Has Grappling become simpler, or just different?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Dracon wrote:
Grappler reaches out to grab his target (-4 if one hand got a weapon in). Defender tries a swipe if Grappler not got IMPROVED FEAT (if he hits, the grappler takes another -penalty equal to the damage dealt to his attack roll)

For fun, lets compare with 3.5... :)

3.5: Grappler reaches out to grab his target a melee touch attack (no need to remember a penalty for only having one hand). Defender tries a swipe if Grappler not got IMPROVED FEAT (if he hits and does damage, the grappler fails to initiate the grapple rather than having to apply another modifier). Make a Grapple check.

So, PF does cut out a roll with the CMB mechanic, cool! But although it may be a bit more "realistic" it introduces two extra modifiers, 3.5 ignores whether the attacker has two free hands or just one, and its a simple boolean scenario as to whether the grapple proceeds if the AoO hits and does damage.

On the other side, 3.5 does have the extra rules about moving into the target's square if you wish to continue the grapple next round.

Dracon wrote:
Both are now "grappled" condition (no movement unless in control and succeed at your next check), -4 dex which is effectively -2 armour class for most, -2 to CMB/attacks at people OUTSIDE grapple etc) with Grappler "in control"

3.5: Both are now "grappled" (no movement unless in control and succeed at your next check), lose Dex bonus to AC except against opponent being grappled. No threatened squares.

So, as Dex-less AC is usually already pre-calculated on the character sheet in both 3.5 and PF, PF requires an extra stat CMD to be re-calculated (either on the fly or already written on the character sheet) and possible CMB as well (i.e. if got the feat Agile Maneuvers).

Dracon wrote:

Defender has a choice..

1) hmm break/reverse hold - (break will obviously let him/her act normally or reverse gives him/her control and the opportunity for the +5 bonus and control of where this grapple goes)

2) Make AN attack = one attack, cast a spell (always has been concentration roll) or any other one handed action i.e panicked wave.

Grappler in control on next turn rolls to maintain hold at +5 (remember if only using one hand to grapple hes still -4) and then can move (try to move him to throw off ledge or pit or into fireplace :) ), AUTOMATICALLY inflict unarmed, natural or one handed weapon damage

3.5: Options for either grappler are:

  • Activate a Magic Item (Standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise, must not require as a spell completion trigger)
  • Attack Your Opponent (Attack, unarmed or with natural or light weapon at attack roll at -4)
  • Cast a Spell (Standard action, requires a COncentration check and must require no more than a Standard action)
  • Damage Your Opponent (Attack, as base unarmed damage a grapple check)
  • Draw a Light Weapon (Move action, requires a grapple check)
  • Escape from Grapple (Attack with a grapple check, or Standard action with Escape Artist check)
  • Move (Standard acction, half speed and bring grapplers with you)
  • Retrieve a Spell Component (Full Round action, requires a grapple check)
  • Pin Your Opponent (Attack, requires a grapple check)
  • Break Another’s Pin (Attack, requires a grapple check)
  • Use Opponent’s Weapon (Attack, requires a grapple check, if successful make an attack roll at -4)

    This is where 3.5 initially seems to be more complicated, but really 3.5 just spells out a few more options and provides specific rules for a GM, rather than the GM having to make a call for what is allowed under the "you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform".

    If you just remember the following 3.5 options it is as simple as PF:
    [list]

  • Attack Your Opponent (if using a weapon -4 penalty)
  • Damage Your Opponent (if happy to just do unarmed damage, no penalty)
  • Move
  • Pin Your Opponent

Then just refer to the list for any other action, or wing it as a GM just as you would do in PF under the "any action that requires only one hand" catch-all.

I am not saying the PF rules are bad or anything, just that I am really not seeing them as significantly simpler than 3.5. I guess I will have to try it in play to see how easy it is - maybe not in your FR games with my cleric, but perhaps in the RotRL game using Caleb my fighter :)


You got an easy group we all agree with GM at the time ;), good discussion though mate. Its not vastly simpler, agree, but I just think its more appropriate is all.

Quote:
So, PF does cut out a roll with the CMB mechanic, cool! But although it may be a bit more "realistic" it introduces two extra modifiers, 3.5 ignores whether the attacker has two free hands or just one, and its a simple boolean scenario as to whether the grapple proceeds if the AoO hits and does damage.

I prefer the fact that it takes a simple common sense approach that trying to grab and hold a grown man with one hand isnt going to be easy, and also just because you hit me on the way in to grab, doesnt mean I still wont grab hold i.e break a person nose on the way in, he may still grab hold of you and carry on. Lets face it they are trained fighters.

Quote:
So, as Dex-less AC is usually already pre-calculated on the character sheet in both 3.5 and PF, PF requires an extra stat CMD to be re-calculated (either on the fly or already written on the character sheet) and possible CMB as well (i.e. if got the feat Agile Maneuvers).

