Reach and grabbing

I can't find anything allowing a Grabbed creature to Strike at whatever is grabbing it. Have I missed it or is it impossible per RAW to Strike at the creature which is grabbing you if it's out of your reach?

Per pure RAW it is impossible but usually you can allowed since RAI if a creature is grabbing you it is in your reach, you can attack the limb is using for example. It even says it in the rules:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=445

Linked

I would mostly agree. If a creature is doing the grapple unarmed, then you should be able to attack the creature's appendage that is doing the grappling. Though an antagonistic GM still has room to say otherwise.

If they are using a manufactured weapon with the grapple trait and reach - then you might have more problems.

Yeah, the rules say that basically as long as you are using some form of limb, that should generally be attackable.

Weapons or effects like the monk shadow stance that allow reach grab without risking your limbs are a different case though.

if you're hit with a gil hook then you could always try to "sunder" the weapon

If you can find PF2 rules for "sunder" we would all love to see them.

Per pure RAW it is impossible but usually you can allowed since RAI if a creature is grabbing you it is in your reach, you can attack the limb is using for example. It even says it in the rules:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=445

That's it, thanks. I was pretty sure there was something somewhere about attacking limbs but was unable to find it.

I'm in the minority that generally disallows "attacking the limb". It opens up doors to other questions like whether you can ready an action to no-reach attack a creature that's attacking you from reach, or whether other PCs can attack that grabbing foe from squares utilizing its phantom body extension, or whether other allies can flank those mystery squares, whether they can be included area spells or determine spell targeting range, etc.

If the creature has specific rules about severing tentacles or something, then that's okay, but typically it's easier for me to just let a creature's hitbox be its hitbox without adding complicating factors, and it adds an interesting wrinkle to combats with reach + grab enemies. I don't think it breaks the illusion too severely to say the relative size and violent jostling of the enemy's limb prevents effective attacks upon that limb.

I don't think it breaks the illusion too severely to say the relative size and violent jostling of the enemy's limb prevents effective attacks upon that limb.

The game mechanics are fairly clear on Ready that you have to meet the requirements of the action that you use with Ready - such as having the enemy be in your reach for a Strike action.

If your players are looking for a description of events that makes sense with the mechanics, I think it breaks the illusion less to say that a Strike action happens too quickly and unpredictably to effectively react to from Ready. But being held in place kinda indicates that the limb doing the holding is also in a fairly fixed place.

I could have sworn this was specifically addressed somewhere in 2e, and I recall it being different from 1e.

I could have sworn this was specifically addressed somewhere in 2e, and I recall it being different from 1e.

Yes, the Size and Reach rules address this. Pretty sure that was already linked above. 1E didn't need it addressed, since being grappled moved you adjacent.

If you can find PF2 rules for "sunder" we would all love to see them.

Material Statistics

For instance, breaking the wooden handle of a hammer rather than its iron head would still render the item unusable

You would use "thin wood", which has hardness 3, hp 12, break threshold 6.

Just note that if you're a player and you use it too much, be ready for your GM to use it against you too. Don't ask me how i know.

And before you tell me "attended objects can't be targeted", remember that that also comes with "usually". Gill hook grappling me means it's embedded into me to do so, which means it can't easily be moved out of the way.

Sure. Items have hardness, HP, and break threshold stats.

But what action do you use to attack an item with? How many actions does it cost? What traits does it have - especially the Attack trait? Does it provoke reactions? Does the enemy wielding the item get to provide a DC that you roll a check against, does the item get a saving throw against the attack and if so what is the DC, or does the sunder attempt succeed automatically? And how do you determine how much damage you do to the item?

Edit: And most importantly, how do you convince the people that you are playing with that your answers to those questions are the 'correct' way to do a sunder action?

Standard strike, just with a different target. May as well use the wielder AC for brevity, don't see why the item would be allowed a save.

You're grabbing me with a weapon, which restricts your ability to move it out of the way significantly. If it wasn't embedded in my side, you'd just be able to slide it out of the way and be untargetable.

Gill hook grappling me means it's embedded into me to do so, which means it can't easily be moved out of the way.

Moving the gill hook out of the way would be an Escape action.

I'm not trying to escape. I'm going to break your gill hook with a strike, and you limited its viable move paths by embedding it into me.

I'll re-post this because it was added in later.

Edit: And most importantly, how do you convince the people that you are playing with that your answers to those questions are the 'correct' way to do a sunder action?

A lot of people are going to see that Strike doesn't target items generally and especially not attended items.

Aside from repeatedly telling people that you are right and that 'it must work the way I want', what rules are you going to use to actually support your position?

I tend to side with jcheung here. Sure, a normal human or more frail race would probably use an escape action in this situation. But a muscle bound dwarf in full plate? A Half-Orc barbarian in the midst of his Rage?

They are more likely to try to "sunder" the weapon instead. So I tend to let my players use a custom action strike that targets equipment at the AC of the opponent.

I also allow players to attack appendages that are grappling them from afar. I mean, you can attack Black Tentacles right? So why not a bill hook or the tentacle of a Kraken?

did you ever actually use sunder in 1e? the hardest part was figuring out the item AC and HP. it was otherwise a normal strike.
which is what i'm telling you. normal strike. circumvents attended clause for targeting because it's been immobilized.

Sure. And saying that sunder should exist, or 'we houseruled it so that it does exist' is fine and very reasonable.

But that is not the same as saying that sunder does exist in PF2.

