the room and takes and/or breaks that specific sword, I refuse to personally believe the skeletons would do anything further as the limits of the specific parameters of its orders have been exceeded. It cannot complete its task as ordered, so it would idle and wait for new orders.

If it is prevented from following those orders it attacks. If it is attacked, it defends itself.

[liquidformat]

point of clarification I think we need to make here since people are ignoring it. portcullis is a gate with many holes, so depending on the width of the hallway taking a 5' step to the side and shooting at the other targets who are not using the tower shield is a valid option.

If this is instead a murder hole then the shield would block the entire hole. I still think the ruling of qualifying a tower shield as fully removing line of effect and there by making the skeleton believe there is no longer any living creature in the room is a slippery slope for rules. The character is still wielding the shield there for it should be treated as such and as a target for the skeleton.

With that said weather the skeleton is wielding a melee or ranged weapon it would most likely need to be a piercing weapon to be used through a portcullis or murder hole which raises questions about its ability to sunder said shield. End result, the skeleton would attack the party uselessly until they could escape the trap or die of starvation.

On a side note having a trap that is a 10' deep hole filled with water where the top closes again once the trap is sprung and there are skeletons with orders to kill anyone who falls in seems like a very deadly trap especially at low levels.

[DeTess]

If it is prevented from following those orders it attacks. If it is attacked, it defends itself.

Citation needed?

I agree with the (controlled) undead as computer interpretation, pending a quote from RAW stating that it would behave in a specific way. But without a RAW statement, DM's are free to rule it however they see fit.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Undead and constructs aren't just computers. They have Wisdom and Charisma scores, computers do not. Skeletons, zombies, golems--they work through intuition, not cold hard logic.

[Psyren]

Note, however, all this is purely based on the MM/SRD statement as to how skeletons act. Libris Mortis has some other possibilities for how mindless undead react that would have their default behaivor be 'kill everything they sense when you have nothing else to do', which would grant it enough initiative to wail at the shield until its orders are possible.

I think the LM entry on skeletons refers to random encounter ones "found in the wild" so to speak, i.e. ones that reanimated spontaneously. That would explain why they can be aggressive without open-ended instruction (or without the GM having to lawyer up a byzantine final order that ensures the skeletons can be appropriate challenges.)

[Necroticplague]

Undead and constructs aren't just computers. They have Wisdom and Charisma scores, computers do not. Skeletons, zombies, golems--they work through intuition, not cold hard logic.
Having Wisdom and Charisma doesn't mean they work through intuition. All those two scores mean is that they have the following capabilities:
1. They can perceive the environment (Wisdom)
2. They have some rudimentary sense of self, i.e, they can identify 'me' and 'not me' as distinct entities. (charisma)

You're correct in that a computer lacks these abilities. But those are not the capabilities being discussed. Nobody was questioning whether it could realize it couldn't attack, or that it knew its bow wasn't a part of itself. The relevant portion is that both are mindless, and only strictly follow instructions.


I think the LM entry on skeletons refers to random encounter ones "found in the wild" so to speak, i.e. ones that reanimated spontaneously. That would explain why they can be aggressive without open-ended instruction (or without the GM having to lawyer up a byzantine final order that ensures the skeletons can be appropriate challenges.)
While I entirely agree, I have seen people use that passage as a justification for mindless undead being evil even when controlled (and thus, why it's Evil to animate them), so I believed it to be relevant enough to bring up.

[Segev]

A mindless skeleton, like the ones in the monster manual:

A narrow hallway, a portcullis trap on one end, a deadend with an arrow slit at the other. On the other side of the arrow slit is the skeleton, who has a longbow and a melee weapon. The party triggers the portcullis trap, which makes them stuck between it and the arrow slit. The skeleton has orders to shoot anyone in the hallway after the portcullis drops. The fighter runs up and covers the arrow slit with his tower shield. What happens?

