I disagree.
Action: None. An Acrobatics check is made as part of
another action or as a reaction to a situation.
You use acrobatics while you move, trying (succesfully or not) doesn't take an action, it is just part of spending 5' of movement, if you spend it.
You have actually answered your own question by quoting the above. I'm not trying to argue with you here, I'm just trying to help you see where you may be confused with the rule. (But of course if you think you are right and I am the one who is confused, then I guess I really can't help you.)
Acrobatics is not part of movement -- but it can be part of a move action. (Yes, there is a difference). "Part" of a move action, does not mean 5' of a move action. It means that while you are moving you can also combine the acrobatics check... but regardless of whether you move 10' and stop, or move up to 30', you have consumed an entire move action.
Maybe someone else can explain this better than I can?
You have actually answered your own question by quoting the above. I'm not trying to argue with you here, I'm just trying to help you see where you may be confused with the rule. (But of course if you think you are right and I am the one who is confused, then I guess I really can't help you.)
Acrobatics is not part of movement -- but it can be part of a move action. (Yes, there is a difference). "Part" of a move action, does not mean 5' of a move action. It means that while you are moving you can also combine the acrobatics check... but regardless of whether you move 10' and stop, or move up to 30', you have consumed an entire move action.
Maybe someone else can explain this better than I can?
I disagree, again.
If you move 30', you can move 30' and make all the Acrobatics checks you want (taking some penalties) on different points of your movement.
The same happens with jumping or climbing. The move action is used to move, acrobatics is something you use while moving, but it doesn't consume the action in any way or case, at least not under the current rules. Nothing in the rules prevents a character to keep moving after he fails an acrobatic check or tries to move into an ilegal square.
I think that the rules are vague in that case, and I understand why you are saying that, but it is only another reason to clarify it in any future errata or FAQ. It that's so difficult to explain then it really does need some clarification.
| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Omissions / Clarifications Required on Pages 82-83
Familiars
Having purused several threads and after a few postings of my own, it appears that there is some missing information on familiars. This could be clarified on the mystical "FAQ" which is supposedly in the works, but I think it could also warrant inclusion in the errata, and ultimately be included in the Core Rulebook:
1) There is some confusion about whether familiars also gain the benefits of increased ability scores, feats and skills, as their "effective HD" increases. The rules state that "For the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice, use the master's character level or the familiar's normal HD total, whichever is higher."
This seems to indicate that as the master levels, the familiar's Hit Dice do not increase, except when calculating "effects" which I am guessing only includes spell effects and special ability effects. The improved familiars also have special attacks, like poison whose DC's are based on HD. It is unclear whether the DC would be based on the "effective HD" or the creature's "normal HD".
This could benefit from more clear wording stating: "Although the familiar's actual HD does not increase, for the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice, (such as special abilities, spell-like abilities, special attacks, special defenses and special qualities), use the master's character level or the familiar's normal HD total, whichever is higher."
2) Prior to getting Spell Resistance at level 11, Improved Familiar allows a master to pick a familiar with SR. Does a creature's Spell Resistance increase as the "effective HD" increases? As per the above, if "effects" included special defenses, then does this also affect SR calculation (which is based on CR, which is based on HD)?
3) As a familiar gains Intelligence, does it gain extra ranks in skills?
4) The "familiar table" on page 83 shows the Intelligence score of a familiar. What happens when you pick a high Int familiar with Improved Familiar? At level 7 (9 Int) you could pick a 12 Int familiar (Imp). Does the Imp's Int drop to 9, or should it reference that you use the greater of the Int score based on the master's level or the familiar's normal Int?
5) How is a familiar's CMB calculated? Under attacks it references that familiars may use their Str or Dex to make a melee attack, and they use the master's BAB. Does a familiar use it's master's BAB for calculating CMB? Does it use the higher of Str or Dex? If not, it should mention that CMB is calculated normally.
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In addition to my above post:
6) Does a master's skill ranks count towards a familiar's Skill Focus feat? Does a toad gain +6 from its Skill Focus (Perception) feat when it's master gains 10 ranks in Perception?
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Also in addition to my above post:
7) What is the Caster Level the familiar uses for CL-based effects? (i.e. a Steam Mephit's, Boiling Rain ability). Does the CL increase as the familiar's "effective HD" increases, or does it always stay the same regardless of the familiar's "effective HD"?
-bump!
I marked some important posts for FAQ/errata. Anyone that has the guts, courage and spare time to read the whole thread is welcome.