These calculations on grappling no harder than calculating the additions/modifiers for cover or flanking.

You quoted a load of things to do but most are covered by the "do anything requiring one hand rule". I respect you as a very good GM mate, you are more than capable of choosing whats allowed under the one hand rule. It doesnt matter about anyone elses GM skills, as long as the players in that group are happy you could rule that spanking a griffin is a valid one handed action ;)

As long as the GM/DM is reasonable and makes reasonable decisions, a group will never question it as long as any rule is applied fairly and evenly. DMs always have their own interpretations, the players who turn up week after week will always go with the DM ;)

And as you know we play Pathfinder or 3.5 according to what the GM wants so you will always have a group for it.

Liberty's Edge

Dracon wrote:
also just because you hit me on the way in to grab, doesnt mean I still wont grab hold i.e break a person nose on the way in, he may still grab hold of you and carry on.

Yes, I definately like this change. As I said before, I am debating whether the PF rules are as complicated as they were before, rather than whether they are better than 3.5 or more "realistic".


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
PRD wrote:

If You Are Grappled: If you are grappled, you can attempt to break the grapple as a standard action by making a combat maneuver check (DC equal to your opponent's CMD; this does not provoke an attack of opportunity) or Escape Artist check (with a DC equal to your opponent's CMD). If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature (meaning that the other creature cannot freely release the grapple without making a combat maneuver check, while you can).

Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make AN attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

See the grappled condition for additional details. If you are pinned, your actions are very limited. See the pinned condition in Conditions for additional details.

I just want to point this out again because it seems it was ignored/missed. Quoting the PRD. Bolded/enlarged text is the crucial thing here.

Whenever I see that one little word "an" it usually refers/reads as "one". So IMHO no you could not get multiple attacks.


DigitalMage wrote:
Blazej wrote:
However those three elements are not nearly all the things to remember for 3.5 grapple, so it isn't as easy as that post makes it sound.
No, but then neither is Pathfinder as simple as just the Grappled Condition - my post was highlighting what the equivalent of the PF Grappled status is in 3.5.

Then, in that case, I feel you left out another of the significant effects. That if someone outside the grapple makes a ranged attack into the grapple, they have to roll randomly to see which grappling combatant they strike.

Also, if you want to highlight the equivalent of the PF Grappled status is in 3.5 is, you should also include many of the elements under 3.5s "If You’re Grappling" sections like "Cast a Spell" which are now covered under the the Grappled condition.


PRD wrote:
If You Are Grappled: Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

Since selectively bolding/enlarging portions of quot seees seemed to be popular,

I thought I'd take part as well :-)


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
PRD wrote:
If You Are Grappled: Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

Since selectively bolding/enlarging portions of quot seees seemed to be popular,

I thought I'd take part as well :-)

And those are specific choices. One of the questions that kept popping up was if a 6th level fighter could get multiple attacks in a grapple. I was just pointing out that in the case of "any action" by attacking with a light weapon you get "an" attack.


After running Cormyr Tearing of the Weave in pathfinder last night, I can say in my opinion its definitely no more complicated and it was not definitely not daunting in terms of the modifiers. Its definitely streamlined it by using the CMB and CMD though and not having to have two people roll opposed checks constantly, each working out their own bonuses at that particular moment in time ensured there was not any major pauses in combat. Having the CMD etc, in my mind is a thumbs up from me for the designers on this one.

The CMB and CMD were also a breeze to do on the fly for the creatures (bearing in mind that cormyr is Forgotten Realms so technically a mix of 3 and 3.5) as nearly all of the time their CMB = their already calculated grapple check + any improved feats listed on their stat block with CMD being also just as easy to do on the fly.

Liberty's Edge

I have just been looking at the PRD and on the Combat Modifiers table it indicates that the AC modifiers for when the Defender is "Grappling (but attacker is not)" has a note that indicates that "The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC".

Is this repeated in the book? Because it is a direct contradiction of the changes Paizo made to grappling (losing Dexterity points if grappling and only when pinning an opponent do you also lose your Dex bonus).

Liberty's Edge

Blazej wrote:
Then, in that case, I feel you left out another of the significant effects. That if someone outside the grapple makes a ranged attack into the grapple, they have to roll randomly to see which grappling combatant they strike.

I hadn't noticed that Paizo dropped that - interesting, especially as this would seem to be a move to greater simplicity at the expense of "realism" whilst in other areas they have done the opposite.

Blazej wrote:
Also, if you want to highlight the equivalent of the PF Grappled status is in 3.5 is, you should also include many of the elements under 3.5s "If You’re Grappling" sections like "Cast a Spell" which are now covered under the the Grappled condition.