Does it even recognize the shield as a target?
Does it uselessly shoot arrows at the shield until it runs out? Then switches to the melee weapon?
Does it switch to the melee weapon first because shooting the shield is stupid? Can a skeleton even decide to switch weapons?

What are the limits of "mindless" in situations like these?


Blocking the whole arrow slit with the shield gives total cover and effectively hides the party from the skeleton.

The skeleton is mindless and has no mode of detection that bypasses the shield, so it has nothing to target. In my campaign it would default back to waiting for a target to appear.

This is how I would rule it, too. The skeleton can't see any targets, so doesn't attack anything. Same as if the PCs made successful Stealth checks against its Perception. Or were obscured by an illusion. Or were invisible.

[Psyren]

While I entirely agree, I have seen people use that passage as a justification for mindless undead being evil even when controlled (and thus, why it's Evil to animate them), so I believed it to be relevant enough to bring up.

I actually do believe it's Evil to animate them, but not because of the controlled ones. I subscribe to LM's "Thinning The Veil" theory, where even if you the ones you animate are all perfectly docile, the increased amount of negative energy on the Material makes it more likely for uncontrolled ones to spontaneously animate, and worse, to do so at unspecified places/times.

[liquidformat]

2. They have some rudimentary sense of self, i.e, they can identify 'me' and 'not me' as distinct entities. (charisma)

It actually goes a bit beyond 'me'/'not me' distinction and should be expanded to 'undead'/'not undead' since mindless undead from my understanding don't attack other undead without orders normally.

This is how I would rule it, too. The skeleton can't see any targets, so doesn't attack anything. Same as if the PCs made successful Stealth checks against its Perception. Or were obscured by an illusion. Or were invisible.


This is how I would rule it, too. The skeleton can't see any targets, so doesn't attack anything. Same as if the PCs made successful Stealth checks against its Perception. Or were obscured by an illusion. Or were invisible.
There is an important question you are ignoring should using a tower shield apply for 'hiding yourself' in the same way that the hide skill or invisibility should apply for hiding yourself from a mindless undead?

I believe the answer should be a resounding no. Drawing the comparison between using the hide skill or invisibility is an incorrect comparison. It should be comparing to the mindless undead seeing you and then you duck behind a wall. Sure ducking behind the wall gives you the chance to use hide and get away but it would not immediately stop the undead from trying to get to you. The undead if 'wild' and uncommanded would run over to the wall to attack you. If you were gone from said position it would now be standing aimlessly where it last saw you. If the undead was commanded to shoot at anyone who came by it would by logic shoot at the last spot it saw you until it has proof of your death or it runs out of arrows.

[Segev]

There is an important question you are ignoring should using a tower shield apply for 'hiding yourself' in the same way that the hide skill or invisibility should apply for hiding yourself from a mindless undead?

I believe the answer should be a resounding no. Drawing the comparison between using the hide skill or invisibility is an incorrect comparison. It should be comparing to the mindless undead seeing you and then you duck behind a wall. Sure ducking behind the wall gives you the chance to use hide and get away but it would not immediately stop the undead from trying to get to you. The undead if 'wild' and uncommanded would run over to the wall to attack you. If you were gone from said position it would now be standing aimlessly where it last saw you. If the undead was commanded to shoot at anyone who came by it would by logic shoot at the last spot it saw you until it has proof of your death or it runs out of arrows.In this case, the distinction is moot. The skeleton cannot see you to target you. Ducking behind a wall would have the same effect, yes. Being mindless, the skeleton wouldn't even have the object permanence to know you were still back there, unless its orders required it to act like it. (And even then, it would fade quickly once its orders no longer required it.)

For clarity, what I'm getting at is that, if it's orders were to "follow that guy" and "that guy" ran around behind a wall, the skeleton would keep following to where it last saw him, and resume following him if it picked him up again. But wouldn't be able to do some sort of self-directed search to determine where he probably went.

With the tower shield, the skeleton literally has no target. This is one area where the usual weirdness of a tower shield providing cover but being carried equipment works out the way "provides cover" means it to and doesn't feel silly.