Plus:
A link to the thread with contradictions between the Bestiary and the Core rule book (important: errata involving natural attacks)
Contradictions between Bestiary and Pathfinder
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Rapid Shot: Doesn't say what attack bonus you use. It is the full attack bonus, not an iterative attack with -5x penalties, but a Clarification would be nice.
Also, for the FAQ, many people asks if Rapid Shot and Many Shot stack.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Spiked Gauntlet:
1. Can you wield a weapon with a hand that wears a spiked gauntlet?
Spiked Gauntlets are listed as weapons and the description doesn't clarify if the spikes allow you to use the hand for other tasks.
2. If the answer to 1) is yes: In the same round you make an attack with a spiked gauntlet can you attack with a weapon wield in that hand? and using a two handed weapon?
Could I use TWF with a two handed weapon as the main weapon and spiked gauntlet as the off-hand weapon?
(basically, does it work as armor spikes do?)
3. For FAQ, Can I discharge a Melee touch spell over an enemy or ally through a gauntlet or spiked gauntlet?
My bet is no, because touching anything with your hand, even a gauntlet, would discharge the spell over the gauntlet, not the intended target (as I can read in the rules). Furthermore, most characters can't cast spells through weapons.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Page 150 of Core RuleBook:
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor,
which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked
armor” on Table 6–4) on a successful grapple attack.[...]
Does it applies also to grapple checks to maintain the grapple? And to maneuver checks to break/reverse the grapple (if grappled)?
In 3.5 looks like it applied only after the initial touch attack, but even back then it wasn't clear.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Inconsistancy Error on page 141:
I was trying to determine if damage modifiers, such as those for a two-handed weapons (x 1.5) and using a weapon in your off-hand (x 0.5) are applied when you have a negative strength score. After reviewing each description under "Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons:", I realized that the rules are not consistant.
The inconsistancies are specifically with regards to the usage of "Strength modifier" and "Strength bonus". (Note: Strength bonus refers only to a "positive" modifier, where-as a negative modifier is of course a "Strength penalty".)
Light weapons:
"Add the wielder’s Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only."
This would indicate that you do not apply the x 0.5 modifier to your off-hand weapon when you have a Strength penalty. (Which may have been the intent, and if so, then there is nothing wrong with these references.)
The very last sentence definately should refer to "Strength modifier" and not "Strength bonus".
One-Handed weapons:
"Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls."
Since all the references are to "Strength bonus" it appears that a character with a low Strength score who has a negative Strength modifier (resulting in a Strength penalty) would then NOT substract this penalty from their damage rolls in any of the above references -- even when just making a normal one-handed, primary weapon attack.
Two-Handed weapons:
Apply 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.
This again would indicate that the character only gains this benefit when they have a positive ability modifier (which may be intentional wording?)
Corrections Required:
If the intent was to apply the damage modifiers for weapon use to Strength modifiers, regardless whether the character has a bonus or penalty, then all references need to be changed to "Strength modifier".
If the intent was to apply the damage modifiers only when the character has a positive modifier (Strength bonus), then some of the references to "Strength bonus" need to be changed to "Strength modifier" as noted above.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Inconsistancy Error on page 141:
Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only
[...]
One-Handed weapons:
"Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls."
...
There are inconsistancies between page 141 and 179
Damage Section, Chapter 8:
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown
weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to
the damage result.[...]
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon
in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If
you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
The last bolded part is also missing in the pag. 141
[...]
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage
with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add
1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are
not multiplied). You don’t get this higher Strength bonus,
however, when using a light weapon with two hands.
Corrections Required:
If the intent was to apply the damage modifiers for weapon use to Strength modifiers, regardless whether the character has a bonus or penalty, then all references need to be changed to "Strength modifier".If the intent was to apply the damage modifiers only when the character has a positive modifier (Strength bonus), then some of the references to "Strength bonus" need to be changed to "Strength modifier" as noted above.
In 3rd Ed. and 3.5 you suffer the penalties without multiplying it (otherwise you would deal less damage wielding a thw and you would suffer smaller damage penalties when twf, if you have str penalties), and you multiply the positive bonuses. Which is common sense imo. There is no reason to change all the references to modifier or bonus, but there are errors in the rules.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
This came up while discussing the nuances of Touch Spells that require Holding the Charge and those that have a Duration and a per/round mechanic (thus don`t use Holding the Charge rules) with Jason Nelson (who wrote Calcific Touch).
Look what the rules say about attacking with Unarmed Strikes and a Touch Spell*:
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Yet contrast that with how the Touch attacks with Unarmed Strikes are described later in the same Chapter:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. (...)