Okay, so here is the PF Grappled condition:

A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

To make the equivalent 3.5 version it would be something like:
A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and lose their Dexteroty bonus to AC against foes other than the one(s) they are grappling. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 20 + spell level), or lose the spell. A spells casting time can be no more than 1 standard action, must have no somatic component, and any material components or focuses must be in hand. Grappled creatures do not threaten any squares and thus cannot make attacks of opportunity or provide flanking bonuses.

If making a ranged attack at a target who is being grappled, roll randomly to see which grappling combatant you strike.

They seem pretty similar in size to remember, even including the firing into a grapple rule.

Liberty's Edge

Lokie wrote:
And those are specific choices. One of the questions that kept popping up was if a 6th level fighter could get multiple attacks in a grapple. I was just pointing out that in the case of "any action" by attacking with a light weapon you get "an" attack.

I still think it is ambiguous and could do with clarifying. I read the "such as" bit as the equivalent of "for example" which implies casting a spell and making an attack is possible, but that those aren't the only options (and thus making multiple attacks could be an option if you have a high enough BAB, just as using a magic item is an option).

Look at it this way, if the text had read "you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast an Animate Plants spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon such as a dagger" you wouldn't think that Animate Plants was the only spell you could cast whilst grappled, or that a dagger was the only light or one-hended weapon to use (despite it also using the "such as" phrase).

Basically I think you're probably right in what the intention of the rules were, but as written Grappple could do with tightening up in PF - even just saying a grappled character is unable to take Full Round actions would cover most things - no iterative attacks, no casting of spells with a casting time greater than a Standard Action etc.

Liberty's Edge

Dracon wrote:
After running Cormyr Tearing of the Weave in pathfinder last night, I can say in my opinion its definitely no more complicated and it was not definitely not daunting in terms of the modifiers.

I am glad it wasn't daunting to you! It was practically lethal for use adventurers :) BTW were you applying the -4 Dexterity for the grappling foes at all times, or only against those not in the grapple?

Dracon wrote:
Its definitely streamlined it by using the CMB and CMD though and not having to have two people roll opposed checks constantly

This bit I agree with a single roll is nice, also the standardisation across all the other special attacks makes them all generally simpler - its just Grapple which has more depth to it which still retains complications (though I agree no more so than 3.5, just not significantly easier IMHO).

Dracon wrote:
The CMB and CMD were also a breeze to do on the fly for the creatures (bearing in mind that cormyr is Forgotten Realms so technically a mix of 3 and 3.5) as nearly all of the time their CMB = their already calculated grapple check + any improved feats listed on their stat block with CMD being also just as easy to do on the fly.

I think this might be okay for medium creatures without Improved Grapple but otherwise using the Grapple score as CMB will likely make some foes overpowered as the size modifiers are significantly different.

3.5: Large creature with Improved Grapple, BAB of 5 and Strength Mod of +3 would have a Grapple score of 5 + 3 + 4 (size) + 4 (feat) = +16

PF: Large creature with Improved Grapple, BAB of 5 and Strength Mod of +3 would have a Grapple score of 5 + 3 + 1 (size) + 2 (feat) = +11

That is a difference of +5 and with larger foes it gets worse Huge is +8 in 3.5 but only +2 in PF.


I don't know about the grapple rules being better or worse but I do know that it isn't easy to find all the rules in one place, especially to work out if I can cast a spell while in a grapple or while pinned:

Grapple wrote:

Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

Hmm sounds like I can. Then I figure I better look up the grappled condition (at the other end of the book):

Grapple condition wrote:

Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

Ok, sounds like I can cast a spell (including ones with somantic components) its just needs a Concentration check. Especially when I look at the Pinned condition.

Pinned condition wrote:
Pinned: A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.

But then I look that the magic section.

Magic section wrote:
Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.

So now I'm really confused and not sure what spells I can cast while in a grapple, and I've had to look in 3 different parts of the book. Couldn't it have all been put all together in one part of the book (even if it meant printing the grappled and pinned conditions twice)?


Quote:
DigitalMage wrote:
Dracon wrote:
After running Cormyr Tearing of the Weave in pathfinder last night, I can say in my opinion its definitely no more complicated and it was not definitely not daunting in terms of the modifiers.
I am glad it wasn't daunting to you! It was practically lethal for use adventurers :) BTW were you applying the -4 Dexterity for the grappling foes at all times, or only against those not in the grapple?

Cannoths can be pretty nasty but there CMD wasnt fantastic, you were just all scared by the long tongue grapple :). Anyone with the grappling condition gets the -4 dex, for instance on the defenders attacks when they believed they couldnt escape, when they were using their light weapons etc and finesse they were getting -2 to attack due to the dex loss AND the -2 (attack/CMB mod) to stab whilst in a grapple because the -2 states that it is only ignored when attempting to grapple or break, by attacking you are in effect not trying to engage in holding so much and your attack will be impeded due to the nature of a grapple.

Towards people outside the grapple, the grapplers were also at -4 dex as it is a "condition" and therefore applies across the board.