[liquidformat]

In this case, the distinction is moot. The skeleton cannot see you to target you. Ducking behind a wall would have the same effect, yes. Being mindless, the skeleton wouldn't even have the object permanence to know you were still back there, unless its orders required it to act like it. (And even then, it would fade quickly once its orders no longer required it.)

For clarity, what I'm getting at is that, if it's orders were to "follow that guy" and "that guy" ran around behind a wall, the skeleton would keep following to where it last saw him, and resume following him if it picked him up again. But wouldn't be able to do some sort of self-directed search to determine where he probably went.

With the tower shield, the skeleton literally has no target. This is one area where the usual weirdness of a tower shield providing cover but being carried equipment works out the way "provides cover" means it to and doesn't feel silly.
I see no distinction between the two examples. If the skeleton doesn't have the 'object permanence' to follow a target around a corner to attack said target under 'kill all intruders' command it similarly wouldn't have the 'object permanence' to follow same target around a corner if commanded 'follow that target'. Either it follows the target to the last place it saw it or immediately stops when target leaves visual range. This distinction honestly isn't much and I don't think it falls under 'object permanence'. If the skeleton went to the spot it last say the target then started looking around for it from there that would fall under 'object permanence'.

[Segev]

I see no distinction between the two examples. If the skeleton doesn't have the 'object permanence' to follow a target around a corner to attack said target under 'kill all intruders' command it similarly wouldn't have the 'object permanence' to follow same target around a corner if commanded 'follow that target'. Either it follows the target to the last place it saw it or immediately stops when target leaves visual range. This distinction honestly isn't much and I don't think it falls under 'object permanence'. If the skeleton went to the spot it last say the target then started looking around for it from there that would fall under 'object permanence'.

The difference is in the order. one order requires it to follow. The other requires it only to kill that which is in a particular area.

If it cannot tell there's something in the area, it won't kill it. It won't think outside the box to problem-solve a way to find something it "knows is there." It will take straight-forward action to achieve its goal. But since it was ordered to shoot anybody in the room, but it can't target anybody in the room with its bow and arrow, it won't try to figure out how to MAKE people in there valid targets.

[ExLibrisMortis]

The relevant portion is that both are mindless, and only strictly follow instructions.
Do vermin strictly follow instructions? No, they don't. The "strictly follow instructions" part is a result of the controlling magic (rebuke, animate, command etc.), not the mindlessness. Left to their own devices, skeletons are perfectly capable of hunting and killing prey, and the controlling magic will impose its orders on a system that already knows how to handle itself in relation to the world (having Wisdom and Charisma). Skeletons are not going to "gotcha" you by taking your instructions to the logical extreme, because they don't reason. They're going to hear what you say, take it at face value, do absolutely nothing creative with it, and insofar they're left to their own devices, try to do what they already wanted to do (that is traditionally to hunt and kill living things).

[Calthropstu]

The difference is in the order. one order requires it to follow. The other requires it only to kill that which is in a particular area.

If it cannot tell there's something in the area, it won't kill it. It won't think outside the box to problem-solve a way to find something it "knows is there." It will take straight-forward action to achieve its goal. But since it was ordered to shoot anybody in the room, but it can't target anybody in the room with its bow and arrow, it won't try to figure out how to MAKE people in there valid targets.

It has all perception skills. Listen, spot (pf perception) as well as the ability to percieve. It knows people are there. It knows something is obstructing it . It will attempt to get through or remove the obstruction.

[Segev]

It has all perception skills. Listen, spot (pf perception) as well as the ability to percieve. It knows people are there. It knows something is obstructing it . It will attempt to get through or remove the obstruction.

It will attempt to do so within its straightforward capabilities, yes. But it can't reach through the arrow slit to do so, and shooting arrows uselessly at it isn't an obvious solution.

[Necroticplague]

Do vermin strictly follow instructions? No, they don't. They also don't share the Skeleton's description which state it does.