I'll re-post this because it was added in later.

breithauptclan wrote:

Edit: And most importantly, how do you convince the people that you are playing with that your answers to those questions are the 'correct' way to do a sunder action?

A lot of people are going to see that Strike doesn't target items generally and especially not attended items.

Aside from repeatedly telling people that you are right and that 'it must work the way I want', what rules are you going to use to actually support your position?

Personally I would say that the following clause of the Adjudicating the Rules section would apply:

∙If you're not sure what action a task uses, look for the most similar basic action. If you don't find one, make up an undefined action and add any necessary traits (usually attack, concentrate, manipulate, or move).

It's a pretty easy step from "Strike Target Creature" to "Strike Target Object". Sure it's deeply at the GM's discretion, but I would say it is well supported by the rules.

Weapons are notoriously fragile, sure when the PC breaks the enemy creature's unstated gill-hook it may be no problem. But when the BBEG destroys the PC's +2 Greater Striking Flaming Holy gill hook with one strike I'm sure the tune will change quickly.

To keep it fair from both sides of the table I don't allow strikes against attended weapons unless you (or the creature) have a special ability that says otherwise.

Weapons are notoriously fragile, sure when the PC breaks the enemy creature's unstated gill-hook it may be no problem. But when the BBEG destroys the PC's +2 Greater Striking Flaming Holy gill hook with one strike I'm sure the tune will change quickly.

To keep it fair from both sides of the table I don't allow strikes against attended weapons unless you (or the creature) have a special ability that says otherwise.

Indeed. In fact, people were discussing this very thing here not too long ago.

Weapons are notoriously fragile, sure when the PC breaks the enemy creature's unstated gill-hook it may be no problem. But when the BBEG destroys the PC's +2 Greater Striking Flaming Holy gill hook with one strike I'm sure the tune will change quickly.

To keep it fair from both sides of the table I don't allow strikes against attended weapons unless you (or the creature) have a special ability that says otherwise.

right, and you usually can't attack attended weapons.

in case it wasn't clear, all the stuff i have been talking about has been specifically referencing attacking maneufactured weapons with the grapple and reach trait, not normal day to day usage. (monsters grappling you from range have already been addressed)

right, and you usually can't attack attended weapons.

"usually" is lost here because the weapon has been effectively immobilized and can't be pulled out of my attack path.

And where in the rules does it actually say that this is the case from a mechanics perspective?

And if we do allow you to narratively 'hit' the gill hook, why should it cause damage to the weapon instead of simply knocking it aside - making it equivalent to an Escape action?

And have you factored in the miserably small item HP compared to the damage that creatures deal?

right, and you usually can't attack attended weapons.

"usually" is lost here because the weapon has been effectively immobilized and can't be pulled out of my attack path.

in case it wasn't clear, all the stuff i have been talking about has been specifically referencing attacking maneufactured weapons with the grapple and reach trait, not normal day to day usage. (monsters grappling you from range have already been addressed)

Understood, what I was trying to pivot away from was trying to interpret whether players COULD do this or not (depending on your interpretation of the rules) but whether you SHOULD let players do this.

Since Gill Hooks will most likely be found on PCs (infact I can't recall any creatures with reach, grapple, weapons off the top of my head) they will most likely use them to grapple monsters with the extended reach. If monsters can destroy their weapons they actively put one of their only ways of dealing damage at risk every time they use this strategy.

Infact I would argue, at a certain point in the game, the grapple trait would become useless because creatures would just destroy your weapon everytime you grapple them with it. Not to mention if the runes get destroyed with it.

For what it's worth, here's what I would do at my table.

First of all, what's your primary intent? Is it to damage the weapon, or rather to Escape from it's grapple. The latter, I presume.

Now, there might actually be an action to do that. Ah, Escape!

But, you want to do it with a weapon instead of unarmed you say? Fine, use your weapon attack; minor tweak.

And to put some icing on top: I might even allow you to roll basic damage against the offending weapon in the case of a critical success instead of the step, if you so insist.

And, nobody needs to open the Sunder Box, again.

I'll re-post this because it was added in later.

breithauptclan wrote:

Edit: And most importantly, how do you convince the people that you are playing with that your answers to those questions are the 'correct' way to do a sunder action?

A lot of people are going to see that Strike doesn't target items generally and especially not attended items.

Aside from repeatedly telling people that you are right and that 'it must work the way I want', what rules are you going to use to actually support your position?

The bunch of feats that require you to target an object, the Razing trait now, the GMG section on adjudicating rules that has casting a produce flame at a barrel.

Attacking attended objects is not supported by the rules.

And for good reason too, breaking the npc weapon is a minor hassle for them, breaking the pc weapon is rendering a high level martial almost obsolete for a whole long time (weapons being often more than half the budget of a character).

Unattended objects like barrels, doors, etc? Sure, go crazy.

Escape by hitting the grappling weapon away? Sure, that's an Escape using attack roll.

And for good reason too, breaking the npc weapon is a minor hassle for them, breaking the pc weapon is rendering a high level martial almost obsolete for a whole long time (weapons being often more than half the budget of a character).

And: NPCs normally don‘t care for loot; how about you?

shroudb wrote:

And for good reason too, breaking the npc weapon is a minor hassle for them, breaking the pc weapon is rendering a high level martial almost obsolete for a whole long time (weapons being often more than half the budget of a character).

And: NPCs normally don‘t care for loot; how about you?

It's not clear, and a GM could extrapolate in your favor but often NPCs aren't listed as having weapons with striking and potency runes on them. So a GM might just drop a base weapon with no runes which is nearly worthless to PCs are a couple levels.