And yes I applied it (the -4 dex) even within the grapple as if you think about it when we are in contact grappling we are both hindered in some way and I understand that the CMD of each will drop but again this is in keeping as some of the hard work is already done, i.e we already have a hold of each other.

Liberty's Edge

One wrote:
Magic section wrote:

Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.

Good catch! So PF does still have those rules that I included in my write up of the 3.5 equivalent of the Grappled condition (above).


DigitalMage wrote:
One wrote:
Magic section wrote:

Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.

Good catch! So PF does still have those rules that I included in my write up of the 3.5 equivalent of the Grappled condition (above).

It has most mate, its streamlined and therefore a bit faster with less impact on combat flow, but I agree its not a major simplification, but then again grappling in real life can be a messy affair ;)


The -2 to attack and CMB when not making a grappling check or trying to break is also again advantageous to the "winning" grappler...

They have to maintain hold if they want to, possibly with a +5 bonus then as part of the standard action on a successful check, they can deal damage with a natural weapon/one handed/light without worrying about the -2 as it simply says deal damage without them needing to make an attack roll. Whereas defender has a harder time of it.

Thats how I interpret it anyhow.

Drac.


In terms of your post One.

Quote:
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. - and the rest of the grappling section notes

These are the ones I would use as they are thoroughly fleshed out when used in conjunction with the grappling condition at the end of the book.

Somatic spells only need one hand free for the somatic component else who is holding your staff Mr Wizard.

I would say the magic section is the incorrect one and needs errata. It basically needs Grappling OR Pinned just changed to Pinned and a Grappling note added just above saying the can cast spells with Somatic but with a concentration check and materials to hand.

Liberty's Edge

Dracon wrote:
Anyone with the grappling condition gets the -4 dex, for instance on the defenders attacks when they believed they couldnt escape, when they were using their light weapons etc and finesse they were getting -2 to attack due to the dex loss AND the -2 (attack/CMB mod) to stab whilst in a grapple

.

Cool, we're both on the same page regarding that then, I must have misheard you last night, luckily I managed to avoid being grappled :)


DigitalMage wrote:
Dracon wrote:
Anyone with the grappling condition gets the -4 dex, for instance on the defenders attacks when they believed they couldnt escape, when they were using their light weapons etc and finesse they were getting -2 to attack due to the dex loss AND the -2 (attack/CMB mod) to stab whilst in a grapple

.

Cool, we're both on the same page regarding that then, I must have misheard you last night, luckily I managed to avoid being grappled :)

Just a matter of time.....;)

Liberty's Edge

Dracon wrote:
They have to maintain hold if they want to, possibly with a +5 bonus then as part of the standard action on a successful check, they can deal damage with a natural weapon/one handed/light without worrying about the -2 as it simply says deal damage without them needing to make an attack roll.

Yeah, winning grappler makes a CMB test to maintain grapple and if successful can inflict damage as part of that. Obviously if using a weapon to inflict that damage then the CMB roll should suffer the -4 for having only 1 free hand (thus canceling out most of the +5 bonus for winning).


DigitalMage wrote:
Dracon wrote:
They have to maintain hold if they want to, possibly with a +5 bonus then as part of the standard action on a successful check, they can deal damage with a natural weapon/one handed/light without worrying about the -2 as it simply says deal damage without them needing to make an attack roll.
Yeah, winning grappler makes a CMB test to maintain grapple and if successful can inflict damage as part of that. Obviously if using a weapon to inflict that damage then the CMB roll should suffer the -4 for having only 1 free hand (thus canceling out most of the +5 bonus for winning).

Yep, agree 100% as the weapon is in your hand permanently or is in fact your hand (natural attack). The only instance you may have to interpret this is in the case of a bite attack ;) where you dont need a free hand.


Dracon wrote:


Yep, agree 100% as the weapon is in your hand permanently or is in fact your hand (natural attack). The only instance you may have to interpret this is in the case of a bite attack ;) where you dont need a free hand.

One of my players is running a Barbarian and uses the grapple+bite thing as much as he can... so much so that I'm considering requiring him to make a DC20 fortitude save versus ticklishness each time he engages in a grapple. Being tickled induces giggling, preventing the bite attack, and gives the defender a chance to take control of the grapple.

:)


I believe thats its a perfectly valid tactic ;) especially as they were facing a creature that had extending jaws (two sets ala Aliens) with a 20 foot long paralysing tongue which gives them an auto grapple and drag in prey move followed up by a bite, which on consecutive turns would just be biting a prey they are grappling with tongue and hands :)

Cannaloths in Forgotten Realms, not a bad creature at all...

Sure it states they are immune to tickling too honest.


DigitalMage wrote:
One wrote:
Magic section wrote:

Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.

Good catch! So PF does still have those rules that I included in my write up of the 3.5 equivalent of the Grappled condition (above).

Crap.