The "strictly follow instructions" part is a result of the controlling magic (rebuke, animate, command etc.), not the mindlessness. In which case, the fact the skeleton has instructions means this is the case, so what a skeleton does without instructions is irrelevant.


Left to their own devices, skeletons are perfectly capable of hunting and killing prey, and the controlling magic will impose its orders on a system that already knows how to handle itself in relation to the world (having Wisdom and Charisma). They can do so, because they can interact with the environment. But why would they do so? Again, the SRD on skeletons says

A skeleton does only what it is ordered to do. It can draw no conclusions of its own and takes no initiative.
Which makes a lot of sense, because they have no reason to do anything. No mental urge, for it has no mind, and no bodily urges, for it has no biology.


Skeletons are not going to "gotcha" you by taking your instructions to the logical extreme, because they don't reason. They're going to hear what you say, take it at face value, do absolutely nothing creative with it,
I agree with you there. however, their lack of intelligence poses the opposite problem: taking you at face value if your expression contains some form of idiom or euphemism. Just as machines will never be malevolent, only painfully literal.


and insofar they're left to their own devices, try to do what they already wanted to do (that is traditionally to hunt and kill living things).How can they 'want' anything? They have no 'their own devices'. That's what taking no initiative means. Wanting is something a mind does.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Which makes a lot of sense, because they have no reason to do anything. No mental urge, for it has no mind, and no bodily urges, for it has no biology.

[...]

How can they 'want' anything? They have no 'their own devices'. That's what taking no initiative means. Wanting is something a mind does.
Skeletons having urges is a bit of a tricky subject. Libris Mortis has the following, under Undead Psychology: "Mindless undead merely respond to preset commands or stimuli, driven by nothing other than the energy that animates them". That means skeletons "respond to preset commands" or "respond to stimuli". The latter is what an autonomous skeleton does; it responds to movement, for example, by looking at it, or perhaps trying to strike it. The second bit, "driven by the energy that animates them" suggests to me they'll be hostile to positive energy, including all living creatures--they are, after all, driven by negative energy, and will instinctively act the part.

Admittedly, one reason I assume skeletons do have some motivation (even if it's just hostility) is the fluff. If un-commanded skeletons just stand about doing nothing, even when a bunch of tasty commoners is dancing a jig over there, there's no risk to necromancy at all.


I agree with you there. however, their lack of intelligence poses the opposite problem: taking you at face value if your expression contains some form of idiom or euphemism. Just as machines will never be malevolent, only painfully literal.
Taking things at face value is not the same as taking things (painfully) literally. What we think of as "taking things literally" requires actively ignoring the intent of the speaker and focussing on the propositional meaning of the sentence offered; it's a fairly advanced skill. I don't think a skeleton can take things literally anymore than it understands sarcasm. At most, it doesn't know some word or expression, but that's a vocabulary issue. Of course, it's rather unclear what shape or form the commands issued to a skeleton take, as they don't actually know any language. It's possible that they're entirely non-linguistic, and the controlling magic is used to translate language-based commands into a series of stimulus-response patterns, acting as high-speed conditioning.

[Ghen]

Don't get too caught up on the specific command words. "Kill anything in the hallway after the portcullis drops."



It can shoot the tower shield, or attack it with a melee weapon.

Got it. Well as you can see, there's a ton of different answers depending on what each individual DM thinks about the Wisdom/ Charisma situation, about object permanence, and all the gobbledygook described above. I feel like the best way for each of us to give advice in this situation is just to show what we would do. At my table, it would look something like this:

1.) Party springs the trap, portcullis closes. On his surprise round, skeleton (let's call him "Bob")whips out the "ole faithful" ancient nordic bow.

2.) Until the fighter (Joe) gets to the arrow slit with his shield, Bob is plinking away with his arrows, as it is currently the most effective way to "Kill anything in the hallway" with a wall between Bob and his victims. Bob will do this until he runs out of arrows or his line of sight is obstructed.