Holding the Charge: (...) You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.
So the first sentence about Touch Spells in this section DOES seem to correspond to how Touch spells were treated earlier (in “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, where they were considered Armed), though that section specifically mentioned that Touch Spells were delivered as Unarmed Strikes, which isn`t mentioned in this first sentence about Touch Spells in Combat.
But then under Holding the Charge (i.e. any spell where all the targets can`t be touched in the first round, and doesn`t have a specific duration), we`re told that that you can touch FRIENDS in a certain matter OR use Unarmed Attacks/Natural Attacks (i.e. compatable with Iterative Attacks) to deliver the Charges... Unfortunately this passage also says you AREN`T considered Armed when doing so (unless you normally would be Armed without the Touch Spell).Should the entire italicized passage be deleted or signifigantly changed?
Because not only does it conflict with the two previously mentioned passages, but it bizarrely seems to somehow think that Natural Attacks aren`t normally considered Armed (!). As well, if you aren`t considered Armed, then you can`t take an AoO with the Touch Spell Charge, yet that seems to be common consensus as the RAI.
Also, the general rules for Touch spells state:
(...) You can touch up to 6 willing targets as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell. If the spell allows you to touch targets over multiple rounds, touching 6 creatures is a full-round action.
It looks like the ¨willing creature¨ part was left out in the last sentence... I don`t think you`re supposed to be able to Chill Touch 6 opponents per round, even as a Full Round Action (unless you have the BAB or Natural Attacks to support that). Obviously, the wording here directly conflicts with the wording in the Touch Spells in Combat section (which besides the non-provoking Standard/Full Round Action to touch friend(s), discusses using Unarmed Strikes/Natural Attacks to deliver Charges). Adding in `willing creature` removes that conflict, but ideally it could at least mention that non-willing targets of Touch Spells are handled in the Combat Chapter... It`s not like everybody KNOWS the rules were split up in exactly that way.
*Also note how in the Combat Chapter, the general rules for Armed/ Unarmed/ Ranged Attacks/ Natural Attacks/ Shooting into melee/ Critical Hits are placed under the heading `Attack Action`, which is RATHER misleading if Attack Action is supposed to be a specific action rather than a reference to any and every attack. Even `Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action` is something that is compatable with other Standard Action attacks (like Grapple or Cleave), not just the Attack Action. All this info would be better placed under the Combat Statistics: Attack Roll heading since it properly pertains to ALL attack rolls and not just the attack action.
Holding the Charge: (...) You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge.
that could be written as:
(I removed the part of about `normal` unarmed attack, and shortened it a bit as well.)
...But this issue isn`t really particular to Holding a Charge, i.e. one should be able to apply the 1/round charge from Calcific Touch (which has duration, not Holding a Charge) to one attack within a Flurry of Blows (since the spell doesn`t specify an action to do so, thus is relying on general touch spell rules).
so it`s better to remove that part completely,
and in the first, general section about Touch Spells in Combat:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
instead say this:
p. 331, reincarnate spell, last line:
The spell can bring back a creature that has died of old age.
The spell's wording is functionally identical to 3.5, except here:
The spell cannot bring back a creature who has died of old age.
This may not actually be an error; I gather it's a reversion to 3.0 where reincarnate COULD (by omission) bring back a creature that died of old age. Like in 3.5 it's also left unspecified what happens to the target's mental ability scores. They're not listed in the table so I guess the target doesn't get any adjustments for the new race, but it's not clear whether the subject loses the adjustments for his old race. (The 3.0 SRD states unambiguously that they're left unchanged.)
p. 477, potions and oils, lines 4-6:
It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures.
Taken strictly this means you can't make an oil of magic weapon or oil of animate rope or the like, since they don't target a creature. I don't think this is the intention since such oils are listed in the GameMastery Guide. It should probably say "targets one or more creatures or objects". This clause was apparently introduced with PF; it's not in the 3.5 SRD.
A funny thing I realised after reading the corebook: the concept of an ability check is never formally explained in the rules! There are a few references to it, but no clear statement that this is a d20 roll + ability modifier checked again some DC, unlike for a skill check, which is clearly defined. Doing an ability check is referenced many times though, but always as a "Charisma check", or "Wisdom check".
The closest explanation of an ability check is given in the Initiative ruling, which is a Dex check, and somewhat explains how to do it. Ability checks are also mentioned in the Skills section, along with the "Take 10 or 20" rule (despite the "Take" option should concern both ability and skill checks, not only ability checks).