Well, there's my first Pathfinder houserule. I'm not sure if it'll be to increase the DC of the Concentration check so you CAN cast spells under this condition or make grease a level 0 spell with only a verbal component that is on EVERY caster's spell list.

Grappling totally screws casters in this respect without a houserule. Yes there are ways out of a grapple for a caster, but may of these things require you to cast a spell


Loopy wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
One wrote:
Magic section wrote:

Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.

Good catch! So PF does still have those rules that I included in my write up of the 3.5 equivalent of the Grappled condition (above).

Crap.

Well, there's my first Pathfinder houserule. I'm not sure if it'll be to increase the DC of the Concentration check so you CAN cast spells under this condition or make grease a level 0 spell with only a verbal component that is on EVERY caster's spell list.

Grappling totally screws casters in this respect without a houserule. Yes there are ways out of a grapple for a caster, but may of these things require you to cast a spell

Or you take the grappling rules and condition rules over this slight error in the magic section that should just say Pinned: blah blah and that the caster when only in a GRAPPLED condition not pinned can cast somatic spells.

The other rules are far more detailed than a few lines in the magic section probably written by a different person. It just needed seperating into Grappled:Somantic = yes and Pinned: Somantic = no so stick with main grapple rules in Combat section and grappling condition and its to quote a small little fella...seeemppplles
:)


Dracon wrote:

Or you take the grappling rules and condition rules over this slight error in the magic section that should just say Pinned: blah blah and that the caster when only in a GRAPPLED condition not pinned can cast somatic spells.

The other rules are far more detailed than a few lines in the magic section probably written by a different person. It just needed seperating into Grappled:Somantic = yes and Pinned: Somantic = no so stick with main grapple rules in Combat section and grappling condition and its to quote a small little fella...seeemppplles
:)

Yeah, prolly not a bad idea.

Liberty's Edge

Dracon wrote:

Or you take the grappling rules and condition rules over this slight error in the magic section that should just say Pinned

And it may well be an error as the Pinned condition explicitly states you can't cast spells with Somatic components.

"A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component."

Like I said, I think the grappling rules as written need tightening up a lot.

This does also highlight that Paizo have taken away the ability to stop someone speaking by Pinning them (from the 3.5 SRD: "At your option, you can prevent a pinned opponent from speaking.")


DigitalMage wrote:


Like I said, I think the grappling rules as written need tightening up a lot.

This does also highlight that Paizo have taken away the ability to stop someone speaking by Pinning them (from the 3.5 SRD: "At your option, you can prevent a pinned opponent from speaking.")

Agreed. This was one of the sections of 3.5 that people had real trouble with and this should have been something where the written rules were double checked and triple checked.

I also noticed the "prevent from speaking" bit. This should probably be an attack option after you have pinned someone. Given tying someone up is an option, gagging them should be as well. I'll quite happily take the small amount of bite damage by shoving my hand in a wizard's mouth, if it stops them dimension dooring and then fireballing me.

One


One wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:


Like I said, I think the grappling rules as written need tightening up a lot.

This does also highlight that Paizo have taken away the ability to stop someone speaking by Pinning them (from the 3.5 SRD: "At your option, you can prevent a pinned opponent from speaking.")

Agreed. This was one of the sections of 3.5 that people had real trouble with and this should have been something where the written rules were double checked and triple checked.

I also noticed the "prevent from speaking" bit. This should probably be an attack option after you have pinned someone. Given tying someone up is an option, gagging them should be as well. I'll quite happily take the small amount of bite damage by shoving my hand in a wizard's mouth, if it stops them dimension dooring and then fireballing me.

One

To be fair Digital in the game monday I would not be against people preventing the verbal abilities of someone they are pinning as an option, especially in cases where for instance two people are grappling one opponent. You may see it come out in errata. To be fair getting off a spell whilst pinned will also be damn hard to do and I dont believe there are huge amounts of spells that dont require some hand gestures.

I agree however, this is one section there should be no errors or contradictory sections in other chapters, but I firmly believe the magic section is the incorrect one due to the level of detail in the combat chapter and condition part of the book.


Dracon wrote:

.. To be fair getting off a spell whilst pinned will also be damn hard to do and I dont believe there are huge amounts of spells that dont require some hand gestures.

well, Dimension Door and Teleport (as well as their lesser kin from the Spellcompendium and PHB II ) don't require anything but verbal components... which often enough is all that truly matters.

What I wonder is - are there any concentration roll required for activating magic items ? Especially those not in any hand - say a Cape of the Mountebank ?

And whether they actually intended it to be harder for the Grappler to wound his grappled opponent (he has to make a CM-roll, and only then can attack his opponent ) than for the Grappled... who only has to wave his normal chance for an escape roll. Yeah, the big guy is sitting on you but actually has to struggle more to actually hit you, the runt he is trying to pulp.