3.) When Joe blocks the arrow slit, I would say that Bob is still aware that the party is in the hall.

4.) Realizing that the opening is no longer open, Bob will try to find some way to get around the wall so he can get at Joe and friends. This will probably result in Bob abandoning his post, and (somewhat amusingly) hustling through the dungeon to try and get on the other side of that portcullis. Bob will attempt to do this for eternity until he is successful.

5.) If Bob is in a sealed room such that he cannot try to find a way around the arrow slit wall, Bob will try to bash through the arrow slit wall until he gets through. I would rule that an arrow slit is not a large enough opening to effectively attempt sundering the shield through, so destroying the wall is Bob's only option at this point. Since Bob can't see Joe, or anyone else for that matter, no hide checks are required. If the party would hold still and shut up for a bit (let's say a minute or two), then move silently checks would no longer be necessary either for Bob to assume that nothing's moving around in there. Actually moving to disable the portcullis or lift it somehow would require move silently checks against Bob's listen check to make sure Bob doesn't realize there's life in there.

[Yogibear41]

Depending on what the skeleton can perceive, and the exact orders it was given, I'd say it would either shoot the shield, or stand there and do nothing until something changed.

I remember fighting this big giant undead monster that we more or less stood no chance against, except whoever gave it its orders, probably said "kill anything that is in this room" it was annihilating us, til we ran away, at which point we left the room, and it just stood there, while we pelted it away with ranged attacks, I was like a level 2 warlock or something ha.

Mindless creature's really should be played "stupidly" if you will especially when dealing with physically powerful things like that old CR 7, 22 HD Dragon Skeleton from Draconomicon, that can more or less full attack any level 7 character to death in 1 round.

[rel]

As a creature of limited creativity but limitless patience, the skeleton told to shoot anything beyond the arrow slit that finds said slit blocked simply stands and waits for a valid target to appear.

It assumes (perhaps incorrectly) that the fighter is still attached to his shield but that doesn't matter, it was told to shoot creatures and it has no targets. So it waits.

[JyP]

What are the limits of "mindless" in situations like these?
Methink the iconic skelettons are from Jason and the Argonauts, and are warriors before being mindless.

Moreover, skelettons don't use their nonexistent eyes to see, but a thing called lifesense (described in Libris Mortis). They may well perceive the living warrior behind the tower shield and hack at it repeatedly.

[Mordaedil]

Methinks any DM should just call it as they want.

I once got called out because I had a zombie in a room trapped with falling ceiling tiles stand by and not move to attack until the players got within safe range for it to attack without triggering the traps.

I just figured whoever put the zombie there gave it specific orders regarding the traps, my players disagreed. And then they all died to the ceiling tiles because they tried to flank it without taking care of where they were going.

In retrospect, I've revamped the room entirely.

[Fizban]

I've thought of another point I don't think's been specifically mentioned: the nature of control.

Animate Dead specifically comes with a limited amount of control, as does Rebuke Undead, and what happens when the controller dies? Not controlled anymore. Depending on who left the skeleton there, there's the serious question of whether or not it's actually still under control and thus obeying orders, or just acting on whatever the DM's choice of mindless undead instinct is.

[Pleh]

I like to look at it from the skeleton's view, from the ground up.

First, you were a warrior. The necromancer didn't teach you how to use your bow or sword, you simply remember how you would have used them back when you were alive.

Next, you are now a corpse. You no longer act or think of your own volition.

Then you were animated by a necromancer with a low magic spell that compels you to act as if you were alive again, but only for the purpose of whatever simple command the necromancer gives you. It's a bit like if you were Dominated before you died.

So, before the heroes show up, the skeleton was standing as a corpse (a la Skyrim Drougr). Once the command phrase has been triggered, the skeleton tries to execute the order.

Here I've seen people in the thread getting sloppy with the handling of the command. Is it "shoot anyone in the room" or "kill anyone in the room"?