I know this is not crucial, as it may seem obvious, but you feel that the book has been written for people already familiar with D&D rules.
Ability Scores, page 15:
Each character has six ability scores that represent his character's most basic attributes. They are his raw talent and prowess. While a character rarely rolls a check using just an ability score, these scores, and the modifiers they create, affect nearly every aspect of a character's skills and abilities.
Common Terms, page 11:
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws.
I plan to rewrite the system in its entirely for the sake of clarity... in about ten years. :)
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
In another thread it was pointed out that the descriptions of "Feint" in the Skill chapter and the Combat chapter are different.
The main question is wether feint works for ranged attacks or not, I guess Chapter 8 info is more important, but It leads to some confussion.Bluff skill:
Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing
your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC
against your next attack. The DC of this check is equal to
10 + your opponent’s base attack bonus + your opponent’s
Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense
Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent’s
Sense Motive bonus, if higher. For more information on
feinting in combat, see Chapter 8.
Chapter 8:
Feint
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill
check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent’s
base attack bonus + your opponent’s Wisdom modifier. If
your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead
equal to 10 + your opponent’s Sense Motive bonus, if higher.
If successful, the next melee attack you make against the
target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if
any) . This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
I'm not sure if this has been brought up but isn't concentration still a skill? I made it a class skill for all spell casters.
thnxPJ
|
|
I'm not sure if this has been brought up but isn't concentration still a skill? I made it a class skill for all spell casters.
thnx
PJIt has been asked frequently so I suposse it is worth a FAQ entry.
I can answer that: Concentration is no longer a skill, now you get a concentration modifier for "free" that is equal to your caster level in the class used to cast the spell plus the relevant ability score modifier (Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma). You can't increase you concentration modifier using skill points, but you can use some feats.
Chapter 9 (Pag. 206) for more info.
cool thnx I didn't see it.Again thank you!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
SUNDER
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.
TRIP
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack.
DISARM
You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack.
-----------------------------------------------------
Many players seem to be unaware that Sunder is an Attack Action to activate. Besides that there is no clear table laying out this info (along with which use weapon bonuses, etc), the actual rules text for Sunder is misleading. It`s final part reads `in place of a melee attack´, i.e. JUST LIKE TRIP AND DISARM which are Full Attack/AoO compatable.
Certainly the preceding part seems quite clear that it is an Attack Action,
but grammatically speaking the final part should read since it is speaking of a SPECIFIC melee attack (within the attack action) NOT `any` melee attack (which is suggested by the usage of `a`).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
As noticed in this post, text for the True Resurrection spell has a misprint in the Components section:
First Printing, page 362:
"Components: V,S,M,DF (diamond worth 25,000 gp)"
This has been corrected at least in the PDF version (my PDF shows the correct text 'V,S,DF,M (diamond worth 25,000 gp) ), but this has not been updated neither in the Errata v1.1 nor in the Errata v2.0 .
Since I only possess the First Printing book I cannot tell if this error is present also in the Second or in the Third Printing, but regardless the Errata is silent regarding this, although the error was fixed in the PDF version.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ommission Error
Page 73
RE: Sorcerer - Arcane Bloodline - Bloodline Powers - Arcane Bond
With regards to choosing a bonded object, one of the benefits is the extra spell it grants. The wording is very specific to wizards though including referencing the wizard's spell book. Although most players have interpreted this ability as providing an extra "spell slot" for the sorcerer, RAW would indicate that the sorcerer could not use this ability as they do not have a spellbook.
The benefit granted by choosing the bonded object option for a sorcerer needs to be defined.
This was ommission was identified by carn's post
(I was re-reading the thread and realized I missed this the first time through.)
Yeah, I decided to defer to your use of the avatar and be the one to change since you have maintained Superscriber status. :)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ommission Error / Clarity
Page 31
Barbarian / Class Features / Fast Movement
This ability states:
A barbarian's land speed is faster than the norm for her race by +10.
Q1: Is this a racial bonus or an untyped bonus?
Q2: Does this improve base land speed or just land speed? (This is an important distinction as there are some effects like the Acrobatics bonus/penalty that are based off of "base land speed")
Currently I would read this as "+10 untyped bonus to land speed". If this was not the intention, please clarify.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Typo Error
Page 88
Acrobatics
Halfway through the second paragraph it states:
Creatures with a base land speed above 30 feet receive a +4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed above 30 feet. Creatures with a base land speed below 30 feet receive a -4 racial bonus on Acrobatics checks made to jump for every 10 feet of their speed below 30 feet.
