| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I know that a creature which gets an AoO can't normally try to start a grapple since that requires a standard action. What happens if the creature has the grab ability and hits an opponent with the attack which has grab during an AoO. For instance, imagine that a Rogue attempts to tumble past a crocodile to get flank but fails and draws an AoO. If the crocodile hits does it get to grab?
The rules say:
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
Also, is the grapple attempt involuntary? Considering the wording of the rules very carefully it seems like one very strict interpretation might be that the crocodile MUST attempt a grapple and winds up with the grappled condition if it happens to win. I think that's kind of silly, but what do others think?
I guess at a minimum the creature with grab could take the option to make the check at -20 as an attempt to sabotage the grapple or avoid most of the potential ill effects (-4 Dex, no threatened area, etc).
It could choose to fail the check. That's an unwritten but often used rule when it comes rolls. A Take 0 if you will.
It could also choose not to use the Grab ability when it makes an attack. You are not required to use special abilities if you don't want to. Even spell resistance can be suppressed.
|
I know that a creature which gets an AoO can't normally try to start a grapple since that requires a standard action. What happens if the creature has the grab ability and hits an opponent with the attack which has grab during an AoO. For instance, imagine that a Rogue attempts to tumble past a crocodile to get flank but fails and draws an AoO. If the crocodile hits does it get to grab?
The rules say:
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
Free actions can only be taken on one's own turn, speaking excepted. If it isn't the croc's turn, no grab.
You are not required to use special abilities if you don't want to. Even spell resistance can be suppressed.
I don't think spell resistance is a good example, because it has its own rules (suppressing spell resistance takes a standard action, if I'm not mistaken).
Also, is the grapple attempt involuntary? Considering the wording of the rules very carefully it seems like one very strict interpretation might be that the crocodile MUST attempt a grapple and winds up with the grappled condition if it happens to win. I think that's kind of silly, but what do others think?
I think Howie has it right. Strictly speaking it can't get a free attempt to grapple because it doesn't have a free action. Although I've seen a lot of people play that it's a free grapple attempt regardless.
Again, strictly speaking, it doesn't look like the croc has a choice. Although from what I understand of croc physiology it kind of makes sense.
I would never force a player to use a special ability if he didn't want to. I would typically also allow a player to voluntarily to fail any roll they wanted. (I say typically, to prevent abuse by using area-of-effect on friends then voluntarily fail an SR roll for example.)
Back to the original question, remember that: "although both creatures have the grappled condition, you can, as the creature that initiated the grapple, release the grapple as a free action, removing the condition from both you and the target."
It strikes me that if crocodiles can't grab during an AoO then wolves can't use their free trip ability during an AoO either as it also involves a free action. Threads about wolves tripping as an AoO generally revolve around how you can't trip an enemy who is already prone, but imagine if the AoO were due to movement or casting a spell. It seems odd to me that the wolf could choose to substitute a trip attempt for its attack (and suffer an AoO for doing so since it doesn't have Improved Trip) but can't choose to add a trip to the AoO for free.
Speaking of trip, it looks like "Drop an Item" is usually a free action which can presumably only be taken on your own turn. If that's the case is it possible to drop your weapon to avoid being tripped if you fail a trip by 10 or more while tripping as an AoO?
I've also found that the Rock Catching ability is another which uses a free action mechanic:
"Rock Catching (Ex) The creature (which must be of at least Large size) can catch Small, Medium, or Large rocks (or projectiles of similar shape). Once per round, a creature that would normally be hit by a rock can make a Reflex save to catch it as a free action."
It seems "obvious" that this ability must be intended for use when it is not the creature's turn. I don't see anything in that section of rules which states that the Rock Catching ability gives the creature the ability to take free actions when it isn't his turn though. It seems easy enough to argue that you can take the free action because it is triggered by the event of being attacked and possibly hit by a rock. I think it would be almost as easy to argue that the free action of attempting to start a grapple or trip a foe is triggered by hitting with the relevant attack though. Neither set of rules mentions that they work differently when it is or isn't your turn.