If "Kill," then the skeleton should use sword and bow equally to use whatever method would have seemed best to the Warrior back in life, because that's all the knowledge the skeleton has to work with. Most likely, the skeleton would attempt to sunder the shield with their sword, which would be limited by how the arrow slit is constructed.

If "Shoot," then (before the shield blockage) would continue shooting people in the room until they left the room or until they were turned into corpses by the arrows (thus no longer constituting "people" in the room, but "things" in the room; the power of the Magic Spell is the one doing the thinking on this end). After the shield blocks the slit, I would rule that it matters if the warrior had ever defended this exact location before they died and if the layout of the building remains sufficiently similar for them to find their way around. If so, then they act as they would in life, running around the dungeon to target the heroes from the other side. If not, or if the room they're in is sealed and has no exit, then I would rule that the skeleton perceives the shield as part of a person in the room (since they have lifesense) and they would continue attempting to shoot the only person they may target (even though their attacks automatically fail). They continue firing until they run out of arrows, which means picking up any fallen arrows (because their warrior memory would do so, left with no other recourse) and shattering their whole quiver to bits over time.

[Calthropstu]

Methinks any DM should just call it as they want.

I once got called out because I had a zombie in a room trapped with falling ceiling tiles stand by and not move to attack until the players got within safe range for it to attack without triggering the traps.

I just figured whoever put the zombie there gave it specific orders regarding the traps, my players disagreed. And then they all died to the ceiling tiles because they tried to flank it without taking care of where they were going.

In retrospect, I've revamped the room entirely.

A published paizo scenario for PFS actually does this. The actual instructions to the gm states "it knows where the traps are and avoids them" for a zombie.

[Rijan_Sai]

...If not, or if the room they're in is sealed and has no exit, then I would rule that the skeleton perceives the shield as part of a person in the room (since they have lifesense) and they would continue attempting to shoot the only person they may target...


Moreover, skelettons don't use their nonexistent eyes to see, but a thing called lifesense (described in Libris Mortis). They may well perceive the living warrior behind the tower shield and hack at it repeatedly.

I am wondering where this comes from? Lifesense is a feat from Libris Mortis, and creatures with "INT: - (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities)" are unable to take feats. (All of the sample skeletons in LM, as well as MMI, follow the general rule:

Feats

A skeleton loses all feats of the base creature and gains Improved Initiative.)
While there are a couple of variant skeletons listed in LM162 that are given some other feats as bonuses, none are listed with Lifesense.
----
----
Now, I did just find these two passages on page 11-12 of LM, under "Undead Senses":

Vision (Ex): The energy that animates an undead extends to its organs of sight, giving all undead creatures darkvision out to at least 60 feet. They are never hindered by darkness, and they are able to see even in pitch black conditions, when most living creatures are unable to discern the least visual clue.
and

Lifesense: Some undead, especially those without the customary organs that grant the ability to sense their environment, sense the world as a great darkness illuminated only by the “light” given off by living creatures. To such an undead, each living creature gives off “light” in a 20-foot radius, illuminating all objects within that radius. (See the Lifesense feat, page 28, for more details.)
however, every skeleton in the "Samples" section, as well as the MM are listed with the Special Qualities

Damage reduction 5/bludgeoning, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to cold, undead traits.
So, I would, as a DM, rule that they do not natively have Lifesense, and only consider on a case-by-case basis whether or not it would make sense to give it to one as a bonus.

Edit: In addition to what Psyren says, (agreeing with me, using far less words), there is also this in the Lifesense feat:

This life-light behaves like regular light—you can’t see into solid objects, or past solid walls.
so even if they did have Ls, they would still not be able to see anything behind a tower shield.

[Psyren]

Skeletons are not wraiths; they do not have lifesense. What they have is normal sight powered by negative energy, which also gives them darkvision. They cannot see through a tower shield.

[Seharvepernfan]

I think too many people see a tower shields cover as actual cover, like from a wall or something. If you used silent image and put up a fake wall, fine, but the shield is attached to a target, therefor it is the target.