The reference to "bonus" should indicate "penalty".
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I discovered an issue with Concentration and SLA´s:
MANY MANY creatures don´t list any ´associated´ stat for their SLA´s...
SOME (those whose SLA´s have DC´s) COULD be ´inferred´ to use one or another stat (in order to arrive at that DC), but many creatures´ SLA´s DON´T have DC´s, in which case there is no way to figure out their Concentration modifier, e.g. to pull off a Teleport SLA to get out of a Grapple.
(This is somewhat related to, but distinct from, the whole problem of non-spell derived SLA´s)
For that, I REALLY hope that you insert the ´´general rule´ for figuring Spell Level into the rules somewhere... All non-spell SLA´s should still have Spell Level included, but having the ´general rule´ in the game itself means the game still works if you don´t happen to catch and fix every such non-spell SLA without a Spell Level.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I previouusly posted this issue to the Rules Question forum first to establish the consensus on the `rules should`.
Fog Cloud lists radius 20`, height 20`. The consensus was that it was a sphere effect.... In which case, listing height as it does is superfluous and gives the impression that it COULD be intended as a cylinder area and the word cylinder was simply left out.
Many many spells list only radius without specifying they are a sphere, while some spells do specify they are a sphere in the Target line... Ideally, all area types should be specified in the Target line (sphere is equivalent to cylinder, which IS always specified). If not, there really should be a line saying that given only a radius, the default is a spherical effect.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In the list of Move Actions, both in the text and on the Table, the Move Action moving you your move speed is simply called ´Move´.
This can be somewhat confusing between the action name and the action type.
In fact, AFAIK when the rules need to refer to specifically the ´Move´ (1 Move Speed) Action vs. any and every Move Action (the type), it uses the phrase ´regular move´. So fixing the Table and Action description to actually HAVE the name ´Regular Move´ would better match how the rules actually refer to this action, and also remove some potential confusion by using a distinct name (the rest of the rules NEED to refer to it by this un-defined name, because just saying ´move action´, it´s actual name, obviously wouldn´t be clear enough).
I realize this is something that hasn´t changed at all from 3.5, but that doesn´t lessen the validity of this issue.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The rules don´t go into what happens when one of the creatures of a Grapple has their position shifted so they are no longer threatening/threatened by the other Grappler.
Grappled condition says you cannot move, but I read this as ´YOU cannot move´ (i.e. you as subject and object), which is different than ´your position cannot be changed´ (this is the type of wording used in the Entangled condition, for example when firmly anchored: ´entangled... entirely prevents... movement´, i.e. independent of who or what is causing it). The wording in Grappled is equivalent to that used to allow/dis-allow 5´ steps: ´If you move no actual distance in a round... you can take one 5-foot step´, so if ´you cannot move´ ACTUALLY implies you cannot BE moved (making Entangled´s different wording superfluous), then Bullrushes, etc, exclude the Bullrush target from 5´ stepping on their subsequent turn (which I don´t believe is RAI).
A successful Grapple moves the target to an adjacent square, but nothing says this proximity is MAINTAINED if either creature´s position is changed somehow.
So AFAIK, Grapplers who don´t have the Grappled condition themselves (-20 Grab option, Kraken) can Grapple/Grab and then Move, but there is nothing indicating the conditions on which the Grapple condition disappears on their target. Likewise, if one of the Grapplers is Teleported/DD´d by another Caster (or themselves), nothing in the Grappld condition indicates it expires instantly (until the Grapple is/isn´t maintained the next round). And AFAIK there is nothing indicating that either controller/controlled member of a Grapple CANNOT be Bullrushed, for example (that may be a preferred option to ´rescue´ a Grappled ally).
I think that most players are ´subconsciously´ ruling how this works with regards to MAGICAL teleportation, etc (ending the Grappled condition immediately), but the situation seems equivalent for both magical and non-magical effects, there isn´t any wording specially ENABLING magic movement or ending grappled condition in those cases.
IMHO, the Grappled condition needs a clause saying it is immediately ended if the ´target´ is outside the ´controller´´s reach. Bullrush while target is grappled seems like it should reasonably need to beat the CONTROLLER´S CMD, but this obviously isn´t in the RAW either (I don´t believe there´s anything disallowing a Bullrush vs. either Controller/Controlled Grappler, shifting their position yet per RAW the Grapple condition still persists even if they are outside threat range).