This is really one of the points where the rules are.... gap-ridden. nevermind if the BoNS comes into action and one has to wonder whether one can use a special attack from that as "the attack" and or as a swift action counter.

In a similar vein, the power of some of the wizardly specialist schools innate spell-like abilities, which... don't require anything but a mental trigger and have a "touch" range, requiring melee touch attacks. Or are ranged touches, plus featuring automatic successes, like the necromancers ability to "Grave touch", causing the "shaken" condition automatically and causing "shaken" opponents of equal or lesser HD to automatically become "frightened", sending the Grappler packing. No save... Or "dazing" the opponent for an entire round (Enchantment). No save either. Never mind conjuration's "Dimensional Step".

Concentration rolls to use these are never explicitly mentioned, some of the abilities have no clear spell equivalent and therefore are hard to judge for the - not asked - concentration roll...
I can envision players arguing this both ways all too easily and either some pointed examples or clarifications would have been truly welcome.

Sovereign Court

IMO grappling is now both simpler and better.


Quote:
well, Dimension Door and Teleport (as well as their lesser kin from the Spellcompendium and PHB II ) don't require anything but verbal components... which often enough is all that truly matters.

Yes but 1) Better pass that concentration check, 2) Have the ingredients in hand at the time, nope? Oh dear no spell 3) Prevented from speaking..again stuffed.

There are upsides and downsides to every situation, some you win, some you lose.

If the wizard does manage it, then fair play to him/her, move onto next round ;)

Quote:
And whether they actually intended it to be harder for the Grappler to wound his grappled opponent (he has to make a CM-roll, and only then can attack his opponent ) than for the Grappled... who only has to wave his normal chance for an escape roll. Yeah, the big guy is sitting on you but actually has to struggle more to actually hit you, the runt he is trying to pulp.

Bear in mind that the round after, the guy is pinned and then is in serious trouble from the other party member. Also something people are missing.

In a grapple you are at -4 dex, the person grappling also has a +5 because you gave up you grapple back attempt. So you CMD has gone down by 2 and hes got a +5, fair chance its going to be pretty simple to damage you in that grapple. Defender gets -2 to his attack roll as hes not attempting to grapple hes trying to stab, using weapon finess? There is another -2 etc etc. The "winning" grapple does not struggle anymore in any way shape or form.

Quote:
In a similar vein, the power of some of the wizardly specialist schools innate spell-like abilities which... don't require anything but a mental trigger and have a "touch" range, requiring melee touch attacks. Or are ranged touches, plus featuring automatic successes, like the necromancers ability to "Grave touch", causing the "shaken" condition automatically and causing "shaken" opponents of equal or lesser HD to automatically become "frightened", sending the Grappler packing. No save... Or "dazing" the opponent for an entire round (Enchantment). No save either. Never mind conjuration's "Dimensional Step".

spell like abilities follow same rules as the spell they are like. Concentration please, you try remember a certain "mental trigger" if my monster was sitting on your character ramming its head into the floor.

Quote:

Concentration rolls to use these are never explicitly mentioned, some of the abilities have no clear spell equivalent and therefore are hard to judge for the - not asked - concentration roll...

I can envision players arguing this both ways all too easily and either...

Roleplayers are known for being brighter than average so you dont need everything explicitly mentioned, extrapolate based on what it is, i.e the spell like rules. I dont know about you but at our tables whoever is DMing has the final say, there is no arguing, DM = god effectively and whilst we will as DMs entertain a well thought out idea from a player, final say goes to the DM.


Pax Veritas wrote:

This is a good discussion. It sounds like Lastknightleft has received some clarification, and feels much better about Pathfinder RPG grapple, but now has me intrigued, and I am also interested in these questions.....? It does not seem that iterative attacks would qualify, but I could also see if one arm does the trick -maybe so? what about 1 Leg, as in, Kick with a weapon (Monk)?

Overall, Pathfinder CMB/CMD is a topic that I watched evolve nicely since Alpha 1, 2, 3 and Beta 1. I like the way the "functions" of Combat maneuvers handle a whole suite of maneuvers. And, in game play, I find this has improved play over v.3.5 greatly, imo.

Still - I seek to become crystal clear on grapple, once and for all in my 27 years of game play. lol! So while I am very much a big fan of Pathfinder RPG - I do appreciate this thread's question, and the details that it includes. Thanks.

Anyone who attempts to grapple a monk, who is not also a monk is in for a world of hurt ...

When it comes down to it, grappling is condition you apply to both combatants and you need to track the person winning because they get to decide the direction of the fight. I think paizo did a pretty good job clearing up a system that was clear as mud in 3.5.

That said grappling is still sorta complicated, but really, it kinda is in RL too.

Liberty's Edge

Anburaid wrote:

I think paizo did a pretty good job clearing up a system that was clear as mud in 3.5.

That said grappling is still sorta complicated, but really, it kinda is in RL too.