Also, the book says you can attack through an arrow slit with a long piercing weapon "like a spear or an arrow". So, a shortspear or spear. The question about the melee weapon part was really more about whether a skeleton can decide to switch weapons for any reason. The one in the MM just has a sword and shield. So, IF it decides to attack the shield, can it decide to switch to a spear since the spear is the better choice for that (as arrows do half damage to objects and are limited; I don't think shields spears do half damage)?

[Calthropstu]

I think too many people see a tower shields cover as actual cover, like from a wall or something. If you used silent image and put up a fake wall, fine, but the shield is attached to a target, therefor it is the target.

Also, the book says you can attack through an arrow slit with a long piercing weapon "like a spear or an arrow". So, a shortspear or spear. The question about the melee weapon part was really more about whether a skeleton can decide to switch weapons for any reason. The one in the MM just has a sword and shield. So, IF it decides to attack the shield, can it decide to switch to a spear since the spear is the better choice for that (as arrows do half damage to objects and are limited; I don't think shields do half damage)?

Spears do not do half damage to items. I did not know arrows do. But spears are perfectly acceptable sunder weapons.

[Ghen]

Spears do not do half damage to items. I did not know arrows do. But spears are perfectly acceptable sunder weapons.

I don't believe this to be accurate. To sunder, you must use a slashing or bludgeoning weapon. A spear is a piercing weapon, so you can't use it for this purpose.


I think too many people see a tower shields cover as actual cover, like from a wall or something.

I'm not aware of any rule differentiating cover from a tower shield from "actual cover". Can you give more detail on what you mean by this?

[Calthropstu]

I don't believe this to be accurate. To sunder, you must use a slashing or bludgeoning weapon. A spear is a piercing weapon, so you can't use it for this purpose.



I'm not aware of any rule differentiating cover from a tower shield from "actual cover". Can you give more detail on what you mean by this?

You are correct.

Well, disarm attempt then. Force him to drop shield. Switch to bow.

Then he picks up shield and places it against hole.

Then skeleton drops bow, picks up spear and disarms.

Then he picks up tower shield and places it against hole.

Then skeleton disarms the tower shield, picks up bow.

Then he picks up tower shield and places it against the hole...

[Seharvepernfan]

I don't believe this to be accurate. To sunder, you must use a slashing or bludgeoning weapon. A spear is a piercing weapon, so you can't use it for this purpose.

Ha. I knew it didn't make much sense. Still, I'm not sure it's still "sundering" if you're attacking a tower shield being used as cover.



I'm not aware of any rule differentiating cover from a tower shield from "actual cover". Can you give more detail on what you mean by this?

A tower shield is a special exception to the cover rules. For instance, a tower shield used as cover doesn't protect you from targeted attacks like charm person. If it were really cover, you'd still need line of effect.

[Psyren]

A tower shield is a special exception to the cover rules. For instance, a tower shield used as cover doesn't protect you from targeted attacks like charm person. If it were really cover, you'd still need line of effect.

It doesn't protect you from targeted spells, yes, but that's irrelevant here because the skeleton isn't casting any. It DOES provide total cover against attacks, and therefore the skeleton won't be able to do anything.

[Calthropstu]

It doesn't protect you from targeted spells, yes, but that's irrelevant here because the skeleton isn't casting any. It DOES provide total cover against attacks, and therefore the skeleton won't be able to do anything.

Wouldn't targetting the shield for disarm be possible though?
Edit: so took a much closer look at this.

This scenario is actually 100% gm call because it's not actually a rules legal move.

Technically he can give himself cover but not his allies. Plus, he isn't taking "total cover" by ducking behind the shield, he is placing the shield against the hole. Rules don't cover this.

So:
How big is the hole?
How big is the shield?
If the shield is bigger than the hole, the skeleton attempts to move the shield.
If the hole is bigger than the shield, the skeleton shoots through the cracks.