I feel like the Grab and Trip monster special abilities lose a lot of their utility if they don't work on AoOs. Maybe that's intentional, or maybe it is just a result of holding the rules under too exacting of a microscope. The gaming group where the concern came up probably wasn't looking at the rules though. We just have a player who has been against allowing combat maneuvers of any sort during an AoO as far back as D&D 3e.
|
|
I feel like the Grab and Trip monster special abilities lose a lot of their utility if they don't work on AoOs. Maybe that's intentional, or maybe it is just a result of holding the rules under too exacting of a microscope.
It may be that it's too exacting of an examination. I agree that, for some abilities that you've mentioned, the ability is pretty pointless if not made outside the creature's turn. Rock Catching falls into this category. For abilities that clearly are only of use outside the the creature's turn as a reaction to the currently acting creature's actions, some allowance must be made or the rules arbitrator backs himself into the Corner of Making No Sense.
For other abilities, I can see it being something that makes sense for the ability to only work when it is the acting creature's turn, and at other times the ability is a lesser form of the attack. The net effect, if so ruling, is to reduce the lethality of the creature and this might be dictated by style of play.
And, maybe some things are indicated as a free ability that were not fully updated with the spread of immediate actions in the rules' history and this is the way to handle them.
Edit: If an precise reading of the rules results in a result that makes no sense, maybe there is an error in the rules. If a precise reading of the rules results in a result different than the reader is used to, maybe he's been playing in error. If a precise reading of the rules results in a result that is different than the reader wants the result to play out, change the rules.
Free actions can only be taken on one's own turn, speaking excepted. If it isn't the croc's turn, no grab.
Do you have a page number for this (or link)? Did a quick search through the pfsrd and read the free action description in the core book. Nothing states a free action must be on your turn as far as I can see. As for the speaking rule, honestly I'd say that is there so a rules lawyer doesn't pipe up with a "It isn't your turn so you can't interrupt xyz by speaking." Also the fact that a free action is already spelled out to be able to be taken "not on your turn" would would open up the ability for other free actions to do so no?
|
|
Do you have a page number for this (or link)? Did a quick search through the pfsrd and read the free action description in the core book. Nothing states a free action must be on your turn as far as I can see. As for the speaking rule, honestly I'd say that is there so a rules lawyer doesn't pipe up with a "It isn't your turn so you can't interrupt xyz by speaking." Also the fact that a free action is already spelled out to be able to be taken "not on your turn" would would open up the ability for other free actions to do so no?
Free actions can only be taken on one's own turn, speaking excepted. If it isn't the croc's turn, no grab.
There are general rules and there are exceptions to those general rules. I'm not going to cite it all out, but reading through the combat section tells us how combat works: characters act in initiative order; they take actions during their turn, with a list of what actions are possible; free actions are on that list. Those are the general rules. Anything else is an exception.
Speaking is an exception. "In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn't your turn. Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action." That speaking is an exception doesn't then serve as a precedent for anything. Anything else that is a free action that can be performed outside of the acting character's turn needs to be an exception as well. I made a nod to rock catching, for example.
I would say that a free action that is linked to something you can do during another turn would go off. IE grab trip and the like.
I agree the rules are typically generalizations, but no where in the free action description does it say that free actions are specifically called out to be only on your turn. There is even a free action stated to be able to be done out of turn, so the rule is definitely a generalization and not an absolute.
By virtue of the free action being linked to an ability that can be used out of turn, a natural attack with grab as an AoO in this case, the free action becomes an exception.
The fact that free actions are so wide ranging, it is rather ridiculous to say that all free actions must be on your turn unless otherwise specifically stated, so grab can't be used on an AoO. But if that is the "side" someone wants to argue, the above reasoning allows for it to work on an AoO via RAW.
Edit: Ninja'd by Talon.