I guess I am in the minority, I found the 3.5 rules as clear as the current PF rules.


DigitalMage wrote:
Anburaid wrote:

I think paizo did a pretty good job clearing up a system that was clear as mud in 3.5.

That said grappling is still sorta complicated, but really, it kinda is in RL too.

I guess I am in the minority, I found the 3.5 rules as clear as the current PF rules.

3.5 were clear eventually mate, however after only one viewing I knew the Pathfinder rules and they have stuck in the old noggin. On the whole I just find them a bit more "clear" and easier to remember plus quicker to play with. Having all the different maneouvers coming off a solid similar foundation really helps too. In my mind the CMB and CMD were a very worthwhile addition.

To me it really doesnt matter so much, Ill happily play 3.5 and happily play pathfinder (obviously as I do on both counts). I honestly think in the end the system choice will purely come down to personal opinion.

Overall I am happy with the changes and I have not been disappointed so far, but each to their own.


Dracon wrote:
Quote:
well, Dimension Door and Teleport (as well as their lesser kin from the Spellcompendium and PHB II ) don't require anything but verbal components... which often enough is all that truly matters.

Yes but 1) Better pass that concentration check, 2) Have the ingredients in hand at the time, nope? Oh dear no spell 3) Prevented from speaking..again stuffed.

There are upsides and downsides to every situation, some you win, some you lose.

If the wizard does manage it, then fair play to him/her, move onto next round ;)

Quote:
And whether they actually intended it to be harder for the Grappler to wound his grappled opponent (he has to make a CM-roll, and only then can attack his opponent ) than for the Grappled... who only has to wave his normal chance for an escape roll. Yeah, the big guy is sitting on you but actually has to struggle more to actually hit you, the runt he is trying to pulp.

Bear in mind that the round after, the guy is pinned and then is in serious trouble from the other party member. Also something people are missing.

For one - the teleports are : verbal. And preventing speech is not an option anymore in PF. Never mind Magic items.

As for "the guy will pin you next round"... that remains to be seen, depending upon what the grappled actually strikes with. +5 is a nice, but all-decisive bonus. Dazed means actually he won't act at all.... if the target was shaken already, not unlikely (and in itself imposing a -2 penalty of its own to the CMB) in the first place, another shaken will send him packing, frightened off. Other touch delivered options spring to mind. I haven't even started digging for combos taking advantage of that gap in the rules....

I just find it incongruous that by the wording, and not the obvious intent of the designers, the grappled seems to be at a distinct advantage to do anything but actually break the grapple compared with his momentarily more successful assailant.
Odd - and worthy of being either explicitly denied or ascertained.

And we never even touched non-PF but officially 3.5 material

As for the GM is god.... he should be. Rules should be clear too. But let's face it, rules are at time shoddily written and have unintended loopholes and players will try to use the gap in the rules, and in many, if not most groups, discussions will occur.

Ignoring problems by refering to GM-supremacy on the rules does not make the underlying problem go away....


DigitalMage wrote:

Okay, so here is the PF Grappled condition:

A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

This sounds so similar to the 3.5 entangled condition that my first thought was "ah, very clever, just use the same condition whether you are being grappled by a giant octopus or a bunch of animated vines!"

But no. There's an entangled condition, and a grappled condition which is much the same except for the little bits where it's different. :(


Quote:


For one - the teleports are : verbal. And preventing speech is not an option anymore in PF. Never mind Magic items.

Preventing speech not an option? I think thats RAW or the absense of some words taken too far. In pathfinder worlds do people forget that others have a mouth? Its just common sense that it should be an option after a pin or if there are two characters grappling one. Just because something is not explicitly written about does not rule it out. If your uncomfortable with that, class it as a house rule. They still have to pass concentration check too so its not a guaranteed definite successful spell. No one side should always win so I like the fact there are ways around things, I personally dont see a massive one sided flaw.

The pinned next round situation, bear in mind the grappled person is at -4 dex which affects CMD but not CMB unless its tiny (and then its in trouble due to size anyway), so the grappled is really facing a +7 disadvantage overall so theres a damn good chance grappler going to stay in control. But as we know in real life, grapples are very fluid and should not be a combat option entered into lightly in my opinion.

As for touch attacks via spells etc, technically speaking you have to charge the spell in hand thereby you would still have to attack with that hand, its not an automatic hit and its not saying you get the spell off.

I do think people are looking far too much into small things and a few wording issues, lets face it anything can be twisted round and round till it means what the reader wants, no matter how good the paizo writers are.

The DM in our games always has the final say and its his/her game, I cant believe so many groups have big discussions, to and fro-ing thereby slowing down games but maybe our group is a rarity. Even down to silly things like the diagonal moving rules, I use them when DMing, the other Pathfinder DM hates them and its just always one square no matter the direction/orientation for five foot. Point is as long as everyone including monsters using same rules, their game is their game.