If we go with RAW, the skeleton ignores the guy taking total cover behind the shield and shoots the others.

[Psyren]

Wouldn't targetting the shield for disarm be possible though?

This is where nailing down whether all this is happening in 3.5 or PF starts to become relevant. Even assuming 3.5 though (since OP said "monster manual"): (a) those weren't the skeleton's orders and (b) doing that through an arrow slit, with no disarm techniques to speak of (because, again, skeleton) would be impractical at best.



This scenario is actually 100% gm call because it's not actually a rules legal move.

Technically he can give himself cover but not his allies. Plus, he isn't taking "total cover" by ducking behind the shield, he is placing the shield against the hole. Rules don't cover this.

So:
How big is the hole?
How big is the shield?
If the shield is bigger than the hole, the skeleton attempts to move the shield.
If the hole is bigger than the shield, the skeleton shoots through the cracks.

If we go with RAW, the skeleton ignores the guy taking total cover behind the shield and shoots the others.

Actually, there's rules for all of it. The hole is not any ordinary hole, it's specifically an arrow-slit. Similarly, the shield is specifically a tower shield. If it were just a hole in the wall I'd agree with you though.

[Calthropstu]

This is where nailing down whether all this is happening in 3.5 or PF starts to become relevant. Even assuming 3.5 though (since OP said "monster manual"): (a) those weren't the skeleton's orders and (b) doing that through an arrow slit, with no disarm techniques to speak of (because, again, skeleton) would be impractical at best.



Actually, there's rules for all of it. The hole is not any ordinary hole, it's specifically an arrow-slit. Similarly, the shield is specifically a tower shield. If it were just a hole in the wall I'd agree with you though.

There is no rule anywhere that mentions placing a tower shield in front of an arrow slit. Gm call is the correct answer.

[Pleh]

There is no rule anywhere that mentions placing a tower shield in front of an arrow slit. Gm call is the correct answer.

GM call was always going to be the answer. We can still figure out what RAW would suggest, but I think if Gygax were here, he'd tell us to do what makes sense.

It's okay to forget the rules when they get funky.

Disarm? Getting away from the rules, I'd like to ask exactly how you force someone to drop their tower shield because you shot it with an arrow from the outside. Don't disarm attempts rather require you to target the hand or the hilt of the wielded object? Even if it were possible, I'd give the fighter +4 or +8 to resist the disarm because it's braced against both the attack and a wall, allowing him to rest his weight against it. Even a melee weapon makes no sense here. Sunder has better chance of success.

[Calthropstu]

GM call was always going to be the answer. We can still figure out what RAW would suggest, but I think if Gygax were here, he'd tell us to do what makes sense.

It's okay to forget the rules when they get funky.

Disarm? Getting away from the rules, I'd like to ask exactly how you force someone to drop their tower shield because you shot it with an arrow from the outside. Don't disarm attempts rather require you to target the hand or the hilt of the wielded object? Even if it were possible, I'd give the fighter +4 or +8 to resist the disarm because it's braced against both the attack and a wall, allowing him to rest his weight against it. Even a melee weapon makes no sense here. Sunder has better chance of success.

Fair enough I suppose. Treating it like a barred opening is more apropriate. You take your spear, shove hard against the shield and force it away. Of course, it's unlikely to succeed, but it's the best play here. Or most likely anyways.

[Psyren]

There is no rule anywhere that mentions placing a tower shield in front of an arrow slit. Gm call is the correct answer.

The edge of the fighter's square is what's in front of the arrow slit, and there are indeed rules for placing the tower shield there. And because it's an arrow slit, there is no getting around that edge of the square like you would in an open environment. So I stand by my statement.

[Calthropstu]

The edge of the fighter's square is what's in front of the arrow slit, and there are indeed rules for placing the tower shield there. And because it's an arrow slit, there is no getting around that edge of the square like you would in an open environment. So I stand by my statement.

Point conceded, argument retracted.