The fact that free actions are so wide ranging, it is rather ridiculous to say that all free actions must be on your turn unless otherwise specifically stated, so grab can't be used on an AoO. But if that is the "side" someone wants to argue, the above reasoning allows for it to work on an AoO via RAW.
So which free actions can be performed on your turn and which not? Who would be the arbiter of this? As far as I know, speaking is the only free action to be performed outside of your turn.
Actions performed outside of your turn are called Immediate Actions.
Dropping to a Prone position is a free action.
GM: The archer takes aim and fires at you with his bow.
Player: I drop to prone as a free action!
Dropping a weapon is a free action.
GM: The Wizard casts Shocking Grasp and gains +3 to his attack roll because you're holding your sword
Player: I drop my sword as a free action!
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
So, in your interpretation then we can take swift actions outside of our turn (because we can take free actions outside of our turn)?
EDIT: Made a big mistake because I'm tired. Ignore my previous rant.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decidedby the GM.
This is what my Core book says on free actions so not really sure how that differs much from the 3.5 where did you get your read out WP
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decidedby the GM.
This is what my Core book says on free actions so not really sure how that differs much from the 3.5 where did you get your read out WP
My quotes are...were from a misreading. There are two sets of rules that contradict each other on the same page...
The first is the correct rules.
The second are the stupid rules.
The first set of rules are exactly the same as in 3.5 and so there is no problem. Free actions are still attached to other actions and swift actions can only be done once per turn.
The next set links to the contradictory rules for free/swift actions a little further down the page. Under those rules, which I can only assume are incorrect, you can take free actions out of turn. Swift actions can be done whenever you can do a free action, so therefore you can take swift actions out of turn. But I believe the first descriptions are the correct ones, so I have edited my previous post to remove the rant.
Good just making sure a later printing didnt make my book dumber.
Would hate to think that it was even possible.
|
Yep - Free Actions aren't limited to your own turn if they go off with another action (such as the croc's Grab allowing him a free action grapple with his AoO). The reason Immediate actions aren't used in such situations is that an Immediate action eats your one Swift action per turn, so would be much, much, more limiting.
Yep - Free Actions aren't limited to your own turn if they go off with another action (such as the croc's Grab allowing him a free action grapple with his AoO). The reason Immediate actions aren't used in such situations is that an Immediate action eats your one Swift action per turn, so would be much, much, more limiting.
Problem:
You can take *some* Free Actions while performing another action.
Problem part 2:
An attack of opportunity is not an action. But, a standard action attack or full attack is.
I still don't see it.
|
|
You can take some free actions while performing other actions... yes... as laid out in the various rules (such as the Grab quality)... what's the problem there?
How is an Attack of Opportunity not an action? Sure, it's not a 'move action' or a 'standard action'... but so what? It's a single melee attack... but again, so what? If that attack happens to come with free actions glued to it, then you get the free actions too. Feel free to point out the rules which state otherwise.
How is an Attack of Opportunity not an action? Sure, it's not a 'move action' or a 'standard action'... but so what? It's a single melee attack... but again, so what? If that attack happens to come with free actions glued to it, then you get the free actions too. Feel free to point out the rules which state otherwise.
An attack of Opportunity is not an action. Please see the Table: Actions in Combat
Attack of Opportunity does not show up in any of these action type tables. Do you concur?
If the Attack of Opportunity is not an action, but a simple "single attack" as you say then I would infer that when it triggers you only get a simple attack, not any of the associated actions (in this case free or otherwise).
If we look at the free action descriptor as has been posted above:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally [such as a monster's special attack - my inference]. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decidedby the GM.
So now, the burden of proof is on you sir, please show me where you can take these kinds of free actions outside of your turn.
I think you're taking the term 'action' too literally as a game term there. But that's just IMHO, natch! ;)
Under different circumstances I'd agree with you. However, we see instances such as Vital Strike and Sunder that specifically call out the word "action", to mean a very specific thing. I think we need to be careful and judicious about this seemingly small word as it seems to have heavy rules impact.
Problem:You can yake *some* Free Actions while performing another action.
You can take all free actions while performing another action. In fact, its the only time you can take any free action unless a specific ability overwrites this rule.
"Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM."
Problem part 2:An attack of opportunity is not an action. But, a standard action attack or full attack is.
An attack of opportunity grants you a 'free attack'. Attacks are actions. Also, things that are not an action, are actually labeled "Not an Action" (see Actions in Combat).
Side note: "Not an action" is ironically a type of action in D&D. Its kinda how Magic: The gathering has an area called "removed from game" even though everything "removed from game" is still an actual part of the game.
An attack of opportunity grants you a 'free attack'. Attacks are actions. Also, things that are not an action, are actually labeled "Not an Action" (see Actions in Combat).
This is not the case. There are both Free Action and Not An Action sections of this table. Attack of Opportunity graces neither, so what is an Attack of Opportunity?
I marked it as a FAQ/Errata item.
I think Rock Throwing clearly shows that RAI is for at least some of these abilities to function off-turn.
I would agree it´s reasonable to read the RAW as saying that they are only usable on-turn.
Reading ´action´ in a narrow sense seems to be exactly what Paizo itself promotes:
see Attack action distinction as applicable to Vital Strike.
Again, I don´t think that is RAI, and all of these ´as free actions triggered by any attack roll´ should be usable off-turn (i.e. ANY attack roll), but I can see why anybody sticking to RAW could find that troublesome to justify.
This is not the case. There are both Free Action and Not An Action sections of this table. Attack of Opportunity graces neither, so what is an Attack of Opportunity?An attack of opportunity grants you a 'free attack'. Attacks are actions. Also, things that are not an action, are actually labeled "Not an Action" (see Actions in Combat).
Actually...your right. I just reread it and noticed this...
"An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round."
They aren't actions, but they aren't labeled as "Not an Action". Therefor an attack of opportunity is its own unique non-action/action...thing. Basically its non-sense but 'them's the breaks'.
I marked it as a FAQ/Errata item.
I think Rock Throwing clearly shows that RAI is for at least some of these abilities to function off-turn.
I would agree it´s reasonable to read the RAW as saying that they are only usable on-turn.
Reading ´action´ in a narrow sense seems to be exactly what Paizo itself promotes:
see Attack action distinction as applicable to Vital Strike.
Again, I don´t think that is RAI, and all of these ´as free actions triggered by any attack roll´ should be usable off-turn (i.e. ANY attack roll), but I can see why anybody sticking to RAW could find that troublesome to justify.
To your point Quandary (and it's a good point to bring up), I think that Rock Catching is in fact in error.
If you look up Snatch Arrows, Gloves of Arrow Snaring, Deflect Arrows, Missile Shield, or Ray Shield which are all very similar to Rock Catching (which is what I think you meant - not Rock Throwing) but do not require a free action to perform their deflection(s).
Consistency across these similar abilities should be achieved.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Good catch... I think amending Grab, Rock Catching, Trip to NOT have the free action wording, instead wording them just like Snatch Arrows, etc, would clearly be the ´least hurt´ approach to Erratting this... i.e. rather than implementing changes to Free Action to allow Free Actions to be taken off-turn when specifically linked to another event, but not in general (i.e. Dropping Prone, etc). Grapple or Trip checks, etc, still count as attacks and maneuvers, so I don´t see what the problem in loosing the Free Action typing could be.
I continue to be amazed at how many Errata issues could be addressed by SHORTENING the rules text, which of course under-cuts the argument that we have to live with such Errata because fixing everything would require doubling the page count.
Side note: "Not an action" is ironically a type of action in D&D. Its kinda how Magic: The gathering has an area called "removed from game" even though everything "removed from game" is still an actual part of the game.
Its called Exiled now to solve that connundrum