Dracon wrote:
Quote:


For one - the teleports are : verbal. And preventing speech is not an option anymore in PF. Never mind Magic items.
Preventing speech not an option? I think thats RAW or the absense of some words taken too far. In pathfinder worlds do people forget that others have a mouth? Its just common sense that ....

I fully agree on that common sense should always trump the rules. But the rules are what we have to fall back on and extrapolate from. Anything beyond that is house-rule territory. Besides, common sense does vary... for me, the stiffly increased Concentration roll for casting in a grapple is reflection enough for the "common sense" an attacker would show stopping a mage spouting arcane syllables. I guess some people would take it farther and some less far along. Opinions will vary, be degrees of.. varying size.

And players will/do resent that "Degree of variation" at times, if things are decided on a common sense base, possibly with a result undesirable to them. like, let's say their beloved 11th level mage cannot escape from being pinned due to having his mouth covered by a nefarious tentacle.... and that not being an explicit option in the rules ! Right, I see everyone take that lying down^^

IMHO the grapple rules are much easier to handle than the clunky 3.5 ones, but still could have profited from a few more weeks of play-testing, re-estimation and much improved phrasing.
But there, deadlines seem to have gotten in the way.

Liberty's Edge

Dracon wrote:
Preventing speech not an option? I think thats RAW or the absense of some words taken too far.

By the RAW then no, preventing speech is no longer an option. The Pinned condition explicitly states that "A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component."

So a Pinned foe can still talk, whereas in 3.5 it was explicitly stated that when pinning an opponent you had the option to prevent them speaking.

Even if you go the route of using the "Tie up" option, then this still doesn't work as tying someone up "works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD)." So no mention of gagging them as an option.

Dracon wrote:
In pathfinder worlds do people forget that others have a mouth? Its just common sense that it should be an option after a pin or if there are two characters grappling one. Just because something is not explicitly written about does not rule it out.

Of course, a reasonable GM may allow a player to gag a pinned foe etc, but it would be a GM call as to how it occurred as it is not in the RAW.

For example, one GM may allow a Pinned foe to be prevented from speaking but impose a -2 bonus to the character's CMB when this is attempted. Another GM may allow it without any penalty. A third GM may allow itwithout penalty but then say it takes up one-hand (applying the -4 penalty to further CMB checks), whereas a fourth GM may only allow speech to be prevented if the foe is Tied Up (i.e. Gagged).

The point is, while a reasonable GM may allow speech of a pinned foe to be prevented, a player cannot be guaranteed that it will be allowed, or how it will be allowed.

Dracon wrote:
The DM in our games always has the final say and its his/her game, I cant believe so many groups have big discussions, to and fro-ing thereby slowing down games but maybe our group is a rarity.

I think there are a number of reasons why such technicalities of RAW get discussed, even if a poster has a great home group (as I do :)

First, for some people discussing RAW and trying to find loopholes can be fun - a game in itself. Sometimes people would have no intention of abusing these loopholes but find it fun to see what could be possible using the RAW. For examples of this see Pun Pun and his infinitely high ability scores!

Second, people like to discuss these interpretations of RAW so that if a player of theirs brings up the issue, they have already thought about the issue, had other people point out obscure rules that don't allow that loophole etc. For example, it was this thread that pointed me to the Magic section that specifically says about somatic components needing to be in hand etc. I thought that had been dropped from PF.

Thirdly, people going to conventions, and / or playing in organised play campaigns (like Pathfinder Society) like to identify any mis-interpretations, or gain official clarification, so that despite having a stranger GMing you, you can gain an idea of how other people will interpret a rule.

Cheers!


I like my Pathfinder cooked myself. Everything I have put across re common sense and RAW is simply my own viewpoint and as you guessed I am not in the words as written rules trump everything camp especially in the case of keeping games going - even in cons.

Each to their own though, I know what your saying. In my experience of PF society though, thankfully UK con was largely fun of players turning up to Roleplay and have a good time and not one issue of RAW going against DM raised its head. People asked, DM gave state of play, we all moved on.

Maybe it is a game in of itself, you know I am a bugger for finding the good combinations sometimes and dastardly lucky with dice but to me the game is finding combinations rather than cryptically analysing wording to find in what way I can bend it ;)

Thats perhaps why it comes a cross a bit that I dont like the RAW fixation :)

Have a good one.


Quote:

IMHO the grapple rules are much easier to handle than the clunky 3.5 ones, but still could have profited from a few more weeks of play-testing, re-estimation and much improved phrasing.

But there, deadlines seem to have gotten in the way.

Agree on the easier to handle definitely but then again, they could have taken another six months but something will always get past the proof readers, I dont know a rules system anywhere that didnt have some kind of hole for players to try and fill.

No one is flawless obviously and both a strength and pain in the backside ;) of humanity is its multitude of different opinions/interpretations etc :)

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Has Grappling become simpler, or just different? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion